From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edgardo M. Latrubesse

User Amazon3112 appears to have a COI with Edgardo M. Latrubesse. The user has engaged in a promotional pattern of editing at that page, and has also added citations to the work of Latrubesse at the pages Araguaia River and Cerrado. I'm somewhat sympathetic to some of the editing at Edgardo M. Latrubesse, where part of the desire seems to have been to minimize a (reliably-sourced) sexual harassment complaint, and perhaps should have raised a COI complaint earlier. User has not responded to a query on their talk page, and just reverted to add back promotional and WP:UNDUE material on the Edgardo M. Latrubesse. Pinging @ Tom Radulovich: who I reached out to because of his work on tropical rivers including Cerrado; pinging @ David Eppstein: who is familiar with the situation from AfD and prior discussion. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 11:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Should have included above: other accounts that may be run by a connected user include User:Megaalluvialfan and User:Latrubesse. (Possibly a case of forgotten password? These accounts have not recently edited.) Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 11:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
A solution suggested to me on a previous case of insistence on autobiographical editing was a partial block of that user from the relevant pages. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, and for trying to sort out what's going on. I'm not familiar enough with Mr. Latrubesse or his work to opine on the article about him. The edits to Cerrado and Araguaia River citing journal articles by Mr. Latrubesse seem factual and appropriate, but I'm not subject-matter expert. Tom Radulovich ( talk) 18:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Tom Radulovich, thanks for taking a look. I'm still a bit concerned about WP:SELFCITE, but am unable to distinguish WP:EX from self-promotion on the river articles. I added primary source tags and made some other corrections. On the biography, it seems to me that the editor should request COI edits on the talk page for what they are trying to do. David Eppstein, a partial block could perhaps be a good solution here. Would they still be able to edit the talk page? Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 08:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Dear Russ Woodroofe:
Amazon3112 has made 20 edits, some quite substantial. Still, the user has never written an edit summary or a message on any talk page.
  • I've removed the old generic welcome template from the user's talk page. I've replaced the template with {{ welcome-COI}}, which in turn links to the simplified WP:BPCOI guide for the unenlightened.
  • I've templated the user with a slightly-modified version of {{ uw-paid1}}. The user may or may not be paid. But, either way, receiving {{ uw-paid1}} may force the user to at least tell us something about the COI situation.
Kind regards, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 16:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, thank you! I'll try to let you take the lead (as I did in directing the user to first respond to you), if that's ok, at least until the initial disclosure is resolved. It seems like the user might be more willing to talk to an uninvolved party. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 10:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Dear Russ Woodroofe: No worries! I hope to try to be gentle and empathetic. Extracting a COI disclosure can sometimes be like pulling teeth. Still, perhaps there's no more-reliable way to convince a user to disclose than by being nice. — Unforgettableid ( talk) 14:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Update: User Amazon3112 is now playing some sort of version of "psychoanalyze the psychologist". They are suggesting on Talk:Edgardo M. Latrubesse that Unforgettableid may have a conflict of interest on the article (!?!). As long as they keep it to the talk page, I don't expect that any further action is required, but it struck me as strange enough that I wanted to post this update. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 09:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Frithjof Schuon

The editor has been warned on their user talk page that there may be a conflict of interest, since they have a close relationship to the deceased subject. I asked an admin, Keith D ( talk · contribs) for advice, as I wasn't sure how to deal with large, multiple edits with a possible COI. He reverted the unsourced edits and also pointed the editor to WP:Conflict of interest guidelines in conversation with her on his own talk page. In reply to her on my own talk page, I have also tried to explain the need for reliable sources, verifiability (etc) and the guidelines on COI.

Today, the editor has again returned to editing the article herself, rather than suggesting changes on the article's talk page as advised.

Could an expert here offer her guidance, please? Esowteric+ Talk 13:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Maude Murray replied on my talk age: "I just wrote you a long explanation; but maybe lost it in technology. I'm 81 years old: this isn't easy! And sorry if I broke some rule: I had no idea what aha words meant! Maude Murray ( talk) 14:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)" Esowteric+ Talk 10:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The editor is finding the technology (eg talk pages) at Wikipedia extremely taxing and has offered to communicate via email. I posted a request at the article's talk page asking if subject experts could help her out, perhaps via email. Esowteric+ Talk 11:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Esowteric: It is kind that you are helping them, but this user should probably be kept as far away from the article as possible. They are the subject's former wife or partner (per their edit comment, " Maude Murray... was alledgedly the third of the four wives of Frithjof Schuon for 20 years, and a very close disciple.") and their intent is pretty much as biased and non-neutral as it could be (" The man was literally a holy terror. There must be some way to let people see that.", " You've got all your proof here of what I'm trying to tell you. You are veiling a horrible man in sheep's clothing.") Her claims might be true, but the stated bias here is pretty spectacular. She also appears to only be here to promote this view. If we are going to have a neutral encyclopedia, this is not the kind of source/influence we need. Rather, we need neutral editors who provide independent sources. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 15:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Esowteric+ Talk 16:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Maude is so singlemindedly WP:COI as to be WP:NOTHERE. I've warned her on her talk page. Cabayi ( talk) 07:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikimayor and page-creation-log retention

Wikimayor

Hi!

Although some of his creations look somewhat spammy to me, and although about 45% of his articles have been deleted, Wikimayor claims he has no COI.

Some of his possibly-spammy-looking creations include:

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

Kind regards, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 07:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't see why he hasn't got a coi. Of the 60 odd article the editor created, only about three of them are standard. Several of them have been recreated that were Afd'd in 2016/2017 and are now back. This Tony Elumelu Entrepreneurship Programme has went to Afd this week and is now deleted. It was created along with two other associated articles, one a banker who has MBE award is notable, but the article was real spam, the other a foundation. scope_creep Talk 13:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Dear scope_creep, and dear all:
  • What did you mean when you wrote "only about three of them are standard"?
  • If we all agree that he's probably an undisclosed paid editor, what should we do about it? Should we start putting a series of increasingly-threatening templates on his talk page — and, if so, which templates? Or should we ask some admin to deliver one final warning, and if so, which admin?
Kind regards, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 22:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Page-creation-log retention

Dear all:

I'm not an admin.

I was looking at the list of articles which User:Wikimayor created. Three of them were deleted and then recreated. I was wondering who first created them, and who recreated them: was it Wikimayor every time? So I tried checking the page creation log. Unfortunately, that log dates back only to 27 June 2018.

Why doesn't that log date back farther? Did page creation logging only begin in June 2018? Or were old log entries erased at some point?

Kind regards, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 07:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

At 6 million articles with talk pages, the full page creation log would run to 12 million/50, which makes 240,000 pages of results, each with 50 items... I am guessing that has something to do with limiting a full list of page creation views. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 17:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Terry Neese

User named "Terryneeseluvr100" has only edited Terry Neese, adding unsourced information and inappropriately-placed pictures. The user refused to respond to a generic WP:COI template and personalized message asking them to disclose any possible COI. I clearly stated that I would take the issue here if they did not respond. They received a warning from another user and still did not respond. KidAd ( talk) 19:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Added an IP that is making the same edits. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 19:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I asked Terryneeseluvr100 if they were affiliated with the Neese campaign or a friend/family member of Neese. I will note that the IP is linked to Oklahoma City, where Neese lives. KidAd ( talk) 22:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi KidAd! It sometimes happens that a COI editor has never posted anything on any talk page, and they refuse to reply to talk-page messages. In such cases, I've found, it can be helpful to template them with {{ uw-paid1}}. Even if the user turns out to be unpaid, the template is still helpful. This is because it includes some useful bold text: "do not edit further until you answer this message". This can help to get them into the habit of replying to talk-page messages. I have indeed now templated Terryneeseluvr100 with {{ uw-paid1}}. Kind regards, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 23:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice! I do not have a lot of experience with this noticeboard or COI editing in general. KidAd ( talk) 23:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Instantaneously trained neural networks

It appears that the author, Subhash Kak, has created a web of self-promotion for several articles dealing with neural networks and unary coding.

If you follow the evolution of the page histories you can see the gradual addition of references to his papers, inserted along with non-objective viewpoints, gradually shifting the tone, focus, and share of content towards Kak's papers. In the Instantaneously trained neural network article the Willshaw references are slowly whittled away from primary example (despite being older and established) to an afterthought in favor of Kak's novel (and generally unknown?) approach.

The unary coding article does something similar.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cottenio ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Cottenio:
Interesting find! It was thoughtful of you to bring this to our attention.
"Arlene" strikes me as somewhat suspicious, and possibly a COI account, especially based on her earliest edits.
I've added a {{ Notability}} tag to Subhash Kak; the only AfD discussion was about 15 years ago, and it may be time for another.
I know basically nothing about neural networks. I did a Google search for [ instantaneously trained neural networks ]. It looks like Dr. Kak's modern approach may be far more popular nowadays than Dr. Willshaw's approach from long ago. Although "Arlene" may well have an undisclosed COI, I'm not sure whether or not she's been making the encyclopedia worse.
"Arlene" has been away for quite a while. We could tag her with {{ uw-paid1}}, but while she's on an extended absence, I'm not sure if this would make things better or worse. Maybe it'd be best for us to add her talk page to our watchlists and then wait until she's back to try {{ uw-paid1}}.
If you have any reply, it'd be welcome.
Kind regards, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 01:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Joey Manahan

ShirleyAnnTemplo is a recently created WP:SPA whose sole focus appears to be editing Joey Manahan. Being an SPA is not automatically a bad thing, but some of the edits made seem to be a bit promotional in nature and include the removal of content about Manahan losing a 2014 election for the US House of Representatives. ShirleyAnnTemplo has also uploaded a number of images of Manahan to Wikipedia and Commons which had questionable licensing and which ultimately ended up being deleted, and added copyvio content to the article which needed to be WP:REVDEL'd. The reason I'm bring this up here is because of WP:APPARENTCOI which might also involve WP:UPE. This could be just a case of a politician's representative misunderstanding Wikipedia and things like WP:PAID and WP:COI, and not really an intent to be WP:NOTHERE, but I think it would be a good idea for others to look at this as well. Another editor did place a {{ uw-coi}} page on ShirleyAnnTemplo's talk, but there was never a response and the account made some more edits to article even after that uw was posted. FWIW, I did email "paid-en-wp _at_ wikipedia.org" about this yesterday and maybe things will be sorted out that way; however, just on the off chance, my email got lost in the shuffle, I'm bringing it up here as well. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Marchjuly: Good catch! I've tagged her talk page with {{ uw-paid1}}. If she makes even one single edit to Joey Manahan before replying to the warning, please let us know — ideally both here and on my talk page. Did paid-en-wp ever reply to you? Kind regards, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 01:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
​ No, I never got a reply from paid-en-wp, but I did discuss this email some administrators about this and one responded that they would watch the article and discuss things with others via email. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Mark Christopher Israel (filipino actor)

The username above is a clear evidence of COI because he created an article about his own self. You can also check the social media account that he inserted in the article if you want to. Jayjay2020 ( talk) 08:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Jayjay2020: Good find! The article survived CSD A7. The AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Christopher Israel (filipino actor). So far, about eight or nine people have voted to delete the article, and nobody has voted to keep it. Regards, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 23:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Unforgettableid! Jayjay2020 ( talk) 02:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjay2020, no worries! — Unforgettableid ( talk) 03:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

David Kerr-Munslow editing Cortus

I am an employee of Cortus, and have edited the Cortus page. I have attempted to maintain a neutral point of view and only added facts - and avoided "marketing" and such puffery as much as possible.

Is it possible to have the "COI" removed?

David Kerr Munslow ( talk) 13:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@ David Kerr Munslow: the COI tag belongs there as it is for exactly that reason: to show when someone like an employee of the company has edited the page. It will be removed once an uninvolved editor has examined the page and made any necessary corrections. In future do not edit the page, as it is not possible for an employee to be neutral. Per our WP:COI page, request edits on the talk page. Thanks. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 20:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Dear ThatMontrealIP: Good points. In general, the page appears problematic. It was created, and about 80% written, by David Kerr Munslow. It reads somewhat like a PR piece. I've now draftified it. — Unforgettableid ( talk) 23:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Dear David Kerr Munslow: It was kind of you to disclose your COI! I've moved the page to Draft:Cortus, at least for now. — Unforgettableid ( talk) 03:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Nick, and I created an account to suggest article improvements transparently as part of my work at Consort Partners, starting with 10x Genomics. I've disclosed my conflict of interest on my profile and plan to avoid making changes to articles directly. I was asked to come here by User:MER-C, who added a tag in July 2019 which says, "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments". An employee of 10x Genomics removed the banner in October 2019, which was replaced by User:Duffbeerforme in May 2020. I've tried providing disclosures and clearing up some confusion at Talk:10x Genomics. I'll let editors review the details there. I'm willing to help address any concerns if any of the article content is problematic. I hope this helps, and thanks for considering tag removal. NT at Consort Partners ( talk) 17:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I've changed {{ UPE}} to {{ Paid contributions}} per the disclosure. SmartSE ( talk) 09:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Daniel W. Nebert AfD

Of possible interest to this page. It looks pretty egregious, but the subject may be notable. While AfD is not cleanup, this looks to me like it's a case of WP:TNT. I don't know, though, so hopefully those who watch this noticeboard can comment and help.

jps ( talk) 20:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear jps: Excellent catch! Several editors have now trimmed the article down from a bloated 81 kilobytes to a leaner 5 kilobytes. And at least part of the reason why it happened is thanks to the fact that you started this noticeboard thread. :) Kind regards, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 12:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thecapitalking

Page links

User links

Background information

About a week ago, Celestina007 pointed out to me: "When it comes to the UPE ring in Nigeria or amongst shady Nigerian editors, a major red flag is observing the creation of pages on 'Businessmen'. A perfect example would be their most recent article which is the Dapo Awofisayo article."

In mainspace, 10 of Thecapitalking's 14 created articles have been deleted. The tally is: 7 × AfD, 1 × A7, 1 × G11, 1 × G12.

Evidence of likely UPE

Key evidence

Thecapitalking has been around for a bit more than a year. He has claimed: "I’m not directly or indirectly being paid for my contributions on Wikipedia [...] Not in anyway paid or promotional."

Bonadea has disagreed and explained: "Biographies [about Augustine Nwaora] were created and recreated by seven different sock accounts in March-early April of this year. [...] Sock or not, I am certain that there is WP:UPE involved. One of the blocked sockpuppets said that this was a 'client biography' — and I estimate the likelihood that the current creator would have independently discovered and researched and created an article about this person, under a subtly different title to avoid detection, to be just about zero."

Question for the admins

Dear admins: Considering the above, I wonder it might make sense to block Thecapitalking, at least for now. If he later commits to switch to disclosed paid editing, maybe we might unblock him, or maybe not. Please see below.

Questions for everyone

What would be the best thing to do with his articles which are still in mainspace? [Edit: Are they probably paid? Are they probably notable?]

Edit

At User talk:Thecapitalking § Confession regarding undisclosed paid editing, he has now confessed that he has done undisclosed paid editing. He claims that he'll never do it again, and requests mercy. I've replied there, suggesting that he agree to always use the Article Wizard from now on (which creates drafts, not articles).

His remaining created articles seem to be about musicians and entertainers. I wonder if they meet WP:NMUSIC and/or WP:COMEDIAN.

I wonder if Thecapitalking can likely be a long-term useful contributor to Wikipedia's set of articles relating to Malawi and Nigeria — or not.

Conclusion

Thank you for reading this! — Unforgettableid ( talk) 03:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Techrebellious

In April, the editor named above has placed a COI tag on their userpage [1] with the edit summary I am trying to show that there is a conflict of Interest on the AFA page I just created, then yesterday or today, removed it [2]. Their userpage says they help Tech entrepreneurs tell their story to the world. When I asked if they are engaged with paid editing I got a negative reply with this explanation: during the course of approval of the article, an editor pointed out that it sounded promotional and If I wanted the article to be approved, I should insert that on my userpage [3]. This makes no sense to me; can anybody else have a look? The other article of concern is Nairametrics which is some kind of financial advisory blog?

Another anomaly is why there is both a declined draft and an articlespace item for AFA Sports. ☆ Bri ( talk) 01:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bri!
It's perhaps a bit of an unusual case.
He also claims: "I do not do paid editing as it is against the guidelines of this community. I only edit articles I have interest in and feel should be on Wikipedia as many big Nigerian brands are not recognized here."
I've tagged all three pages with {{ notability}} for now. But that's not a long-term solution, since the tags can be silently removed.
The XTools reveal that he's created a fourth page, too, Draft:AFA Sport. It's been deleted as G11.
If you remind me in four or five days, maybe I can ping MER-C. I haven't yet interacted with MER-C very often, so I don't want to pile too much on his/her plate all in one day.
Kind regards, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 04:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible COI with promoting religious beliefs

A large part of his edits are concerned with promoting the works of " Kuruvilla Pandikattu", (a religious scholar). The 'Ever approachable' article is a quote by him, and the user wrote an article about that. There are also multiple pages(deleted now) created by this user likely related to Kuruvilla, which are now deleted. I sense paid promotion. Daiyusha ( talk) 06:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Looks to me to be just a normal conflict of interest rather than paid editing, they were likely colleagues. Appears that this user hasn't ever received a warning regarding his COI editing, just deletion notices. He did write a handful of non-Pandikattu articles back in 2012 ( Areekara, Emerich Coreth). – Thjarkur (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    Hi Þjarkur! Could be. Still, if he doesn't reply to this comment within his next five or ten edits, I think {{ uw-paid1}} would be a good idea. It can force him to give us more information, even if he's unpaid. Kind regards, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 01:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
    Hi Daiyusha!
    I'm not sure why you put {{ uw-paid2}} on his talk page. I changed it to {{ uw-paid1}}, then PRODded one of his articles. Maybe this will help to get him talking with us. Once the conversation is started, we can then ask him what his COI is.
    Upon reflection, I don't actually have any evidence that he ignores direct manually-written talk-page questions. Oh well. {{ uw-paid1}} does work, even if it's a template.
    Kind regards, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 04:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Toddlute

I've never seen this before. The user created the above three articles direct to article space, between 2013 and a few days ago. After a discussion with Melcous they fessed up to all three being paid editing and posted the appropriate disclosures to their user page and to the article talk pages. That leaves me with two questions. First, what to do about seven years of UPE? Second: should Berkshire Grey be pushed back to draft to go through AFC, as we would usually recommend to paid editors? ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 04:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting that the ASSIA article was before the new paid editing disclosure policy. Entirely possible, likely perhaps, that they just didn't know. As for what to do, the other articles appear to be tagged and can be cleaned up for promo as normal, I suppose. As for the most recent and the draftify idea, not sure. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the paid editing disclosure policy until Melcous informed me a few days ago. Toddlute ( talk) 18:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I have moved Berkshire Grey to Draft:Berkshire Grey so that it can go through the appropriate AFC review for paid editing articles. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 19:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Refspam across many articles

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lomtikov

As reported here this is a crosswiki issue where [www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/11/5/263/htm this paper] has been linked to in numerous articles: [4]. It looks as if it should all be removed as WP:REFSPAM but we also need to track down the accounts - I've only found Emel Ulusoy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so far, probably need some CU. SmartSE ( talk) 16:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Aditi Singh Sharma KN ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) too. Seems to be one link added per account. SmartSE ( talk) 16:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Another paper by the same authors is in 65 articles: Multilingual Ranking of Wikipedia Articles with Quality and Popularity Assessment in Different Topics SmartSE ( talk) 16:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
And there may be more: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=DBpedia&diff=prev&oldid=839887485. Note I started an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emel Ulusoy. SmartSE ( talk) 17:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Search says the paper listed first (Modeling Popularity and Reliability of Sources in Multilingual Wikipedia ) is used in 170 articles on WP-en. I have added a few above. The additions are easy to see in the article histories, as they are about 850 bytes around the end of June-July 2020. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 16:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Shame on spammer.-- 寒吉 ( talk) 17:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I reverted 20+ of these - it's one spam reference per account. Expect 150+ accounts... MER-C 18:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Point of interest: the research paper these accounts were adding is from the Department of Information Systems, Poznań University of Economics and Business research group in Poznan Poland. The paper analyzed something like 200 million reference uses across multiple wikis by using wiki dumps. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 20:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
One of the paper's authors, Lewoniewski, is a user here. Pinging them entirely with good faith to see if they have any insights. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 21:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm working from the bottom. scope_creep Talk 21:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Scope creep: Thanks for removing the links, but we should also be removing the content and many of the articles contain other references spammed by the same group - see e.g. [5]. SmartSE ( talk) 11:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
We should also check for bestref.net: [6] Link search results. SmartSE ( talk) 08:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Alexa - just adding a note here as I'm linking to this in edit summaries - I have also been removing the links to alexa added by the same users e.g. [7] as I presume these were added to try and mask the spam. SmartSE ( talk) 08:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand the logic here. If the Alexa link is meaningful and helpful, why shouldn't it stay? -- Macrakis ( talk) 16:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Macrakis: - if you think they are helpful then feel free to add them back, but personally I don't think they add much. They're interesting to include in infoboxes, but I don't see the need to include them in the main text. SmartSE ( talk) 12:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Smartse, An MDPI publication? And it was spammed? I'm shocked. Nuke from orbit and ban the user. Guy ( help! - typo?) 09:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Please give opinions at m:Talk:Spam blacklist#bestref.net (global blacklist discussion). Guy ( help! - typo?) 09:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm starting a writeup/after-action review for this sockfarm since I think this sockfarm showed some interesting tactics, figured this might be of interest to folks here. Started at m:User:GeneralNotability/Paper sockfarm AAR, comments and contributions welcome. I'm also going to throw together a pywikibot script this weekend to a) identify any unlocked socks and b) come up with some stats on how this sockfarm worked. GeneralNotability ( talk) 00:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@ GeneralNotability: Good idea. It would be worth widening the net to include the other papers and sites - there's are two researchgate url as well: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320448810 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327265925. Hard to believe that this wasn't being done in at least a semi-automated way. SmartSE ( talk) 09:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Smartse, thanks - I had the two mdpi links and the two known spammed sites, but wasn't aware of the researchgate links. I'll throw those onto the search list. GeneralNotability ( talk) 19:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Smartse: my guess is that it was all automated. Many of the user sock names that I looked at seem to be real names, often with WP articles or a Wikidata entry (e.g. Dolores_Lorenzo_Salgado, Vidyaben Shah, Sharanya Haridas, Caroline Redon de Belleville Anna Maniecka, Rabeya Khatun Talukder). ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 19:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP, I agree, though I'm impressed with the appropriateness of the names - a lot of the usernames were names that sounded like someone who might speak that language. For example, we had "Valentina Sergeevna Koelagina-Jartseva" on ruwiki and "Yumiko Yanagisawa" on jawiki. The additions were also localized, so for example frwiki used a comma as the decimal separator instead of a period. That's a good deal more sophistication than I'm used to seeing from these farms. GeneralNotability ( talk) 19:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@ GeneralNotability: yeah... agree there is some savvy programming here. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 01:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

it's a bit of a postscript at this point, but Lewoniewski seems to have presented Multilingual Ranking of Wikipedia Articles with Quality and Popularity Assessment in Different Topics at Wikimania 2019 in Stockholm. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 22:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Older / broader COI issues

Interstudent sent to AfD; Some !votes at last AFD are, ahem, suspect. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 17:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll be asking for a glock and seeing if there's a way to blacklist this sole link. I found 223 additions spammed by several SPAs cross wiki... Praxidicae ( talk) 15:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@ JzG: this is going to take at least a day to clean up cross-wiki but is there any reason on enwiki that mdpi.com shouldn't be blacklisted? I see virtually no value to allowing links to pay-for-pub journals/paper in any article... Praxidicae ( talk) 15:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Praxidicae: I think we've cleaned up everything here but I'm not sure what to do about crosswiki abuse. Blacklisting the links is probably a more elegant solution than playing whack a mole with the socks. We need to alert other wikis about e.g. de:Uladsimir_Lewaneuski, es:Vladimir_Levonevsky and fr:Vladimir_Levonevsky which were all created by socks. SmartSE ( talk) 15:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I'ts been blacklisted but I'm working on manual removal since undo isn't even an option....sigh. Praxidicae ( talk) 15:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Here's a list from the first paper [10] Praxidicae ( talk) 17:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Is there is more to go on this list, e.g. user:Sophonisba Breckinridge. scope_creep Talk 18:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Praxidicae, for my money? No. They have been trying to use Wikipedia for PR since forever. Guy ( help! - typo?) 22:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

IRC discussion

The analysis is getting pretty involved, with several hundred suspected socks, possibly in two different groups, and a whole lot of papers to check for (I'm treating anything by Lewoniewski as suspect since he seems to be the common thread)...I haven't even managed to get to the analysis of the new sockfarm since I keep finding more papers to search for. I could use some help if anyone wants to pitch in; if you want to do so and would like to coordinate in real time, drop me a line on IRC (username: GenNotability) and I can set up a discussion channel. GeneralNotability ( talk) 18:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Neecia Majolly

Over a period of ten years, it appears that the mentioned user is adding content to a page related to said user without following the guidelines related to COI nor disclosing COI nor providing references. I have tried to guide the user on multiple occasions but have failed and hence this notice. Vincentvikram ( talk) 07:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vincentvikram. Good catch! The page looks like it may be the result of undisclosed paid editing and autobiographical editing; I've draftified it. You may want to add it to your watchlist. If it's not edited, it will probably be automatically deleted in six months. The page got only 160 pageviews per month when it was in articlespace; it's very possible that subject meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NMUSIC. If Neeciamajolly or any other newbie tries to make even one single edit to the draft, feel free to let me know on my user talk page; I can template them with {{ uw-paid1}}, which may help to force the beginning of a productive conversation. Kind regards, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 23:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Unforgettableid. Neeciamajolly is not a paid id but rather makes autobiographical edits as noted. I know Neecia IRL and tried to guide her from editing her own page. Since it did not help I was forced to get community intervention. Will try to set aside some time in the next month to improve the page. Vikram Vincent 10:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Babak Zanjani

The username is the same as the article (though in Persian), and is only interested in that exact article. I have warned the user to no avail. Pahlevun ( talk) 15:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pahlevun. Good catch! A few points.
  • Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats says: "When editors blank articles ... they may have good cause. Stop and look carefully before assuming they're disruptive, and be careful before using a banhammer." But then again, WP:BLPCRIME would suggest that, once a person is convicted, we can probably announce the conviction on Wikipedia. I'm unaware of any WP:IAR exception for convictions by less-reliable courts in semi-developed countries.
  • If you decide that the user is disruptive: Normally, I might suggest {{ uw-paid1}}. But I've skimmed through his contributions, and I dunno whether or not his English is good enough to understand such a lengthy template. You could try asking him who he is. If he doesn't reply, maybe you could try {{ uw-disruptive1}} through {{ uw-disruptive3}}, then requesting a block? I dunno.
  • He has an edit count of 27 on the Farsi Wikipedia: uselang=fa / uselang=en. I don't understand Farsi, and Google Translate is imperfect. I haven't evaluated any of his Farsi edits. It looks like there's just a welcome template on his talk page there.
Kind regards, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 15:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Unforgettableid, I asked the user if they have any connection to the subject of that article. The article seems neutral and in accordance to WP:BLP to me. If there is no connection between the user and the person in question, maybe it is a violation of Username policy. But if the connection is confirmed, I will ask him to request an edit. Is that OK? Pahlevun ( talk) 16:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Dear Pahlevun: Good plan! With this user, some worthy goals would be to get him to use talk pages and/or to follow Wikipedia's rules in general. Whether your attempts to achieve these goals succeed or not, please do update us on what eventually happened. :) And, of course, if you have further questions at any time, about this case or any other COI case, please ask us. — Unforgettableid ( talk) 18:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you User:Unforgettableid, I will keep you informed. Pahlevun ( talk) 18:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Update: The user states that he is himself. Pahlevun ( talk) 12:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
" This is babak". Pahlevun ( talk) 12:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

3M - disclosed paid editors doing some mild canvassing / forum-shopping

To start with: the strongest action I would recommend is a talk page explanation of what is OK or not OK, but I am not the good person to do it, due to a lack of familiarity with the relevant guidelines and because I am somewhat involved already.

Editors paid by 3M have been requesting changes to the article about the company. The paid editor status is properly disclosed and they have refrained from performing edits themselves: so far, so good. However, I am somewhat worried about the way they request changes.

My understanding is that the proper procedure is to use the {{ request edit}} template. This brings in whoever patrols first the category associated with COI edit requests, who can accept or decline (partially or fully) the request. To my eyes this brings two important features: accountability (because requested edits can be easily searched even after having been made) and impartiality (because it is more-or-less guaranteed that edit request patrollers will be independent of the subject).

By contrast, the various 3M people have been making edit requests on the talk page without templating them with {{ request edit}}, and making private requests to review the proposed edits. I will focus only on the active account (CB), but similar behavior can be found from the older account.

This message on Constant314's talk page looks like a clear violation of WP:CANVASS to me; this is a smaller violation, it includes a ping to two editors ( Sandcherry and myself) who implemented changes in the past (and therefore could be assumed to be more willing to perform new changes).

In reply to that ping, I  asked them to use the template (in the diff, I incorrectly say that I warned them about it before - I warned KM, not CB, so not the same person). They did add the template, but when it failed to get a quick reply, they posted this message to WikiProject Companies which seems iffy - it is not neutrally-worded, but more importantly, I suspect forum-shopping is going on (i.e.: ask on the talk page, if nobody wants to make the change ping editors you suppose to be sympathetic, then add the request edit template later on, then post to WikiProjects one by one etc. - of course if the edit is made at any point in the process, you do not go to the next step to ask for a review and possible revert).

Thoughts? Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is the delay in processing requested edits, which seems to be over 30 days at present. Hopefully that will improve once August is over. TSventon ( talk) 18:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, User:Tigraan. Thank you for notifying me of this discussion. Sorry if I've done anything wrong here. I do not mean to "forum shop". I was just not getting any responses to the recent request to update the article, and since the edit request queue seems to be moving very slowly I was trying to see if someone at WikiProject Companies would be willing to help. I assumed seeking help at WikiProjects was a transparent way to get editor feedback. I will continue to use the edit request template when submitting proposed updates to the 3M Talk page. Thanks. CB at 3M ( talk) 19:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I do not think WikiProject Companies suffers from any sort of bias regarding your edit request; my uneasiness is due to the sequential nature of notifications. I do not think you did anything wrong on purpose either. Getting help from WikiProjects can sometimes be improper due to selection bias. For a striking example, if you are writing about some history of the West Bank and you notify one but not the other of Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel, it probably means you are looking at the issue from a certain point of view. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Art of Odessa

Art of Odessa has said a couple of times now that they have no connection to the above articles on Odessa artists they have been extensively editing. However I just discovered that three accounts on commons were blocked for socking after the upload of many images. The accounts are Sergiyryabchenko, Рябченко Василий Сергеевич and, of course Art of Odessa]. The Commons account name Sergiyryabchenko is darn close to the Ryabchenko article names above.

Second, the long list of uploads at Commons by Art of Odessa is accompanied by OTRS approval, which can only come via the copyright holder. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 15:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I just write articles about Odessa artists or artists associated with Odessa and supplement information where it can be appropriate. -- Art of Odessa ( talk) 15:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry but this does not strike me as honest. Over at Commons you have disclosed that you are working with a group. It is in Russian, but via Google translate I see " Good day! Please tell me why we were blocked?... We downloaded photos from our archives. Articles about a number of Odessa artists are being created now.". In the same thread, when asked what "we" means, the answer was " A group that deals with Odessa artists...It means that to create materials for articles about artists, materials are involved in which different people are involved: artists, art historians, curators, libraries, etc." ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 15:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You did not understand the context and did not read to the end ... This is a problem in Russian Wikipedia, which was a few years ago and was positively resolved. It meant that I write alone, but to create material, I as a professional study the material, consult with historians and find material in the library if it concerns old artists, information about which is very scarce on the Internet. It is incorrect for you to reproach me, there is no reason because all my articles are high-quality and well-developed. -- Art of Odessa ( talk) 15:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I read it to the end. You said you were working as a group and described that group. You also said "photos from our archives". Recently you uploaded a photo to Commons and had it approved via OTRS within three hours. This means you have to be in contact with the copyright holder. Could you explain that please? The point here is that if you are working in a museum, with a dealer or in collaboration with the artists, you need to disclose that. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 15:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You ask me the same thing several times. I said that I am an independent editor and not affiliated with anyone. I misspelled , meant that I collect materials from various sources. How do I know the answers to your questions if they do not apply to me? Everyone is reacting quickly today, perhaps that's why. -- Art of Odessa ( talk) 16:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but you never answer how you can upload an image by the artist and the copyright is approved in three hours. You have to be in contact with the artist or the copyright holder. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 18:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't owe anything to anyone, I replied that I have no ties with anyone. I don't know why it happened so quickly.-- Art of Odessa ( talk) 18:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You still have not explained why the Ryabchenko images you upload get OTRS copyright authorized shortly after upload, and why your two other accounts blocked at Commons were named Sergiyryabchenko and Рябченко Василий Сергеевич (English: Ryabchenko Vasily Sergeevich). Ryabchenko is connected to most of what you edit, and the acount names. Add to that the recent addition of Stepan Ryabchenko images to multiple wiki pages, and it is obvious that you are connected or working to promote Ryabchenko work. We just want to know how the details, please. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 18:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm just telling you. There is nothing unusual here. It was many years ago. I decided to become a Wikipedia editor in the field of art and decided to start with the of Odessa artists Ryabchenko dynasty since they have contributed so much to Ukrainian art. I then decided to name myself by the names of future articles. It was foolishness for lack of experience. Then he began to study Wikipedia and was renamed Art of Odessa. This name reflected my interests. I write articles in different languages. In addition to Ryabchenko, I wrote a lot about Valentin Khrushch, Alexander Stovbur, Lucien Dulfan. Now I am writing about Victor Marinyuk and other Odessa authors. First I write in Russian and Ukrainian, then in English. What a problem?? -- Art of Odessa ( talk) 19:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not very plausible. You still have not explained how the images get OTRS authorized after you upload them. Are you in contact with one or more of the Ryabchenkos? ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 19:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
If you look at the Commons category for Stepan Ryabchencko, Art of Odessa has uploaded all of the images. Most have OTRS approval. It is simply not possible that Art of Odessa uploads them and then they suddenly get approved; it has to be a coordinated effort. Many of hte images were also uploaded as "own work" ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 19:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I might add that six of the eight artists in the list above are listed at the web site for artofodessa.com, an art dealer. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 15:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
This is not my site, I assure you. It's just a name coincidence. And the fact that these artists are represented there is natural. These are some of the most famous artists in Ukraine. -- Art of Odessa ( talk) 15:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The match between your user name and the gallery's domain name, then, is an interesting coincidence, isn't it? In my dealings with this issue, I also ran across another account that appears, at least at first glance, to be related to some of the ones mentioned above:
Mr.Perepel ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I've placed the obligatory COI notice on that user's Talk page. —  UncleBubba (  T  @  C ) 16:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
An uninteresting, common situation. You'd better solve your problems... You apparently have a lot of free time, since you are looking for problems that don’t exist. Articles are edited by different people, do not fit me into a mold. -- Art of Odessa ( talk) 17:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

ASGC Construction Group

SPA, only here to promote ASGC Construction Group and not responding to messages on their talk page. Also, can someone please merge Draft:Ritika.times to User talk:Ritika.times? Thank you. GSS  💬 16:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I placed a UPE warning/question on their talk page on 13 August. No answer. No response to deletion discussions. While it is impossible to draw a formal conclusion from that behaviour it is unusual for a non COI editor. Fiddle Faddle 08:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

YashPratap1912

Page links

User link

Sometime ago, an user by the name of SinghPurnima72 created Shamsher Singh (journalist) which was deleted during a Articles for Deletion discussion. During the article for deletion discussion, it was found that they have a conflict with interest with the subject of the article which they admitted to ( for reference). Since then they have removed the declaration from their userpage ( Special:Diff/968720319), renamed their account to YashPratap1912 ( Special:Diff/969563148) and have recreated and extensively edited the page of Shamsher Singh (Indian Journalist) as well as edited the pages of Republic Bharat TV and Republic TV of which the journalist is an employee of without any open declarations of conflict of interest while being well aware that it is against our policies on conflict of interest editing. Note that during the discussion at the AfD they had been made well aware of the necessity to declare CoI which had prompted them to add the disclaimer on their userpage in the first place. Tayi Arajakate Talk 09:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Tayi Arajakate, sorry for the inconvenience. I have added the COI userbox on my user page now. YashPratap 1912 (CONT.) 09:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Copying this over from a Teahouse thread:

I have a friend who asked me to create a Wikipedia profile for him but I declined due to conflict of interest rules. I explained this to my friend but he would not understand it and insisted that I create a page for him saying all his mates have Wikipedia profiles. Later, he offered me USD250, again I declined. Days later he told me that he had seen an editor who would do it for him at $200 but I did not say anything because he said I was jealous of his achievements and that was the reason I refused to create the page for him. After few days, he came back to plead that I should guarantee that I would not delete the article. I suspected that the editor he paid to create the page must have advised him to plead with me not to report this issue because the editor is aware of the consequences of such behavior. For days I was confused whether to report the editor that would create the page or not because reporting the editor may lead to the deletion of the article which may be unfair to my friend. But if I keep mute this editor will continue with his unethical activities here. So decided that the issue should come before senior editors to investigate.

Two weeks ago I saw the article live in public space. The subject of the article is in sports. I checked to see the editor that created the article and I was surprised that it is a senior editor who has a number of editor's rights. If anyone had told me that this editor engages in paid editing I would not believe it. This editor has moved hundreds of articles from main space to draft space for the sole reason of 'under sourced' even when many of such articles would survive AFD should they pass through that process. This editor marks several articles for deletion within minutes and I wonder how he conducts WP:BEFORE before nominating articles for deletion. This editor does this to mask his paid editing activities. This editor does this to create the impression that he is doing a great job thereby diverting attention from his paid editing.

I want to plead that the article in question should not be deleted because it's subject is not aware of Wikipedia rules. The senior editor who violated the rules should be punished. This editor is Lapablo. Should this editor attempt to deny it I will bring hard evidence against him. Paid editing is a serious offense here. I urge this editor to disclose all his paid editing immediately.

Supolsanko ( talk) 16:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I've added the accounts mentioned above. Supolsanko could you tell us the name of the article in question? Thanks. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 16:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Supolsanko you can also send the "hard evidence" to the email [email protected], where an admin will look at it. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 16:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Supolsanko:, you should not directly reply to my post here due to possible outing or harassment considerations but it may be relevant to others: I did look through the articles created by Lapablo and found at least one recent article that raised red flags. I have nominated the article on Tony Doellefeld for deletion based on the lack of sources in the article and available in wider searches. I don't know if that's the article in question but looking independently at the user's contributions I identified it as not following our guidelines for notability. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I've looked through their page creations and there are a lot of innocuous looking ones (politicians, footballers, historical figures etc.) many of which are translations of existing articles on other wikis. There are others which definitely look suspicious: John McPheters, Jed Stiller, Yu-Ming Wu, Sneaker News and Stadium Goods. M S Faizal Khan - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M S Faizalkhan closed delete in January. Hannon Armstrong and Jeff Eckel. SmartSE ( talk) 19:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd imagine that Stadium Goods would somehow survive AfD. M S Faizal Khan is very different from deleted M S Faizalkhan and therefore can't be speedily (G4) deleted. But it presents no additional evidence to suggest that the biographee is notable. The article Sneaker News presents feeble evidence for notability (and the website itself -- "Powered by WordPress.com VIP" -- looks to me like a mere outlet for PR puffs). I didn't look at any of the others. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
We really need Lapablo to chime in here, one way or another. The cluster of Stadium Goods article looks likely notable but the text seems very marketing-centric and the two Hannon Armstrong articles are similar. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment — ThatMontrealIP, Honestly, until they send their “hard evidence” every other thing is just mere talk. How are we to believe a word they say? How do we know these aren’t mere fabrications? I don’t understand how we are to take an editor who had to create a different account in order to report paid editing serious. why didn’t they report via their original account? as any other normal editor would? What’s the essence of concealing their identity? I mean even if that friend of theirs had an IQ of below 85, if they saw that post & how detailed it was, they’d know Supolsanko’s true identity regardless, so what’s really going on here? Something doesn’t feel right about this report, either there’s more backstory we aren’t getting or this is revenge per staments like this This editor has moved hundreds of articles from main space to draft space for the sole reason of 'under sourced' even when many of such articles would survive AFD should they pass through that process. I can’t say which one for sure it is. Like Eggishorn already said, let Lapablo speak up first before we start any trial if need be. Until then I’d say we keep our cool for now. Personally I have seen Lapablo do a lot of anti UPE activity so I’m very much interested in this case. Celestina007 19:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Celestina007: I agree, we need to see the evidence. There does not seem to be any evidence provided thus far. I was just posting it here as it's a better forum than the Teahouse for this kind of thing. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 20:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP, you have no blame at all, that was the proper move. I was just sharing my opinion with you. Celestina007 20:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Celestina007: I don't really believe their story to be honest. My suspicion is that they are a competitor and that's how they know they've been creating articles for pay. SmartSE ( talk) 12:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Smartse, That’s a plausible theory but having stumbled upon comments/entries like this one i’m sensing a deep animosity here. I’m eager to see Lapablo’s response & really know what we are dealing with here. Celestina007 13:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I'm deeply disturbed and hugely disappointed that the process of blocking Lapablo is taking this long. By now, all mission objectives (of taking this editor off WP) would have been accomplished if everyone here supports my stand. When ThatMontrealIP copied my intelligence report over here I had a sense of relief that at last the editor who had been terrorising articles and killing them would be slained. But no. Instead those who are supposed to be on my side are calling for evidence. Well, if you're waiting for evidence you may have to wait longer while I try to scoop more intelligence. But first this editor should be removed from editing Wikipedia so I can conduct a more independent intelligent investigation and then present my report here. You Smartse, on whose side are you? You have alleged that I'm also a paid editor but that is from the figment of your imagination. Let me put you on notice here that I will shortly present a damming undercover investigation report of your paid editing here. Please don't be surprised when you see them but be courageous to defend yourself. Please, don't throw a stone when you live in a glass house.

Personal attacks removed

I urge all the right thinking people here to join hands and speedily take Lapablo down just same way he takes down and draftify articles. This is my humble submission. Supolsanko ( talk) 6:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Response. I really missed a lot for one week, First i want to apologize for not being able to come online on time to reply to the accusations due to my health situation, i'm recovering btw. I want to first state that i have NEVER and will NEVER receive money or kind to create articles as i am aware is a violation of WP:PAID. I do NOT in anyway know the user:Supolsanko neither have i come across the editor before with that account, but i am certain it must have been someone i moved articles to WP:Draft, a possible decline in WP:AFC or a WP:PAID tag placed on an article. If they do have "hard evidence" by all means they should provide it here for everyone to be convinced. For the listed articles which Smartse says looks "suspicious", i would agree with you that it looks suspicious but it is not against the rules if an editor decides to create an article for a state and also creates for the cities in the state. If i saw an editor create an article about say Forbes and also create several other articles about its top notable CEOs and he was a very new user i would be baffled. Personally, if i believe an article is notable and i have the time to put to it, then why not? If you think the articles are not notable feel free to take it to WP:AFD.

The user after this report did drop another message on my talk page here, i am very keen to know the articles which the user claims i had moved i believe he/she should have shared that with us here as well, in the past weeks most articles i had moved were also tagged with WP:PAID that i remember vividly. Supolsanko also wrote that "I will shortly present a damming undercover investigation report of your paid editing here" he has now also suspected an admin of being paid, i don't see the case here. I have never had an issue like this here, maybe a few threats on declining articles or moving articles to draft from main-space but never something this serious, i imagine i had pissed the user off badly, pardon my language. Thank you @ ThatMontrealIP: and @ Celestina007: for waiting for my feedback. Lapablo ( talk) 09:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

American University of Malta

I'd like to ask experienced editors to take a look at this page, where there is a (perfectly proper, fully-disclosed) talk-page request from a representative of the company to remove negative content (of which there is a lot). I've not gone through it in detail, but much of that content seems to be adequately sourced. I've reverted two outright whitewash attempts, but would welcome more input. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

50% of the article is the sections titled "criticisms" and "controversies" which seems excessive in light of WP:WEIGHT. Add to that the section "Planning and Opening" with interesting matter like concerns have arisen that the university's presence threatens the heritage and quality of life in the Bormla community, which also adds to non-NPOV content. ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I have added a link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education#American University of Malta. TSventon ( talk) 13:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Toofan (2020 film)

Editor has only edited by adding references to the site moviespie.com, which according to their about page is run by an individual named "Piyush Chittora, Shanky". BOVINEBOY 2008 19:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello BOVINEBOY. All the information i gave to those wikipedia pages are true. None are fake. Althought the information and reference links i have given are 100% right which reverted back. I don't know why user BOVINEBOY is just looking for my reference links and edits and keep deleting them all for no official reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankychittora ( talk • contribs) 06:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Your edits have consisted mainly of just adding citations to things that already have citations. The citations come from a cite that you presumably run per the About page and your User page. You are not contributing to the encyclopedia by adding citations to your website, especially when content is already sourced from established, reliable sources. BOVINEBOY 2008 11:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Ankiti Bose

REMARKS : ChristopherWilliams first created the article. Latest account to edit the article is Callmemarcel. Other accounts are SPA editing the subject and her company. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Citationfixer for full details. — Infogapp1 ( talk) 18:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Lois Leveen

WP:SPA editor Chuckgbarnes created the first article ( Lois Leveen) which is a person with which he has some sort of relationship (business, peer, personal, or whatever). I can find no disclosure of COI. (Redacted) I trimmed the Lois Leveen article of all the promotional content; see edit history for earlier version of article. The edits this user did to the other 4 wiki articles all contain new promotional content related to Lois Leveen. He has virtually no other edits in Wikipedia. Definitely an WP:SPA editor. In the 10 years this user has been editing, there are only 2 other articles (3 edits) that did NOT contain Leveen content. — Normal Op ( talk) 07:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest regarding Journey by Moonlight/Traveler and the Moonlight

A conflict of interest is created by the way this article, which is basically about Antal Szerb's Hungarian novel Utas és holdvilág, literally "Traveler and Moonlight", is written. The title of the article and the lead line is Journey by Moonlight. Unfortunately this tilts the article into an advertisement for Len Rix's translation Journey by Moonlight. Other translators are mentioned in the section "Release Details" but by excluding cover pictures of the other translations with their pertinent details, the reader of this article is directed solely to Journey by Moonlight. To be fair to all translators, reviews of all translations should be included in the article so it doesn't seem as if there is only one book out there. The only book cover shown is that of Journey By Moonlight by Len Rix which excludes all other published translations. By creating a article that is not solely directed to one book, and including more information by other translator of Utas és holdvilág, the playing field is leveled.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookleggers ( talk • contribs)

@ Bookleggers:, in looking at the above it sounds like an article content issue, which should be handled at the article's talk page. That said, when i look at your contributions to Wikipedia, it seems like you might be the one with a conflict of interest, is that possible? You have been editing solely the Peter Hargitai article and related topics since 2011. Hargitai was the translator of one version of the above Journey by Moonlight book. Do you have a WP:COI to disclose? ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 16:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Methinks an Australian throwing stick may be imminent... BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 18:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
@ ThatMontrealIP:, There is NO conflict of interest to disclose. I am a no fee paid editor for Peter Hargitai. This is an unpaid service I have provided for years. As far as Wiki is concerned, I am no pro and make mistakes. Peter Hargitai receives no royalties from the paperback version of the book Traveler and the Moonlight. Any profit this book may make goes directly to the Holocaust Museum in St. Petersburg, FL. comment added by ( talk) -- Bookleggers ( talk) 21:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Bookleggers
@ Bookleggers: How are you connected to Peter Hargitai? Out COI policy means you should not be editing the page if you are connected. I'm not sure how you would know all that information about whether an article subject is receiving royalties, and about where the profits go. This sounds like a good candidate for the new pblock. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 21:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Montazur Rahman Akbar

The biographical article Montazur Rahman Akbar is about a Bangladeshi film director/producer/etc. It, and articles related to its subject, are being heavily edited by the 103.35.171.0/24 IP range, along with নয়নবাবু.

According to Google Translate, that Bengali script translates to Nayanbabu. Probably not coincidentally, the article subject, Montazur Akbar, founded Nayan-Apon Production. And if Google Translate is to be believed (maybe it's not) "Babu" could suggest "master" or "landlord". If Wikipedia is to be believed, (maybe it's not) it could mean "sir" or "mister". (It could also be a diminutive for a child, but that seems unlikely here, since an infant is not contributing to articles). What I'm getting at, is that it's possible the named account, which could be a self-promoting account held by the 'Nayan Master', or someone in his employ who might be working on his behalf by using a devotional account praising their boss.

Note this IP, part of the range, who (in 2020) rarely edits outside of the Akbar sphere. And from what I can tell, the IPs do most of the heavy lifting. If you look at the edit history here, you'll notice the bulk of the changes are from the IPs, with the user account doing some follow-up edits, like here where they again removed a copyedit template after the IP was blocked for repeatedly removing that. (The named editor also twice misspelled " crore" in that same edit, so I don't think we're talking about a highly competent logged-in user, who would appreciate the need to copy-edit a problematic article. And the logged-in editor is also almost entirely entwined with articles related to Montazur Rahman Akbar.

So, I suspect strong COI with likely undisclosed paid editing (UPE). Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 02:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Jay Clayton (attorney)

The editor User:Macro26red bears the hallmark of COI editing, as the editor adds massive amounts of puffery and CV-style items sourced to primary sources. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 03:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I admire the repeated use of "Chairman Clayton" in their edit, surely not promotional at all! It looks like the material was added here back in 2019 by an IP subsequently globally blocked as an open proxy. Snooganssnoogans removed it on August 14, 2020 and 5 days later, a new editor out of the blue comes to restore it with somewhat sophisticated edit summaries. Despite the denials by Macro26Red (and their personal attacks in the edit summary), this is way over the top promotional. WP:AGF is one thing, but this reeks of deception and paid editing. Ravensfire ( talk) 19:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: His edit consists of the addition of 33 (?) citations, primarily sec.gov (which would be considered a primary source for this article) and some press releases. [11] Normal Op ( talk) 21:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Fswitzer4

This is a good-faith question about a possible COI, not a report about a known COI. I am asking whether this person has a COI, not declaring that they have one.

Fswitzer4 writes "I manage this terminology at the FDA. We publish these UNIIs through the US National Library of Medicine." [12]

He has been adding UNIIs to hundreds of Wikipedia articles: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

I posted the standard COI notice on his talk [page. [18]

Anypodetos ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) opined that there is no COI. [19]

I am inclined to say that adding the UNIIs is acceptable, and that we should not require a connected contributor disclosure notice on the thousands of pages where he does this. but that a Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure on his main user page still applies. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thinking about it, he puts "‎added FDA UNII" or "Validated CAS and added FDA UNII" in every edit summary. Changing that to "Validated CAS and added FDA UNII -- paid edit by FDA Employee" doesn't seem to be too much of a burden. (I certainly hope he is cutting and pasting and not typing that every time!) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:CURATOR applies. Fswitzer4 now contains a more-than-adequate declaration. Nothing else is required. Their contributions are to be welcomed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

North Market

Clear violation of WP:COI / WP:UPE and username policy. I reverted their promo edits but the user needs appropriate actions for these violations, explanations of their errors, and likely a username change. ɱ (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

And you thought it appropriate to bring this here, without even dropping them a notification of our policies - not to mention a welcome - on their talk page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

HGO Trust

Not sure if this is the right place to raise this situation. An editor placed a COI template on the article HGO Trust. For two years I have been the Chair of this organization which is a charity; the article was started some years before I became involved. I had already declared my connection on the talk page some months previously. In placing the template, the editor did not start a disucssion on the talk page, as required: I started the discussion - to which only he and I have contributed. I am happy not to edit the page further myself, limiting myself to comments/proposals on the talkpage. Can the template then be removed, as I undertand that neither the orginal editor nor I can do this per WP:WTRMT? - but no one else has entered the discussion. Thanks, Smerus ( talk) 19:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

If there is no specific concern raised on the talk page, you or anyone else can remove it (per its documentation: "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning."). I have just done so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
That's fine with me, if you think that the article is ok. That said, I did discuss the article on talk [20]. - Bilby ( talk) 11:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Andy and Bilby.-- Smerus ( talk) 12:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Mass-scale undisclosed paid editing

Nothing actionable here. OP advised of better avenue.
Heading was: "Mass-scale undisclosed paid editing by long-standing WP user, possible cover-up by other administrator(s)"

I am using an alt account with a proxy as I fear reprisals from what I believe to be a massive network of undisclosed paid editing by a well-known Wikipedia user and the potential cover-up by other administrator(s), who might take action against me should this post get buried.

I don't want to go into much detail as not to alert the possible persons behind the UPE and encourage them to delete evidence off-wiki but irrefutable proof has fallen on deaf years through an official channel (won't get into detail here either as not to alert the persons behind the UPE).

I don't whom to e-mail as I don't know who might be on the undisclosed paid editing scheme. Emailing the wrong persons directly would be tantamount to deleting evidence off-wiki.

This is a public statement that I hold such irrefutable proof and I believe it will be harder to disregard this should someone offer their private e-mail to receive said evidence.

I obviously cannot post this information here as that would be considered doxxing.

Note to the person who closed this discussion without recourse:

This is a plea for help as the formal channel to report a mass-scale UPE is possibly compromised by rogue agents. I'm asking for an admin to post their e-mail here publicly so that I may send them all irrefutable evidence. I don't know whom to send this to now as I don't know who might be on the scheme. Once again, a formal channel where I had already reported this is possibly compromised. Altaccountreportingfraud ( talk) 07:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Still, unactionable the way it is presented on this noticeboard. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I understand your concern and where you're coming from, but I'd appreciate it if we waited for an admin to step in. I am really not sure where I would otherwise report this mass-scale UPE without tipping off the deletion of off-wiki evidence. Thank you for your understanding. Altaccountreportingfraud ( talk) 07:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, you didn't "report" anything. You launched some WP:ASPERSIONS (e.g. "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence ..."), which might get you blocked if you can't indicate an actual potential problem that other editors can assess. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I never accused anyone of anything, reread what I wrote and find if I had mentioned anyone specific. My last sentence was literally "I cannot post this information here as that would be doxxing". Altaccountreportingfraud ( talk) 08:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
"Mass-scale undisclosed paid editing by long-standing WP user", as in the title of this section, which you wrote, is an accusation – which was presented here without a shred of evidence. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

You can have your way with this and close this now. I have alerted an admin whom I don't believe could have had anything to do with it. Next time, be useful from the start and don't get trigger-happy. This isn't a contest. Altaccountreportingfraud ( talk) 08:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

How to handle minor COIs (preemptive questions)

I have had the pleasure to meet many notable scientists, some of which do not have an article. An example of this is Henrik Zetterberg (scientist) [ sv. In this case I've met them and talked to them several times during an event and it is possible that we will have more interactions in the future. He does not know that I'm a Wikipedia editor and I'm doing this solely because I got interested in his research and career. I believe the best way to handle this would be just declaring the connection on the talk page and donät worry about it anymore, but going through AfC would also be an option. This is the example where the potential COI is the strongest. Another case I'm wondering about is a researcher who I have met and would like to write an article about, but the probability that we ever have any future interaction is very small, however it is a potential privacy risk and could easily be used to out my account if I declared a connection. Would the best option here be to create a sock under the privacy exception of WP:LEGITSOCK and create it from there, or something else? -- Trialpears ( talk) 20:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  • My general rule of thumb is that an editor who's conscious enough about COI to proactively come here to ask about it probably has good judgment about what constitutes a COI. :) Doesn't sound like anything you cite here creates a problem, particularly since the people you have met don't seem to know you're a Wiki editor; if you're concerned, then a disclosure on the talk page or going through AfC would certainly keep you on the right side of the line, IMHO. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 18:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Coments: @ Trialpears, I would agree, to limit any concerns of possible improprieties, you can use WP:AFC. Any possible issue of outing is a personal protection (security and privacy) issue, and I would think your option to explore. It should be noted that any "external relationship" (say academic) "can trigger a COI", but that is determined only "if" it were to interfere with an editors primary role on Wikipedia. I would venture, assuming good faith, that inconsequential meetings, even a future meet of an individual by you, that has nothing to do with present or future Wikipedia edits and this person, would not be a problem. I agree with BubbaJoe123456 that no problem will exist. If "you" feel there is a closer connection than you feel comfortable with, go the route of AFC. In fact, I also fully agree that your concern to mention this means we can prudently defer to your common sense in the matter. My opinion--- Go and create a good notable biographical article --and don't sweat the small stuff. -- Otr500 ( talk) 18:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

FunPlus

According to Special:Diff/973454973, this user is affiliated with or working on behalf of the article subject, yet when he was notified of the potential violation of WP:PAID he declined to declare his likely paid editing activity as required by wikimedia:Terms_of_Use. User has directly engaged in the editing of the subject article in April 2019, but has only proposed edits since then, presumably since the article is now semi-protected due to promotional editing, which expires 23 August 2020. Melmann 16:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The declaration you say was not made is made in the edit whose diff you cite. You also fail to mention the response you got here. As the user "has only proposed edits since then", there appear to be no breach of our CoI policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
a) WP:PAID requires such disclosure on their user page, talk page of the subject article or in the edit summaries. This user appears to have not met any one of those requirements. Linked disclosure is on another user's talk page, which does not meet the requirements of the WP:PAID.
b) Proposed edits are still paid edits. WP:PAID makes not distinctions. Policy says "It makes no difference if the paid editor writes the content off-site or in userspace and then another editor moves the material into mainspace on their behalf.". Thus, by engaging in only edit proposals, user is in compliance with WP:COI but not with WP:PAID. Melmann 17:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
The user is clearly acting in good faith, and trying to improve the encyclopedia, albeit with the narrow focus of their professional role. Such legalistic hair splitting does not help, and is not welcoming. We should do better. What action do you expect to happen as a result of posting on this noticeboard? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, there's nothing good-faith in attempting to promote the interests of your employer while denying your paid-editor status. The Terms of Use govern all activity here, and have to be respected. I've indeffed the editor in the hope that the required disclosure will soon be made. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Do you have a diff for the claimed denial? Bad block, BTW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Pigsonthewing: I must say that it is quite jarring to see an established user with claimed ties to Wikimedia Foundation, who is a paid editor himself, act so nonchalantly in regard to WP:PAID and wikimedia:Terms_of_Use, then proceeding to throw out accusations of bad faith WP:GAMING when I bring it to this noticeboard. I had hoped exactly for the action which Justlettersandnumbers took, which amounts to enforcement of the basic policy of Wikipedia. Melmann 23:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Nice ad-hominem you've got there. Unless you can point to a policy prohbiting Wikimedians in Residence from posting here, I intend to keep doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Pigsonthewing: I had not suggested you're not allowed to post here, of course you are. I had simply suggested that as a paid editor, affiliated with Wikimedia, you should make more of an effort to understand and follow WP:PAID and wikimedia:Terms_of_Use. That is all. Melmann 13:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Might be missing something here, but I only see one edit to the article, being an inconsequential name change in 2019. There's a bunch of other promotional edits made to that article by other editors. Is it our view that any of these are socks of GabrielXYLiu? If not, I agree with Pigsonthewing that this looks like a paid editor trying to do the right thing and simply not understanding the notification rules. They're certainly not hiding their paid status - indeed they specifically identify themselves by job title. I wonder if we'd be better off unblocking them, advising them on precisely what steps to take to denote themselves as a paid editor with a conflict at this article, and then just reviewing their Funplus talkpage suggestions for neutrality and relevance in the usual way. But as above, let me know if I've missed something such as an additional account or edit history. -- Euryalus ( talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Lois Greenfield

Bio created in 2008 and overseen since then by a WP:SPA. Could use some more eyes for neutrality and sources. 2601:188:180:B8E0:A834:6250:2E50:37AC ( talk) 16:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

NewYorkPhotog has said they will stop making edits to the page. Another success! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Adam Boehler

Adam Boehler is a Trump administration official. He was a roommate of Trump's son in law Jared Kushner, and is now on a coronavirus response team headed by Kushner. These facts are reported by numerous sources. This information has repeatedly been removed by Washington DC IP addresses. One of IP addresses is located within the White House, per the tracking bot WhiteHouseEdits ( https://twitter.com/whitehousedits/status/1293889545805672451). The most recent removal has the explanation "The Politico article we suggested provides the opportunity to source a news item that accurately describes this role; we have been working with BI to correct its story given the inaccuracies." To me, this suggests that the page is being edited by multiple professional editors with a COI pertaining to the Trump admin, without even logging in to an account. I have been restoring the info (and a number of other editors previously did the same). The mysterious DC editor(s) refuse to use the talk page to build consensus for new language. Perhaps the page should be protected from editing by IP addresses. I'm not sure if I have the authority to do that, however. Zekelayla ( talk) 17:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I've requested temporary protection for the page, which will hopefully force these editors into discussion on the talk page. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 09:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Drm310, Zekelayla, semi'd for a week. GeneralNotability ( talk) 13:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Davis College (Ohio)

This editor is the director of marketing at the college but refuses to acknowledge or comply with our COI and paid editing policies. ElKevbo ( talk) 16:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, indeffed, they are welcome to request an unblock and explain how they're going to play by the rules. GeneralNotability ( talk) 13:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Ландровер

This looks like a case of undisclosed paid editing. Two other editors who have made edits to the page have since been blocked: JackCarol5454 and Haleyfritz. Suspicions about undisclosed paid editing were expressed about a previous version of the article at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 151#Wikipedia Procreative Writers. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Also worth noting that that previous version, created by BroerJaneyrrrr, was very similar to the current text. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
And note how both editors start out by making some minor edits to articles about subjects with similar names, before working on the Clark biography (presumably to get the account autoconfirmed). Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Cordless Larry, indeffed both as suspected UPE. I don't see anything blatantly obvious to connect them to the MNB9911 sock farm (of which JackCarol is a member), but if you do see something, go ahead and file an SPI. GeneralNotability ( talk) 14:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

GeoTrust

I have worked on the GeoTrust page as well as numerous pages and individuals associated with the certificate authority industry. In the late 1990s, I had a n association with Pretty Good Privacy which focused on encryption and privacy - this association no longer exists. I edited over the years from IPs but joined this year so I could more openly contribute to an area where I am knowledgeable. The certificate authority area is important part of Internet history and is involved in almost every secure transaction on the Internet today but some coverage in Wikipedia is not well written or reads like an advertisement missing the substance. I have made an effort to rework numerous pages and remove maintenance tags when ready. I have almost always started a talk discussion in areas of potential controversy on pages I have edited. On the GeoTrust page, I have attempted numerous times to engage with user Duffbeerforme who has not yet explained the COI Tag and has implied thatI have a COI. I would like to have a resolution on how to go forward. I do not have any affiliation with GeoTrust or an other Certificate Authority which I have made clear to Duffbeerforme. I have tried over months to handle this via the GeoTrust Talk page. Any assistance on a resolution is appreciated.

I will place the coin notice tag on Duffbeerforme's talk page to help move this forward. PKIhistory ( talk) 15:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

GroundBIRD

Hi all. I'm self-reporting myself as I have a conflict of interest with the GroundBIRD article that I just started, since I work on the project in my day job. I have written the article outside of my day job (it is not paid editing), and have done my best to write about it neutrally. It fits in with the other articles about astronomical telescopes that I've worked on here over many years. I've noted that I am a connected editor on the talk page. Comments/feedback/edits would be welcome. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 22:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This is another case where WP:CURATOR applies. Nice article! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
How's that? I'd say it is closer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day - that's obviously an overexaggeration and it has sources, but Mike Peel does not appear to fit into "museum curators, librarians, archivists, and similar" as he has worked directly on this project. SmartSE ( talk) 09:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
"museum curators, librarians, archivists" work directly on their projects, too. Note also "and similar". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Mike Peel: Which sources make this meet WP:GNG? I'm only seeing research papers (with fairly low numbers of citations) from researchers working on the project. I'm not seeing any independent coverage which would suggest this merits inclusion. SmartSE ( talk) 09:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I've replied on the article talk page with links to media articles. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 10:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Poonch Medical College

Apparent conflict of interest of Kumail with Poonch Medical College. User uploaded this image of a supposed logo of the college under the license of it being his own work. Should this actually be the case, it's a blatant COI, if not, then the image should be deleted (Uncertain if the logo is out-of-date, but this seems to be the up-to-date version. This new image can't qualify for a non-free logo license since one already exists). Hecseur ( talk) 22:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hecseur, challenged the commons logo by tagging with "no evidence of permission" GeneralNotability ( talk) 13:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

IWMbizz

This editor that bears various hallmarks of COI editing, and appears to be largely focused on creating articles on not-quite-notable Pakistani shows and networks, such as Lal Mai, TNI Productions. The articles' generally threadbare nature allows them to usually dodge G11 tagging, but I note that many of the articles that they have worked on include positive statements about the subjects that do not appear to be supported by the cited sources:

  • Nashpati Prime claims that To Be Honest received critical acclaim and its over the top humour, unusual questions and the host's antics and theatrics has made it one of the most watched online shows but cites only this press release that makes no such assertions (reliability aside)
  • Voice Over Man claims that The show's over the top humour, unusual questions and the host's antics and theatrics has made it one of the most watched online shows in the sub continent, and cites only this routine promotional article that contains no such claims.
  • Saat Mulaqatein claims that the show received positive reviews from the critics but cites [21] and [22], which do not support that claim.

Individually, these issues could be written off as mistakes, but collectively they paint a more problematic picture. Although I considered acting unilaterally, I'm bringing this here for further input from other editors. signed, Rosguill talk 20:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Rosguill: At the top of this page (admittedly in a sea of text) is "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue..." Please can you link to such a discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I asked IWMbizz about their username here and they were asked to disclose a COI here. signed, Rosguill talk 22:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I dont have any connection with the mentioned articles. Its just that i found this phrase "received critical acclaim" in most of the wikipidea articles (sourced and unsourced both) and added during my edits too. The phrase "host's antics and theatrics has made it one of the most watched online shows", also mentioned somewhere on web i think non reliable source and from where i added this in Voice Over Man (without linking that unreliable source) and then same wordings i added on Nashpati Prime. I will changed my user name because i dont have any connection with this user name which i earlier clarified on the talk page and if i were one of them i would have linked this website as a source everywhere but i had not done this from the first day till now. TNI Productions has produced Pakistani shows thats why i though to create that article but once it was deleted i accepted to not remade that article and same goes for Lal Mai. IWMbizz ( talk) 18:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Lamar State College–Port Arthur‎

This editor has only edited this article and has ignored a direct question in User Talk about a connection to the subject. WP:OUTING prevents me from offering other evidence but I'm sure that any editor who spends a few seconds investigating the subject and editor will discover strong evidence linking them. ElKevbo ( talk) 17:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing is evident, and two accounts are used. If both users stop, then this can be put to rest. I tagged the article for undisclosed editing which should remain up until the article is cleaned up to read in objectively and dispassionately. Graywalls ( talk)
Adding second account (stale since 2019, but you never know when they can suddenly restart). -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 14:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Suspicious editing

Extremely suspicious editing activity, large numbers of red-linked users with few edits. Draft talk:Crazy Woorld is blatant spam. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I've dealt with Crazy Woorld. As for the three articles, a lot of those editors' contribution histories show that they're trying to get autoconfirmed, but I have no idea why so many of them have picked these specific articles. I'm working my way through their recent histories and blocking the obvious UPEs among them. GeneralNotability ( talk) 01:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what's going on with Baby Phat, but I noticed that the other two articles have "copy edit" tags on them. The copy edit tag makes articles appear on the WP:Community portal, which is shown to new users after they sign up. This means that such articles tend to attract a large volume of edits from brand new users, some of which are constructive, some of which are misguided and some of which are tests/vandalism/spam. See for instance the history of this article which is currently linked on the community portal. [23] I actually avoid using the copy edit tag unless an article is really in dire shape because it's a magnet for newbies and the resulting edits are rarely a net positive. Spicy ( talk) 01:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Cheers, that makes sense as to why I was seeing a lot of overlap between users, I think it's likely Baby Phat was recently on the list. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

privatejetcardcomparisons.com refspam

The post above led me to notice that this non-RS site has been spammed by the site owner Douggollan for years even after they were told not to. I've blocked them but there is a lot of clean up required with 77 links live at the moment. DavidWilliamH also created Doug Gollan which reeks of COI along with Peter Shaindlin. They have a vague note on their talk page alluding to have a COI in relation to Johnny Schuler. SmartSE ( talk) 15:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Blacklisted the domain and I've started removing the refspam. I looked at the various users who have added it, most are sufficiently stale that blocks aren't worthwhile at this time. I also think some users added this domain as good-faith additions. GeneralNotability ( talk) 12:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@ GeneralNotability: Thanks. Yes the COIbot report confirmed most of the links were added by the site owner, but some were added by others. I will hopefully find the time to remove some myself - was on my laptop on Friday and then away over the weekend. SmartSE ( talk) 14:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_162&oldid=978640034"