Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 110

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105←Archive 108Archive 109Archive 110Archive 111Archive 112→Archive 115

Opinions sought on odd sort of COI situation

I have come across an odd situation. An editor has prepared a series of articles, declaring clearly on the talk page of each that there is a COI situation in each of them because of his connection with the organization featured in the articles, but giving detailed reasons why (in his opinion) his articles do not breach the COI standards. He does not state the nature of his COI - it is in fact that his paid job is to publicize the organization to which the articles refer. In my view it could be argued that the articles do not pass standards for WP:NOTABILITY, and are extensively packed with WP:UNDUE material, but that is not my main issue here. One by one this editor has been putting up these articles for WP:GA and WP:FA. They have been passed by editors who stick to the letter of the rules for promoting and have not bothered to consider whether or not the articles meet notability standards; nor have they considered any COI issues. My point is this: is not the seeking of promotion of these articles to FA and GA status a form of unacceptable WP:PROMO? - and should not the editor's acknowledged COI be a bar to seeking to advance these articles to FA and GA status, thereby reflecting some sort of glory on the organization he is paid to promote? I would welcome views on this, and also advice on what (if anything) should be done about it.----Smerus (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Has the editor declared that they are a paid editor, Smerus, or have you discovered that through your own detective work? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Cordless Larry - the editor has himself included, in the 'external links' of one of the articles he wrote, a link to an (online) newspaper article about himself, which centres on his extensive Wikipedia editing activities; it states that he is a paid worker for the organization I refer to and notes that he has specifically written articles concerning the organization. Thus it didn't require any 'detective work' on my part. I would say that he declared himself, albeit indirectly, by including this link. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
In that case, it sounds like they've violated Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. I would report them. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Smerus To be honest, any kind of paid editing requires a straightforward disclosure. Nominating them for GA/FA is not a problem in itself, but due diligence needs to be done. Would it be possible for you to share the articles with the problem? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Another Believer

Following the comment of Lemongirl942 above: -

User:Another Believer has created a large number of WP articles.Some of these deal with the Oregon Symphony. They include: Music for a Time of War, Joseph Schwantner: New Morning for the World; Nicolas Flagello: The Passion of Martin Luther King, Orchestral Works by Tomas Svoboda, Tragic Lovers, Spirit of the American Range and This England (album), all of which are albums recorded by the Oregon Symphony. AB has also contributed extensively to the article Oregon Symphony. These articles, with the exception of 'Spirit of the American Range' and 'Oregon Symphony' contain on their talk pages a statement by AB entitled 'COI' (sample here). This statement includes the words " I have chosen to disclose that I have a personal connection to this subject. I will spare details" and gives a list of criteria according to which, in AB's opinion, he is avoiding COI issues in his creation or writing of the articles. AB has sought to promote these articles (except for 'Oregon Symphony') to GA and FA status, and has been successful. As far as I can see none of the promotion discussions has undertaken any considerations of COI.

I first became aware of the articles on 30 December when AB posted to WP:CLASSICAL to notify his application to nominate This England (album) for FA status. My initial feeling was that the article was not WP:NOTABLE (and I believe that most or all of the articles I have mentioned, except for 'Oregon Symphony', fall into this category, being no-notable and packed with WP:UNDUE material), but that is not the substance of the issue for this page). I made my comments on the FA nomination, including comments on COI, here.

I then discovered that AB includes on his own user page, under his WikiCV, a link to this article from The Oregonian, 11 May 2013, (as note 1 to the page). This article contains the words "You'd never guess his passion for Wikipedia from looking at his day job. Moore, 28, helps raise money for the Oregon Symphony." These presumably are the "details" which he "spared" readers in his own COI summaries. As AB has included this article in his own home page, I trust I cannot be accused of 'outing' him.

I think therefore there are two COI issues to be considered. Has AB breached the existing COI rules? And if he hasn't, is not his advocacy of these articles for FA and GA status (regardless of their quality) also a form of WP:PROMO, and should not COI guidelines be specifically revised to cover FA and GA promotions?

I am notifying AB of this discussion, in accordance with COI noticeboard standards.Smerus (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing Smerus. There is a slight difference between WP:PAID editing and WP:COI editing. In general, any edits for which compensation is given, falls under WP:PAID. This applies to employees/interns in a company if they have to edit Wikipedia as part of their regular employment. In this particular case, I see a WP:COI (which I notice has been mentioned at Talk:This_England_(album)#COI). Whether this falls under WP:PAID is debatable. I'm not sure if AB's employer has asked them to edit the article or if their job involves editing the article. It would be helpful if AB can clarify this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems like there are two things here. First is that if AB has been paid/employed by the organization, that should probably be more explicit (i.e. the community doesn't typically want to be spared that detail :) ). Second, however, is the GA/FA. I don't see any problem at all there. If anything, we should be encouraging paid/COI editors to aim for such standards, which come with a built-in peer review that should catch and problematic promotional content. If the articles look like an ad despite best efforts to shoot for GA/FA, then the problem was with the reviewer(s), not the nominator. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, I understand. As regards the articles themselves, I may or may not challenge them under WP:NOTABLE. The COI issues I leave to the experts to deal with. Thanks, Smerus (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I have copy-edited many of Another Believer's articles as part of the Guild of Copy Editors. When I do copy editing for GA and FA candidates, I always check the formatting of citations, which often involves clicking through to the sources and evaluating notability. I have always found that the subjects of the articles pass WP:GNG. Feel free to ping me on an article's talk page if you have notability concerns about a specific article, and I'll come take another look. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Jonesey95 - For information, I've now nominated This England (album) (as an example) for deletion here.Smerus (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Smerus: Please allow me to explain. "Outing" is not my concern, but I do value privacy. I went with the wording "I have chosen to disclose that I have a personal connection to this subject. I will spare details" because I did not want to make my exact employment location known across multiple Wikipedia talk pages. However, I knew the Oregonian article connected me to the orchestra, and there were many Wikipedia editors who knew me in "real life" and were aware of my affiliation with the organization. I never denied this connection, but I did prefer to maintain some level of privacy. I do not work for the Symphony any longer, but I did for less than 2 years a couple years ago. I created and expanded these articles when I worked for the organization because I thought they were notable, had access to resources, and was interested in the orchestra's history and works. I don't see anything wrong with this, and editors reviewed my work knowing a conflict of interest was present. Maybe they didn't know I was employed by the organization, but I assume they reviewed the articles with a bit more skepticism, which is totally appropriate. I believe my COI note was posted on articles that I worked on while employed by the Symphony, except the Spirit of the American Range article, which does not have a COI note because I was no longer working for the organization. (If anything, I thinking working on Oregon Symphony-related articles after leaving the orchestra shows that I was working on this content for Wikipedia's sake, and not the orchestra's.) I am fine if the talk page templates need to be changed or updated to reflect this information. My intention was never to hide anything, but just to be a bit less revealing about my exact name and current place of employment. Surely this can be understood and forgiven. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry, Lemongirl942, Rhododendrites, and Jonesey95: Pinging everyone else who has contributed to this discussion thus far, just in case. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Another Believer, my primary concern is with whether you breached the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use by failing to disclose that you were employed by the organisation. I'm not an expert on this matter though, and don't know whether being employed as such means you would have been considered a paid editor or not. Lemongirl942 seems to have a better clue about this and could perhaps advise. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: I understand. And if I did something wrong, I do apologize. I was acting in good faith. Were the terms of use disclosure requirements even implemented when I worked on these articles? I don't remember when that change was implemented, and I did not follow that conversation very closely because it was not a primary concern of mine. I hope my above comments help to explain my actions, and again, I am fine if the article talk pages need to be updated to mention this COI/paid work, but I was not trying to circumvent terms of use requirements at the time I posted my COI disclosures. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The addition to the Terms of use was in march 2014: meta:Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment. Regardless, given he admitted COI, has not denied that form of COI, and has now made the connection explicit, what course of action would you be pursuing here (@Larry)? I.e. seems to have been in good faith, all of the information is disclosed at this point, and the articles are receiving some additional scrutiny just in case. We're not talking about a professional paid editor -- just a Wikipedian who remains interested in the organization he used to work for. I'm not sure I see what benefit there is to pushing forward (although this is largely with regard to any action taken on the articles after the terms were added and/or articles he wrote after that point). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Rhododendrites. I wasn't suggesting any course of action before getting to the bottom of things, which it looks like we now have. I agree that it seems that Another Believer has done everything required of them. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the Oregon Symphony recordings, if they charted or were otherwise notable, they can have an article, per WP:MUSIC. Music for a Time of War, which charted, looks like a keep, while This England (album) is at AfD. As to content, this material reads like a concert program, and needs to be trimmed. John Nagle (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Trimmed down Music_for_a_Time_of_War. They had award nominations and the entire orchestra roster in there. John Nagle (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nagle: I disagree with some of your edits, so I posted a note on the article's talk page and invite others to participate in the discussion. I don't want to come across as resisting article changes, but mentioning Grammy nominations and including complete Personnel sections is consistent with other album articles. I guess I just want to make sure other editors find these changes improvements to the article. Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I fixed the deletion of the AllMusic review; that was a reference error problem I introduced. On the other issues, would any uninvolved editor of the classical music persuasion like to comment? Are un-won Grammy award nominations worth a mention? John Nagle (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Not a classical music person, but: As per our notability guidelines for bands, a Grammy nomination is in itself sufficient notability for a musical group to merit an article, the answer is definitely yes - a Grammy nomination is worth mentioning even if the band did not go on to win the trophy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Smerus: Re: "AB has also contributed extensively to the article Oregon Symphony": I'd like to note for the record that I'm not really a major contributor to the Oregon Symphony article (yes, I've made edits, but not major content additions/deletions). I did promote Oregon Symphony discography to Featured list status, however. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: Since no one has commented in a couple days, I am going to stop coming back to this page as often to look for new comments. Please ping me here or on my talk page if needed, otherwise I'll consider this resolved. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Activities of a declared paid advocate

Editor blocked for copyvio by Doc James. Brianhe (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I hope this is the appropriate place to bring this to the attention of better-versed editors. I came across this editor who has declared paid advocacy. There were numerous concerns however, and I feel there may be a WP:CIR competency issue, further complicated by the paid advocacy issue. The concerns are:

- Whilst this user maintains a list of clients, a quick browse of their contributions showed this is woefully updated and accurate. I raised this concern via their talk page and the response I received was the list was updated weekly, and had suffered from a delay - so hadn't even made this outdated 'weekly' update. I would've hoped this page is updated IN ADVANCE. It's not difficult, and really should be done so before any work in embarked upon.
- The articles themselves often lacked a declaration on the talk pages. Is failing to do so on every page a deliberate error? Because they have done so in some places and it's not a difficult element of the paid-advocacy sequence to overlook.
- Some articles were created with a deliberate dismissal of WP:GNG guidelines. Not sure if admins can see history of deleted pages (I CsD'd it and it was duly removed) but this page on i-boating was far short of what we'd expect to pass notability. (this relationship was not declared.) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I-Boating&action=edit&redlink=1
- There's a rather clandestine technique being employed which is worrying me. The obvious goal of conventional paid advocacy is to promote an individual or organisation, often through their own page. There were a few examples I noticed where actually a more roundabout method of promotion was employed, namely inserting a commercial blog as a source in a very mainstream article. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bridesmaid&diff=prev&oldid=757065473 adding a seemingly innocent fact about bridesmaid dresses referenced by a blog post from a dress seller (the client) and similarly on the hoverboard article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hoverboard&diff=prev&oldid=755681801 and hand warmer https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hand_warmer&diff=prev&oldid=757565426

I raised these issues on user's talk page. The reply I received was: thank you for informing me regarding the notability of references. Will take care in future - I feel this is not suitable for someone with such an ulterior motive. Surely we would accept such indiscretions from a genuine new editor finding their feet, but at some point, editors have to cross the line into competency and abide by basic rules such as WP:RS. Someone accepting money for editing should not be breaching these - whether unintentionally or deliberately - either scenario seems unacceptable.

I did sweep up after a number of their edits. I do however perceive this to be an on-going and perpetual problem with this editor unless steps are taken (anything from an outright ban down to a commitment to competency at a very minimum). I don't feel it's my place to engage further than raising my concerns - I have initiated conversation on user's talk page and would like someone to consider and progress this issue in an appropriate manner. Rayman60 (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Also copyright issues. Have blocked indefinitely for the latter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bogus PROD contests by sockpuppet

Heads-up to Doc James who posted this dirty article list in archive 108. Two of these were de-PRODded by his sock, Jean Stair. The list might need a looking over to see what else he has been up to. - Brianhe (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes the agreements that paid editors have is often that the articles need to be kept live for a year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"SEO Friendly Wikipedia Backlinks" ad

From an ad for Wiki Editors United:

I am very experienced with Wikipedia and I have an extremely reputed and trusted account with over 40,000 edits. I am a wikipedia editor and all my links are guaranteed for a minimum of 6 months and they will be on wikipedia. It takes much time and effort to get links on wikipedia, especially links that I guarantee for 6 months.

As you may know it is almost impossible to get links into Wikipedia without an extremely trusted and authoritative site and most links get deleted by moderators the next day! With my reputation, authority, and ability to stay under the radar in Wikipedia I am able to get stable long term links.

I will add a link to your site in Wikipedia, on an existing page related to your subject. I will pick the best page allowing for both a high chance of the link sticking as well as maximizing traffic to your site. There are a lot of moderators and editors watching all the content so everything I do has to be thoroughly planned out.

420 successful links placed. 155 customers and counting. 11 years of experience. 98% stick rate.

[1]

Is this a known paid editing company? John Nagle (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I've come across them before. Will send you an email. SmartSE (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm also interested. 11 years is a long time to go unnoticed (if they did as they say). - Brianhe (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I read this as saying they have 11 years of experience on Wikipedia, not necessarily that they've been running this little commercial enterprise for 11 years. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
That may be correct. Domain creation date: 2015-11-04. First Internet archive copy: 2016-01-17.[2] John Nagle (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@Nagle: This looks like the return of gotwikipedia.com Annoyingly there are no copies of the live site at archive.org, but I'm fairly the site is similar. A quote here is the same as User:JzG noted in that ANI thread "They helped me beat my competitors within a few months!". SmartSE (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Assuming they are giving accurate details, there are about 400 accounts with between 40,000 and 50,000 edits. Fewer will have around 11 years of editing, narrowing down the possibilities. Could those accounts' edits be checked for adding links in say the last year using a script? Fences&Windows 10:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I have added EBY3221 as the account involved here, per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273#gotwikipedia.com, and COIN archive 87 and archive 89. - Brianhe (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Association for Chemoreception Sciences

Association for Chemoreception Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would other editors like to take a look at this, which has twice been moved to draft space (once by me, once by Brianga). I can't comment further because of OTRS confidentiality. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is, but this appears to be an established and legit scientific subject association. Its meetings are announced in multiple [3] scientific[4] journals[5], and papers presented at its conferences appear to be seminal in their field[6]. I'm sure at an AfD discussion there would be editors arguing that it is too niche to be notable, but I certainly don't see any CSD/Prod rationale. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
After I saw the notice here, I took my machete to it and pared it down. It was close to G11. Some sources (especially independent ones) would be nice... --Randykitty (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The version I moved to draft wasn't an article, it was a speedy explanation, and a statement that they wished to develop an article. I don't have any interest in the topic otherwise. Brianga (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. What I saw wasn't what provoked the concern expressed above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ian Adamson (adventure racer)

Editor was warned of COI concerns in September 2016. Brings unquestioned knowledge to the subjects, but in creating articles about himself and his wife, and editing related articles (I especially like referring to himself as an 'icon' at Obstacle racing), conflict of interest is both overt and problematic. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Byronamartin

A COI appears obvious but the user has made no edits since 15 January, when his user page was deleted. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pretty clear COI from the edits and edit summaries he made. Probably harmless, but figured it was worth putting here. He put in a quickie resume on his user page, I placed a G11. Might have been too quick to do that too, but figured he could always recreate it later in a non-COI way if that can be resolved. South Nashua (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

They seem to be editing under a WP:REALNAME and (unless an impostor) the conflict on the American Pie films is 100%. - Brianhe (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tendinopathy

Nothing more to do here, since Jamescool101 has been indef blocked. He may have been promoting a nutraceutical product called Tendoactive. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obviously has a conflict of interest and is trying to insert advertisements into various pages. SuperMarioWikiEditor (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This user has been indeffed for disruptive editing, but as I noted here it wasn't clear if they were really advertising anything to me. SmartSE (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shalby Hospitals

There have been a string of attempts to introduce promotional material onto this page. Mukesh8120 has been involved with doing this and has today revealed a COI, but has also copy-and-pasted an entire version of their suggested version of the article to the talk page. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Lewis Rose

I did some cleanup on this CEO bio written by three SPAs but am giving up. Anybody who wants to take a crack is welcome...

Edited to add: no surprise, Jet411 says here he has had communication with the subject's secretary (his words). - Brianhe (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I did some clean up but there is nothing to suggest he passes WP:GNG so I have taken it to WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Jpbowen

Editor's investigating the notability of the article The Rutherford Journal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rutherford Journal discovered what appeared to be an article written by Jpbowen in the journal. Jpbowen has been very open about their identity both on their user page and in the discussion. However, Jpbowen created the article, before this information seemingly became apparent, and argued heavily at the AFD for the article to be kept. As far as I can tell, Jpbowen did not disclose their relationship to the publication either in terms of WP:COI (and potentially WP:PAID if applicable). It's unlikely that PAID came into this particular case, even as a stakeholder, but it does need to be assessed whether this COI, and the editor's unwillingness to disclose their COI (perhaps including other times), has interfered with the deletion and building a neutral encyclopedia. Mkdwtalk 05:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Note: I have a previously published article in The Rutherford Journal. I believe the publication is notable and not because I have a paper in it. I have not been paid by The Rutherford Journal, this is an academic peer-reviewed and respectable journal. I would argue the journal as notable in any case, as I have for other journals, in good faith. In particular, it has been independently reviewed. Of course I accept the Wikipedia process, but will argue for any article that I believe is a deserving case. I hope this helps. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that clarification. Conflict of interest editing is highly discouraged and it is expected to be disclosed when seeking to affect an article's content. While this is not mandatory, it is considered best practices to do so. Mkdwtalk 05:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

FoCuSandLeArN

Might as well start this now, I guess. FoCuSandLeArN has been community banned for massive undisclosed paid editing. The full scope is unknown. I've started a contribution surveyor analysis at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/FoCuSandLeArN.

Have boldly proposed speedy deletion of Spur Corporation. Call it a test case if you will. - Brianhe (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a more focussed analysis in User:Smartse/notes as well, but I've only scratched the surface of their contribs. Looking through their deleted user contribs is helpful as a lot of their edits were drafted there and then deleted. It might even be worth us undeleting their sandboxes for the benefit of non-admins. SmartSE (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Nice work, Smartse! – even if this does come as an unpleasant surprise and is obviously going to create a ship-load of work. Question: do we yet have community consensus that edits made in violation of the ToU should be deleted or undone? Orangemoody set a precedent there, I think; has that now developed into a consensus? If so, should it become a policy? Ping DGG, who commented on this at ANI.
On the assumption that we do actually want to undo FaL's edits, I've reverted Alcoa and Dow Chemical Company to their state before FaL's massive changes to them. I'd have done the same at Andrew N. Liveris, but saw that Brianhe had started cleaning up there. I suggest reverting, without hesitation, to this version; would that be OK with you, Brian?
Essentially I'm suggesting treating these unacceptable edits in exactly the way we would if they were copyright violations and we were working through a CCI. Which raises this question: should edits that violate the ToU be rev-deleted? Because if they aren't, what's to stop someone, even an IP someone, from just restoring them? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
we do not routinely rev del copyvio, tho we do if the copyright holder asks us to. As for preventing their restoration, semi-protection almost always works nicely in both situations . DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Rollback is perfectly fine with me. I'll do the necessary if there's anything constructive I added at Andrew N. Liveris that needs to be reapplied (I don't remember any). By the way concerning the Spur Corporation test case to your question about policy on reverting. It has been deleted under WP:G5 per my proposal by RickinBaltimore (and redirected to another article, which confused me at first). So I think that helps to bolster the concept that FaL's contribs don't need to be treated with tender care. - Brianhe (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
So are you suggesting there's no possibility that some of the content added was reliability-sourced neutral-point-of-view content that actually improved the article? If it's possible there is good content there, we shouldn't bite off our nose to spite our face. Is there any precedent for this? –xenotalk 18:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing your concerns here, xeno. The only precedents that I personally am aware of are (1) the Orangemoody case, when 300 (?) articles were deleted and (2) this recent action by Mkdw. As for some of the content being worthwhile, yes, of course that is possible or even likely (but please note, our Terms of Use don't say " … unless of course your edits are helpful, in which case undeclared paid editing is OK"). But who is going to review that for more than 3000 articles? Wouldn't it be preferable to revert to the status quo ante, and then let each page develop from there? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Everything requires a case-by-case evaluation. In the few cases where I have recommended TNT, the following as applied:
  • Significant sock puppetry was used to willfully violate our policies and guidelines.
  • The sock farm created and authored (in their entirety) the articles.
  • The articles in question were borderline WP:G11 and clearly violated WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:PROMO
  • Some of the articles clearly did not meet our notability guidelines
This ANI was an instance where the community widely supported TNT in regards to the articles created by another significant sock farm. Mkdw talk 23:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the issue of PAID editing and what to do with PAID contributions is heavily debated. There's currently a discussion going on about it User talk:Jimbo Wales such as this suggestion and reply from Jimbo. Way back when immediately following the Orangemoody case, the Signpost highlighted the calls for community comments at User:Doc James/Paid editing. Deleting articles from undisclosed paid editors was widely discussed there as well. Mkdw talk 23:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The Blanch Law Firm

This editor created the article today. Misleadingly, they posted the {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} template on the article talkpage. Article history shows it was created in mainspace. I assume this template is an attempt at dissuading any question as to the topic's notability- an incurious editor may just assume it has been independently reviewed. No answer yet to my question on that. This has all the hallmarks of a paid editor- and an experienced one, seeing as how professional their opening few edits were. Also, given the speed with which they made all their pages blue-linked, it's probably a paid editor which creates throw-away accounts for each article created. Socking, of course, is for elsewhere. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 18:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Should have mentioned this at the time, but nominated at AfD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: no worries, !voted there already. Cheers for the the reply though. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 05:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

SelectorA

User:SelectorA stated here that he/she works for VP Records. I left a caution here on this user's talk page cautioning about a conflict of interest. This user did not respond, and has continued to edit and create articles for musicians employed by VP Records, such as Raging Fyah. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added {{connected contributor (paid)}} to both articles' talk pages, so that the user's connection is at least openly disclosed. --Drm310 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy page edits

I am an employee of the U.S. Department of Energy and want to make some page revisions because the page is out of date. I would also like to follow the Wikipedia guidelines so I would like someone to review this and/or post the revisions. The current page is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Energy_Efficiency_and_Renewable_Energy and the edits are in the sandbox at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ch2017/sandbox.

Thank you.

CH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ch2017 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ch2017: Thanks for your openness, the notice on your user page, and most importantly your willingness to follow our rules. You might add to your declaration on your user page "I will not be editing Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy or related pages directly, but will post editing suggestions on those article's talk pages" and then place a link such as the one above at Talk:Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Hope this helps and thanks again. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Smallbones. --CH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ch2017 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Giles Lamb

User has edited the page Giles Lamb adding largely promotional material on the 16 December. Today (12 January) an anon IP edited the page with the edit summary "deleted Scottish as I am English!!". Karst (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You've got a typo in the username, here is the correct one:
— Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Joe Hubbard

The account Virtussolutions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to represent virtussolutions.com ("We are the guys that build your online presence"). The account is editing at Joe Hubbard. Edgeweyes (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed the campaign positions as unsourced per BLP. The remainder of the information seems sourced to WP:RS and doesn't seem to violate WP:NPOV unless I feel really picky. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Note that the account has been renamed to Ahs2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SmartSE (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Michael8564

This user made only 10 edits, including creating three articles in January 2009 that only link to each other. Then he stopped editing. The articles are therefore pretty old, but I'm concerned they might not meet notability requirements. I've trimmed the two biographies a bit. I only accidentally ran into this user's edit history, and am just reporting these three articles in case someone feels any of them should go to AfD (I don't use Twinkle so I'm not a quick AfD filer). Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Gavcnet

This user has edited only on this page, which has the hallmarks of paid editing. Although the user denies that any paid editing is involved, I don't believe that to be true. I do not wish to post anything that runs afoul of WP:OUTING, but it's extremely easy to determine that the editor has a conflict. agtx 19:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd consider the creator of the company creating the article to be a massive conflict of interest, though I don't think it's the normal type of paid editing ;) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Manulife

User "Manulife1" is probably a violation of user name policy.

User "Fastboy18" is an SPA who has reverted removal of promotional material without explanation. I left a COI notice on his talk page.

We have trouble with COI on the Manulife article in the past. Could use more eyes on this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Added the CEO and and another SPA at that article. SmartSE (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
There is definitely some kind of COI here, although it seems the editor doesn't want to declare it. I have trimmed the articles a bit and added it to my watchlist. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

User:The Christopher

An interesting case in that they are using refs to a statement by an impressively sounding organization "th American Society of General Surgeons" that when one looks at the organization there is little substance to it.

Have blocked for copyright issues. Nearly all their edits are promotional. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

PlikoraT sockfarm, formerly known as DrankJetter sockfarm

DrankJetter was discussed here, see archive 107. They were recently rolled up into an even bigger sockfarm at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PlikoraT which is at 91 socks. An OrangeMoody connection was suspected but I can't tell if it was confirmed. Brianhe (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Bobfelicce82

This user has worked with the subject at Venda, details provided on article talk page. The user has failed to engage any editors and continues to revert changes and change the article into a PR piece. 185.62.86.10 (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that this user and three others were indeffed per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Startupnation. The COI editing of this and other related articles has gone on for >10 years: Special:Contributions/1danw. SmartSE (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Peking University First Hospital

I'm a student of this state-knowned teaching hospital and get no paid from it. I hope to create the article to introduce the hospital using published sources,such as news in the mainstream Internet media, and this is totally out of my volunteerism. What should I do to get through the COI issues? I'm looking forward to your advices.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradtido (talk • contribs)

@Bradtido: Thanks for asking. Your conflict of interest is minimal, but it isn't so easy to write your first article. If you follow the advice at WP:FIRST and submit a draft to articles for creation it'll make it much more likely for your article to be accepted. I'd also suggest to start small and build it from there. Good luck! SmartSE (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

GISMA Business School

Hello everyone, I would like to invite the WP community to help improve the quality of the GISMA Business School article. I have a conflict of interest with the institution as I am employed by the holding company that owns the school (Global University Systems) and therefore can’t make edits directly to the article. Nevertheless, I’d like to invite volunteer editors with some time to spare to look into the sources and the info I’ve put together to see if we can expand and improve this article. I’ve declared my COI on Talk: GISMA Business School and on my user page and I am fully committed to following the Wikipedia's COI editing guidelines. If anyone has any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks! - BrandDude (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

K-Beauty

The above were added in ten minutes by Alpes88 (talk · contribs), an account created for this purpose. Charlotte Cho is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/September 2016 but I think that means someone thought the subject might warrant an article and coincidentally the red link was turned blue when these articles were created. Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Kavdiamanju

See the Current case at ANI regarding this editor. As I've just pointed out there is no way that their denial stands up. Plenty of articles to check. SmartSE (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible COI editng at Víctor M. Marroquín

I was wondering if some editors familiar with dealing with COI stuff would mind taking a look at the article or possibly commenting at Talk:Víctor M. Marroquín#Conflict of interest?, The article has been heavily edited by various IPs, including some of which may have a connection to the subject of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Abasiono1

Came across this account when looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Topnespressomachine. This account created Special:Undelete/Makaih Beats, a website that was spammed by said sockfarm. Clearly a UPA sock, but of who? MER-C 08:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@MER-C: There is a mistake somewhere, this account is not an affiliate of any account. Abasiono1 (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Abasiono1: you have been creating many articles in he last week which I've listed above. They seem to have some hallmarks of articles written on contract. I'll just ask: were you in fact hired to do these? There are some simple disclosure procedures that, once followed, allow paid editors to continue. Thanks.- Brianhe (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: The only unblocked account I noticed was Researchlegend (talk · contribs · count), a very old account, and I had mixed feelings about blocking, so I didn't. I'm more reluctant to block based purely on technical relatedness if there's been no evidence presented at an SPI by editors who are usually more familiar with the behavioral commonalities than I am. You're more than welcome to block the account, though, as well as any other accounts you think I missed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Dinanath Bhaskar

Vidhansabhaaurai claims to be representing the Indian government and Bhaskar in editing this page, per his edit summaries. User also made a legal threat in one edit summary. Then arrives Adbhaskar, the creator of the article, to make the same edits. This clearly looks like manipulation of the article by related parties. —C.Fred (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked - socking. - Sitush (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Cohler

Yesterday I added {{Connected contributor}} to the talk page and tagged the article for lack of references for many of the assertions made, and the fact that it is written like a press release. This article needs more eyes. It is an autobiography created by User Cohler, declaration here. It was subsequently edited by his sock, Classmusic (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cohler/Archive). Both accounts were indef blocked in 2011. Cohler was unblocked yesterday after this discussion. However while he was still blocked, the article has been edited by several SPA IPs. Note especially this edit [7] on 28 December by 173.76.107.110 and this discussion on Commons two days later and a further continuation of the photo saga here. His first edit after unblocking was to archive the discussions on Talk:Jonathan Cohler [8] concerning the problems with the article before he was blocked in 2011. The subject has been complaining on the talk page today about the maintenance tags and proposing that they be notified of any changes to the article before they are made. I would appreciate if other editors could take a look and give an opinion. Voceditenore (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I would also appreciate if other editors would take a look at the discussion. This page is about me. And I believe that User:Voceditenore is once again biting the newcomer. For the record, I never proposed that I be "notified of any changes to the article before they are made". That is simply a false statement along with several other misleading and unsupported claims made by User:Voceditenore on the page to which I have responded. As you can see at Talk:Jonathan Cohler, my exact statement was "As this page is part of WP:BLP and I am the subject of the article, I would appreciate the courtesy of notification here on the Talk page, and an opportunity to respond, before wholesale changes are made to long standing information on a page that is supposed to be reflective of my biography" (emphasis added) in line with WP:BLP which states, "Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern". User:Voceditenore has continued to violate this policy in my opinion. I also believe that User:Voceditenore's continued behavior toward me, and failing to respond to any of my queries with specific instances just blanket negative statements is clear evidence that she has a WP:COI. Furthermore, WP:BLP notes that "Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest" so I would request that given our documented dispute from six years ago, and given Voceditnore's immediate and sudden reappearance on the scene following my unblocking two days ago, it is clear that Voceditnore has a conflict of interest. I would request that Voceditenore be blocked from further editing of the page and that other editors come and take an objective look at the material to help improve it. --TheClarinetGuy talk 11:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Note User:Yamla unblocked me here on January 8. And immediately here on January 9 User:Voceditenore began to make edits, after a more than four-year hiatus from editing the page, including blanking of long standing, unchallenged, properly sourced information to which she had previously voiced no objection. Also, without contacting me, and without posting any discussion to the talk page in total disregard of WP:AGF, she started to make accusations, innuendo and false claims to Yamla for unblocking me here. Her last minor edit before the blanking was on December 13, 2012 here and she made a spate of substantive edits on October 5 and 6, 2011 here, here, and here in conjunction with User:Almost-instinct who, back on October 4, 2011, specifically edited all the references that Voceditenore now suddenly blanks. I had forewarned Yamla that I was concerned about being descended upon here where I stated " If you read my previous responses to the various administrators who descended upon me, for lack of a better term, you will see that I never put anything on the page that was untrue, malicious, or inaccurate, indeed, I supplied most of the information that is there" and I asked Yamla the best way to indicate my COI where I stated, "(btw what is the best way to make that indication? Or is it obvious if the user name is 'Cohler'?)" to which Yamla replied "I'd suggest (I'm subject of this article) " and that's exactly what I did. Despite that, and in clear retaliation for asking her some questions on the talk page, Voceditenore immediately descended, failed to give specific answers to my questions, listed me on the COI Noticeboard, added flags to the talk page etc... That's what I call biting the newcomer. Totally inappropriate, and totally a COI.
I would like to state once more for the record that I have no interest in making this page anything other than the best possible, most Encylopedic, most accurate, and excellent Wikipedia page according to all the standards and policies of the organization, and I have never done anything to damage the page in any way. Indeed, essentially all of the content, as opposed to the form, that is there now comes from my effort. Several editors have contributed significantly to improving the form of the content, of course. Voceditenore did improve some formatting of the discography and a few other small things, but other than that her efforts have been almost exclusively focused on attacking me. Clearly, she has a conflict of interest and should be blocked from editing the page. --TheClarinetGuy talk 14:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, my appearance on the scene is not sudden, Cohler. I have had Jonathan Cohler on my watchlist since it was created by you in 2008. Recently an IP added your photograph (subsequently deleted as a copyright violation on Commons [9]) to the article. In the process, I went back to take a closer look and it still had a lot of problems. I worked on the article and added the maintenance tags on January 9, before you asked any questions on the talk page this morning [10]. I suggest you strike the "retaliation" accusation. Secondly, I carefully answered each of your questions on the talk page. You simply didn't like the answers. Thirdly, the fact that I have tagged the article for improvement because it needs much better referencing and reads like a résumé/press release hardly qualifies as "significant controversy", let alone does it make me an "avowed rival" of yours, although from your behaviour to another editor who also attempted to clean up the original, you seem to think that anyone who opposes your attempts to control the article's contents qualifies as such. Fourthly, you are not a newcomer. You created this autobiography in 2008 and since then have edited no other article apart from adding material about yourself to Longy School of Music and Boston Conservatory [11], [12] and two links to the record company which you own to Ilya Kaler [13]. You strongly opposed all attempts to clean up the article in 2011 here and here, created another account (User:Classmusic) to remove the maintenance tags from Jonathan Cohler [14], rejected my advice about editing with two accounts [15], and were indefinitely blocked along with User:Classmusic four days later after this sockpupuppet investigation. Since your unblocking two days ago, you have still edited nothing except the article about you, and I think you have a still have a serious misunderstanding of both Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:BLPSOURCES. I look forward to other editors taking a look at the article and dealing with the walls of text you continue to post on Talk:Jonathan Cohler. Voceditenore (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I am indeed not going into the walls of text dropped on the Cohler talk page, except to say that if independent reliable sources cannot be added pronto for all the unsourced statements in that article, then somebody should take a machete and cut all the unsourced cruft. Cohler, the fact that Voci is trying to correct edits you made in your autobiography does not mean that they have a conflict of interest, so please stop adding that to the template on the talk page. Voci will most certainly not be "blocked from editing the page", but you yourself should tread very carefully because I'm on the verge of blocking you from editing as somebody who clearly is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks for listening. --Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Randykitty can you please give me an example of even one thing that is unsourced that requires sourcing according to Wikipedia's normal standards? i.e. has been challenged or seems like an extraordinary claim, or is not backed up by any evidence. I asked this question and have received no answer. So far neither from you, nor from User:Voceditenore. --TheClarinetGuy talk 15:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
"Even one thing"?? There are several references in the article tagged with "failed verification" templates. Most claims in the "career" section do not even have such deficient "references" and are completely unsourced. --Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
All "failed verifications" have been addressed. The statement that most claims in the career section were unsourced is false, but in any case, I have added many more secondary source citations now. Certainly, if anything, the article is over-sourced at this point. As Voceditenore seemed to indicate, the issue at this point is not the sourcing but the writing style. Also, there is no puffery or advertising style claims. Just simple statements of fact about my career. I hope you will agree, and if not, I hope you will give me specific examples that I can address to your satisfaction. --TheClarinetGuy talk 22:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Voceditenore The retaliation accusation refers to the fact that you said here at 19:28, 9 January "I'll monitor it as well". Then when you responded to my talk page questions here at 06:53, 10 January, you wrote "I am now going to list this article at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard to get further feedback on this." So yes, it was explicitly in response to and therefore, in my view, retaliation for the questions I asked appropriately on the talk page. The retaliation was not in reference to the adding of the maintenance tags. I asked questions about the maintenance tags on the talk page and you responded by retaliating. Clearly. Further, none of your answers gave any specifics. You made blanket statements. You did not give specific examples. I have not been on Wikipedia for years. I was unblocked two days ago. So yes, I am a newcomer. And I was a newcomer the last time you attacked me. I haven't added anything to the page since being unblocked two days ago other than one or two references, and I noted my COI on both those references. --TheClarinetGuy talk 15:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Cohler, bringing your dispute here for a fresh set of eyes and opinions is hardly retaliation. I would have thought you'd welcome that since you seem quite convinced that I have the wrong end of the stick. And no, pointing out problems with your edits and the article itself, are not "attacking" you. In any case, the last go-around (albeit with your sockpuppet) was in 2011, three years after you created the article. So please quit with the "biting the newcomer" accusations. I'm not going to respond to this nonsense any further. Voceditenore (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I have no previous involvement with this case, but will comment that, in my opinion, if any editor claims that another editor is biting the newcomer, the allegation is almost always at best nonsense and may be malicious. If one has been editing Wikipedia long enough to be familiar with that far-too-often-quoted guideline, one is no longer a newcomer. In this case, the real question is whether to take this case to either WP:ANI or WP:ARC for the purpose of a Site Ban. I don't have an opinion on that, but I do have an opinion that user Voceditenore has acted reasonably in coming here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I also have no previous involvement with this case. I am amused by the catch22 element in saying that if you know to invoke "biting the newcomer" you are demonstrating you are NOT a newcomer! But while amused I would support the point. While, in chronology I am NOT a newcomer, (while reckoning I still have LOTS to learn) I had not myself heard of " biting the newcomer ' until now, and so find it plausable that no true newcomer would know of it. Daithidebarra (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


I have participated in the discussions on Talk:Jonathan Cohler, so I think that by now I am at least somewhat involved, so I won't act as an admin here. However, I think that by now it is clear that Cohler is not here to improve the encyclopedia. They continue to wikilawyer and drop huge walls of text on that talk page, wearing down the other editors there that try tpo make an encyclopedic article out of this resume. They only edit their autobio, Jonathan Cohler and its talk page (ignoring a few related edits to other pages and this noticeboard) and this since 2008. I think an indef block is in order here, or at the very least a topic ban (but given their limited editing interests, that basically boils down to an indef block, too). As for the biting accusation, I agree completely with Robert McClenon: somebody wikilawyering about whether some reference is primary or secondary is not a newby. --Randykitty (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

While I agree with User:Randykitty and User:Voceditenore, my argument is a little different than theirs. My argument is that the guideline do not bite the newcomers should never be made by the subject, but only by a third party. That is, I could ask Voceditnore or Randykitty not to bite a newbie, or they could ask me not to bite a newbie, knowing that all of us are experienced editors. However, any editor who cites that guideline in their own defense has enough knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines that it is disingenuous for them to claim to be a newbie or entitled to its benefit. Now, who, anyway, are the conflict of interest editors? I see multiple unfamiliar editors floating around in this thread. If the same editors are said to be using multiple user names, that should not be reported here, but at WP:SPI. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Robert, the two editors at the top of this listing, Cohler (talk · contribs) and Classmusic (talk · contribs) were already confirmed by a checkuser as the same person back in 2011 and were both indefinitely blocked. The User:Classmusic account remains blocked. The User:Cohler account was recently unblocked. I listed both here because they are the names I listed in the {{connected contributor}} notice on Talk:Jonathan Cohler. There had been significant editing of the article under both accounts up to 2011. "TheClarinetGuy" is simply the new signature of User:Cohler. It is not a different account. Right up to Cohler's unblock there was also significant editing of the article by SPA IPs, as I outlined above, but they seem to have stopped editing it now. There probably isn't anything useful to be gained by starting a new SPI for the IP at this point. Voceditenore (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
First, if I misinterpreted WP:BITE, I am sorry and apologize. I read it for the first time a few days ago when I was "descended upon" by multiple admins almost immediately after being unblocked by User:Yamla. I was new to Wikipedia after having been off of it for 5 years. And the amount of time I spent on it in 2011 and in 2006 or 2008 when I first created an account was minimal. I still consider myself a newbie, especially when compared with all of the individuals who descended upon me and cited various policies, which I dutifully went and read (and is where I came across the policy in question). I am learning rapidly. However, if you don't consider me a newbie for purposes of that policy, then fine, I withdraw the accusation. In any case, the argument that an individual who uses the policy must be doing so in bad faith simply because he knows or has read the policy, is an absurd Catch 22. Do you truly think it is reasonable to argue that anyone who mentions the policy about themselves is of necessity doing so in bad faith? And wikilawyering (a policy I just learned of from Randkitty's reference here) is most certainly not what I am doing or have done anywhere. All of my discussions on the talk page are professional, factual, and completely to the point. --TheClarinetGuy talk 16:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note, Cohler has taken it upon himself to archive large chunks of discussions on Talk:Jonathan Cohler today. I un-archived one of them concerning the primary sources issue because he did not archive the edit request to remove the tag which was declined by another editor as "A consensus could not be reached" and his subsequent dispute of that decision. He also archived the discussion concerning a record company which I had removed from the infobox and then today made a new edit request to re-add it. In my view, given his conflict of interest, he should not be archiving the page and leave that to other editors. The record company is a case in point. He didn't like the previous answer I gave, archived it, and then brought it up again devoid of the previous context. That is misleading to other editors participating on the talk page. Randykitty and Lemongirl942, perhaps you can weigh in there? Voceditenore (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • As before, I recommend that this editor be blocked or at least topic banned from this page. Meanwhile, I have requested that they restore the talk page (some discussion archived had been "dormant" since yesterday... I have set up automated archiving after 6 months by MiszaBot (and given the walls of text that Cohler keeps plastering on that talk page, that's not an unnecessary luxury... --Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Randykitty, I'm beginning to think that something has to be done. I've been on Wikipedia for over ten years and have dealt with scores of COI editors, many of them in the classical music sector, and I have never come across anything like this. Every single edit which changes his preferred version is queried on the talk page. When given an explanation, he disputes the explanation at length. He makes lengthy edit requests and then disputes at length when they are rejected or only partially carried out. When given a further explanation, he disputes that at length. The archiving incident today takes the cake. If he weren't editing his own autobiography, he'd be in clear violation of PAYTALK. Since he was unblocked 10 days ago, 90,000 bytes have been added to the talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Voceditenore: This statement that "Every single edit which changes his preferred version is queried on the talk page" is patently false and unprofessional. I have not challenged every change. Indeed, I have thanked you and and other editors for several changes that have been made. I did question sudden blanking of long-standing material on the page by an editor that had to-date never been involved in the page. That is an absolutely appropriate use of the talk page.
I don't know why you continue to make these repeated false claims about me. Furthermore, my queries on the page are simply that, queries. That's what talk pages are for. I realize that you would prefer to dictate what goes or doesn't go on the page as you have done in your several insulting and degrading missives directed at me, which I have ignored, but the fact is that I have been cooperatively editing and using the talk page appropriately. The so-called "archiving incident" that you refer to derisively here was simply a matter of following Wikipedia policy. WP:TALKCOND states "As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions."
The items I archived were all resolved issues. Indeed, every one of them was a discussion that I started, it was answered by multiple editors. All the issues raised at the time were addressed. No further discussion was occurring by you or anyone else. My understanding is that all of those discussions were closed. Indeed, despite your protestations here, you apparently agree as you only unarchived one of the several discussions, and while I disagree with your decision, I let it stand and indicated so on the talk page. What you fail to mention in your clearly unbalanced and biased representation here is that virtually all of those 90,000 bytes added by me have been in the form of secondary source citations to support factual statements on the page. These have greatly enhanced the quality of the page. You fail to mention that. Facts matter. Please be fair and honest. Please spend less time on procedural intrigue and more on substance. --TheClarinetGuy talk 20:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Randykitty: you misrepresent the facts here through omission of the true nature of the archived conversations. The conversations that you represent as being "dormant" since "yesterday" were here and here, for example. One was a question that I specifically asked of Voceditenore, she answered and I agreed, so it was a closed issue. The second was a requested edit that she implemented and I agreed with her change, so that was a closed issue as well. I would appreciate it if you would stop making blanket, unsupported, and fundamentally untrue claims using such derogatory and non-specific accusations as "walls of text that Cohler keeps plastering on that talk page". If you read my posts on the talk page, you will find that they are all relevant, factual, professional, courteous, and totally to the point. I hope to receive the same courteous treatment from you. --TheClarinetGuy talk 23:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry for my late reply Voceditenore. I had to step away from that article because it was literally a timesink. I added a primary sources tag to the article which led to this huge wall of text. What I personally did not like was the combative attitude along with the long walls of text and a refusal to listen to community consensus. This is one of the reasons why COI is discouraged - sometime an editor with a COI may not be able to recognise the bias and keep insisting that they are right. I am also not satisfied with the recent edits such as this, which are essentially promoting a record company. I initially did not want to support the ban as I feel people should be given chances. But looking at Cohler's responses below, I am not encouraged and might end up supporting the ban. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Cohler from editing Jonathan Cohler

Near unanimous consensus is that User:Cohler is topic banned indefinately from editing about Jonathan Cohler. They may request that this ban be lifted in a year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Given the above discussion and the behavior on Talk:Jonathan Cohler, I think that a ban from editing his autobiography is in order. Support, as proposer. --Randykitty (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose as the subject. Anyone, who dispassionately reads the talk page and views the edits I have made can clearly see that this is totally unwarranted and based on nothing but exaggerations, falsehoods, and summary judgement without consideration of the facts. As mentioned above, virtually all of my edits to the page have been to add secondary sources as requested. Furthermore, my queries were all legitimate queries that were for the most part resolved in short order. I have only been editing on WP for the last week or two since I was reinstated after all. And there have been very few edits (and for the most part small ones) by other editors. I did raise questions when a new editor to the page blanked some long standing information. But those questions were resolved as well. Furthermore, I have requested and received several edits made by other editors on the page. --TheClarinetGuy talk 20:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Contrary to the unsubstantiated blanket derogatory comments made by several editors here, I have in fact been editing other pages on Wikipedia and intend to do so further if I am not chased away by these types of totally false and unsubstantiated attacks by editors here who have contributed essentially nothing to the article in question. --TheClarinetGuy talk 18:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
That is absolutely correct! Within a few hours of this proposal being posted, you started contributing to other articles! (And get me right, those contributions are welcome, but it would have been nice if you'd started with that, instead of with your own bio). As for all your comments here, they save other editors time, because instead of wading through Talk:Jonathan Cohler, you are demonstrating the problems with your editing quite aptly here... --Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
More generic derogatory statements. So by your logic, responding to false, unsubstantiated blanket statements about me proves that the false, unsubstantiated statements are true? Not logical at all. And so what if I started editing other pages in the last day or two? I have only been on WP since being reinstated for less than two weeks. During which time I have added dozens and dozens of secondary sources to the article as was requested by other editors, and at the same time I have been inundated by unsubstantiated attacks initiated by you and others here and elsewhere. To use your words, you are the sole cause of these "walls" of copy. I am a full time musician and have little time to spend here, but I won't sit by idly while you promulgate falsehoods about me. Despite that, there is no policy against editing your own bio. I did so with the full knowledge and consent of User:Yamla who reinstated me, and I have indicated that I am the subject on each and every one of those edits. None of my page edits have been reverted. I have requested edits from other editors that they have implemented. I have asked some questions on the talk page. That's what talk pages are for. All you do here is make unsubstantiated, false, and derogatory accusations about my intent, about me not being here to improve WP, etc... Simply a smear campaign without a shred of specific evidence or support. Please stop your attacks and allow those of us who are actually dedicated to improving the page continue our work on the page. I might add some of the changes I have made to other pages have already received thanks. The only reason you are complaining here is because you would like WP:COI to be different from what it is. The fact is that it allows disclosed COI editing that is neither meant to damage nor actually damages (but in fact improves) the page. The undisputed and indisputable fact is that the page has improved immensely from my editing of it over the past 10 days or so. --TheClarinetGuy talk 18:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Just for the fun of it, I have made a count of your edits. There's a total of 264. 13 were made in the last 24 hours to other articles. There are 9 older edits (2006-2011) to other articles (4 of which to add links to your bio or your label). There are 4 edits related to your bio to WikiProjects, 2 related edits to somebody else's talk page, and 7 edits to your own talk and user pages (all related to your autobio). That's about 18 edits out of 264 (less than 7%) that are not related to your autobio. Perhaps I missed something, but even if I were of by a factor 2, you'd still have over 87% of all your edits related to your autobio. --Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes and again, so what? That proves absolutely nothing other than corroborating what I stated above and you must not have read. --TheClarinetGuy talk 18:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I have already received public thanks from other editors for my edits and I have only been reinstated for less than two weeks. --TheClarinetGuy talk 18:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Randykitty: and all the other editors here jumping on the bandwagon here should read WP:COI#Making uncontroversial edits which states, "Editors who have a general conflict of interest may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits". That's all I have done. --TheClarinetGuy talk 19:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: Could you give me even one specific example of a change I have made on the page since being unblocked that you consider "profoundly disruptive" and simply "promotion"? If you actually taken the time to look, you would see that the work I have done since being reinstated has been in adding secondary sources, fixing formatting according to standards that User:Voceditenore has been using, implementing some changes suggested by other editors, and making requests for other edits that have been implemented by other editors. Nothing I have done on the content of the page has been reverted to date. I think you have hastily jumped to a conclusion here. Perhaps you will reconsider after actually looking at the history. I do hope that User:Yamla will come take a look as well, as he will find that I have completely adhered to our agreement of his unblock and I have made no controversial edits to the page, and I have listed myself as the subject on every edit I have done. I most certainly am not here to disrupt anything, and the simple incontrovertible fact is that the page has vastly improved significantly due to my contributions, as any objective viewer can see by viewing the diffs. And I might add none has complained about a single "destructive" edit. All the complaints are simply that I have asked some questions on the talk page, which is precisely what the talk page is for. --TheClarinetGuy talk 02:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
His editing behavior can be summed up in all the sections of WP:DE and much of WP:TE (which is a correlate to WP:DE). It can be seen in the middle sections of the talk page that he justifies his actions through wikilawyering. This adds up to a very focused attempt to use Wikipedia as a platform for self promotion and commercial promotion in his autobiographical article Jonathan Cohler.
This why COI editing is strongly discouraged, which by the way, Cohler has noted, but he also noted that it is not prohibited. I think an idef ban on editing this article is appropriate because this is draining experienced editors valuable time. All the editors mentioned in my commentary are highly experienced and productive editors with numbers of years and thousands of edits behind them. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
You don't cite a single specific example of anything. Just blanket accusations with no support of any kind. Very unprofessional. I encourage you to read the policies that you cite and provide specific examples of anything you claim to be talking about. --TheClarinetGuy talk 17:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
As expected you do not provide even a single example of WP:Tendentious editing or any other of your baseless claims. By the way, the talk page is for talk. The editing happens on the page. Please refrain from these blanket condemnations made without even a single piece of specific evidence. It is very unprofessional and not conducive to the community environment that Wikipedia espouses. --TheClarinetGuy talk 18:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I cited the entire talk page [16] which has many, many examples of tendentious editing and disruptive behavior which drains experienced and productive editors' time and energy. Experienced editors and Admins will easily recognize it. There is also the page Cohler archived as soon as Cohler was unblocked for more examples [17].
Then there was the unhelpful and argumentative back and forth with Elcobbola on Commons, which started with this [18], and a continued here [19] just prior to being unblocked [20]. In the second Commmons discussion endless wikilawyering can be seen trying to get around Elcobbola's suggestions for fulfilling OTRS requirements. Finally, after intense rounds of argumentation, Cohler (not yet unblocked) acquiesces and fulfills the OTRS requirements (see bottom of page).
Yet, here the image is downloaded on the Jonathan Cohler article page, before discussion for unblocking takes place. In other words, 10 or 11 days prior to the unblock request (due to sockpupettry in 2011 [21]) it appears an IP added the image that was finally authorized by the Commons OTRS discussion. This is a single purpose IP account, as can be seen here [22], with several other edits to the Johnathan Cohler article page. The aggregate of these editing behaviors more than aptly demonstrates WP:NOTHERE ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Steve Quinn: As is so often the case with individuals caught in indefensible positions and blatant misrepresentation, you have chosen to change the subject here and introduce new and irrelevant misrepresentations. This was a discussion about an editing ban on Jonathan Cohler due to alleged violations of WP:COI fyi. You have continued your generic smear campaign here without presentation of a single specific fact indicating a violation of any policy. You start here by claiming you "cited the entire talk page". Precisely, so you admit you have not cited a single fact. You have just created yet another general smear here aimed at swaying editors here who are unwilling to get "into the weeds". This entire discussion here is a misuse of the noticeboard according to WP:Dispute resolution requests/Noticeboards#Conflict of interest which notes "Editors who have a connection to the subject fully comply with the conflicts of interest guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines." I note there have been no significant or extended disputes on the page, no edit warring, no triple reverts (indeed no reverts), and quite the contrary, editors on the page have implemented more than one of my proposed edits here, here, and here and none of my edits have been controversial. This entire episode seems to have been generated when I archived part of the talk page, active editor Voceditenore unarchived one of the many discussions archived, and then User:Randykitty, who is not an active editor on the page, demanded that the entire archive be reverted which I did immediately. None of this had anything to do with actual edits to page but rather the talk page. Indeed, all of the discussions I archived were and are dormant, were started by me, and I had already agreed either tacitly or explicitly with the expressed consensus. My understanding of WP policy on archiving may or may not have been mistaken, but in any case, I immediately complied with the wishes of both Voceditenore and Randykitty.
While the following is completely off topic, since you raised it, I must correct your multiple mischaracterizations here. You claim that on Wikimedia Commons, I "can be seen trying to get around Elcobbola's suggestions for fulfilling OTRS requirements." This is plainly false. The fact and the truth for anyone who actually reads the exchange is that Elcobbola's deletion nomination was based on his adamant lack of understanding of US copyright law, was opposed by three other admins who opposed and admonished Elcobbola on the page for his improper tone and his misunderstanding of the law here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, and my position was finally upheld and the image in question was not deleted. Indeed, there was only one post by Jameslwoodward supporting Elcobbola's position, and he never later responded to the many refutations of his arguments. Despite the clear consensus, and the fact that Elcobbola was incorrect in is statements about copyright law, he insisted that I produce a written contract with the photographer. I did not do so. In an attempt to bring Elcobbola's misguided actions to a conclusion, I provided an email from the photographer at OTRS ticket #2017010410014391 that simply agrees with the fact that the photo was work for hire. Elcobbola then proceeded to act as judge and jury on the nomination page in which he was clearly in the minority, and closed the page indicating Kept, but at the same time including the lie "Permission received from Mr. Chomitz" here. As had been repeatedly explained to Elcobbola on the page by both me and others, no "permission" could possibly come from the photographer, because as work for hire, I was the owner and author of the work from the moment of its creation and I had already granted permission for its use through the license uploaded to OTRS at ticket #2016123110001487. As admin Pajz notes correctly here "if Cohler's claim is correct that the work is a made for hire with him as the author/copyright owner, we cannot "obtain" a license from Mr. Chomitz because (absent additional agreements) he would not have the necessary rights to grant such license. I'm not sure what the point of the legal discussion is anyway; the requirements of a work for hire are not in dispute, as far as I can see." --TheClarinetGuy talk 13:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Cohler, you might like to read WP:TLDR (although I'm sure you'll find fault with that essay or with my mentioning it or both). I also wonder: don't you realize that your behavior here just makes things worse for you? Steve Quinn just mentioned the Commons thing in passing and then you come with a huge defense on why you were right all the time there and have been vindicated (which is incorrect, it took editors there an inordinate effort to make you comply with copyright issues, which in the end you did and that's the only reason that the file is still there). Your incessant appeal to all kinds of essays, guidelines, and policies are exactly what is meant here when people talk about "WP:Wikilawyering". Note that up till now not a single editor has opposed this ban, doesn't that make you reflect on your position in this whole thing? --Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Cohler consistently misunderstands and/or misapplies how we do things here, even after things are explained (at some length) on the talk page. To cite one of several examples, in this edit he claims to add a secondary source for his participation in a music festival - and earlier in this discussion he claims that all his edits are to add secondary sources. However, the journal that he cites is a publication of the same organization that sponsors the festival - clearly a primary source. His whole editing history is full of this kind of misrepresentation. As a subject matter expert I think he could be quite helpful to Wikipedia - on pages where he can act objectively. His autobiography is not one of those pages. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Again this is incorrect and a totally false misrepresentation of what I said and did. First, the source you cite here is a secondary source. It involves "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information" in a review article by an independent third party. That is the WP definition. Furthermore, I said that the vast majority of my work has been to add secondary sources, and that is absolutely and totally true. Citing one example where I added a primary source (perfectly allowable by WP policies and indeed helpful in the context where it is used next to a secondary source) does not contradict the fact that the vast majority of what I have added in the past couple of weeks has been secondary sources. Please stop these false generalizations, half-truths and misrepresentations of statements I have made. --TheClarinetGuy talk 17:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Might I ask for specific examples to support your conclusion? I do not believe I have violated any of the policies you cite, but if you have specific examples I would appreciate it. --TheClarinetGuy talk 18:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Per OWN, COI, et al. Cohler is the textbook definition of a tendentious editor whose inability to approach issues with objectivity and intellectual honesty is demonstrated perfectly well by conduct both here above and the examples referenced by others, including, especially, historical edits and behaviour related to the Cohler article. No demonstrated or reasonable expectation that the Cohler article would be approached with the necessary, or any, impartiality. Эlcobbola talk 14:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Cohler, perhaps you'd like to comment on the issue signaled above of IP editing before you were unblocked. I think your answer (or lack thereof) can make the difference for the closing admin on whether to apply a topic ban or an outright indef block. (I am not filing an SPI, because per WP:DUCK the evidence is quite clear). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I was waiting to see if there would be some sign of self-awareness here or a better understanding of the COI guidelines, and more importantly, if Cohler would comment on the issue of IP editing while he was blocked which was raised by Randykitty immediately above. Instead, a deafening silence, but not a cessation of activity. Since Randykitty's comment, he has turned his attention to Sergey Schepkin to which he has added nine internal links to the record company he owns (currently a section in Jonathan Cohler) [23], [24]; Claremont Trio to which he has added two internal links to his record company [25], [26], and Domaine Forget to which he added his linked name twice (as a "Notable performer" and as "Notable academy faculty") [27]. And this despite the concerns expressed here by Lemongirl942 four days ago concerning the promotion of his record company in Ilya Kaler [28]. Voceditenore (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
As I have now come to expect from you User:Voceditenore, all you continue to do is promote intrigue and nonsense without pointing out the pertinent facts that (1) none of the edits you point here have been challenged by anyone including you, (2) and all of them contain secondary sources. In any case, it is abundantly clear that you have dedicated yourself to attacking me whereever possible and not improving the content of pages I have been active on. Indeed, I think your last comment on the NRO page was that you "could not care less" about the page. Great attitude. --TheClarinetGuy talk 23:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Context for why "I could not care less" any more about National Repertory Orchestra:. Talk:National Repertory Orchestra#Adding notable alumni without WP articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Lists of people. This is an article that I transformed from this to this. And then Cohler arrived there... Voceditenore (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • comment Given the above-mentioned socking and the promotional editing in other articles than his autobio, the closing admin may want to consider imposing an outright block, not just a ban from editing the autobio. --Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@Randykitty: You have amply demonstrated your complete failure to present even one fact supporting a policy violation, and given your repeated mischaracterizations and false accusations there is no point in me further engaging with your nonsense and the "walls" of text you seem to love to promote as you have done here. Should you continue to harass me in this fashion, I will be forced to report you to other administrators. --TheClarinetGuy talk 23:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Cohler, Voci has posted sufficient examples, I don't think I need to add to that. As for why you should be blocked, you are very ably arguing for that yourself here. As for reporting me, you're more than welcome to do so. The proper place for that is WP:ANI. I look forward to your post there. Perhaps it will finally get me the block from WP that I so richly deserve so that I can spend my time on harassing other innocent people more closely around me here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification of Legals positions regarding undisclosed paid editing

Here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That's very clear and very important. Thanks, Doc James. The mention of cease-and-desist notices is particularly welcome to me – I asked vaguely about this a couple of years ago in relation to persistent copyright violations, but didn't really get anywhere. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

List of socks of undisclosed paid WP editing companies

I have started such a list here to help us with follow up and future cases.

Have started discussion here regarding policy implications. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I see you are already getting pushback. We (I mean the COIN regulars) still have a long row to hoe before the rest of the Wikipedia community sees things the way we do. Brianhe (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbcom reply

From arbcom noticeboard, summarized from a multipage reply in my words : "thanks but no thanks". In their own words, "we feel a more discussion-based format such as an RfC would be a better way to provide input on local policies". - Brianhe (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Sort of the reply I expected. They are still unable to get community consensus for the position the majority appear to support. And arbcom does not get to create policy themselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Pertains to everything that is done here

Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Investigating_COI_policy Further opinions from those here appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Nathan Sykes

I observed an edit by a user named JMGlobal to Nathan Sykes which seemed promotional in nature to me, and the username suggested it could be that of a PR firm or other business. I posted a coi-username notice to their user talk page; at about the same time the user Theroadislong reverted the edit as promotional. The user restored it and I reverted that. Eventually they contacted me on my user talk page where I was finally able to communicate the issue with their username and they then put in a change request to JMGE01 which was granted. By not disagreeing with my username warning I take that to mean that the username was that of a business. I have asked repeatedly if they indeed have a COI and/or a paid association, but they have not answered the question so far, focusing on changes they want to see to the article. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Have blocked 72 hours for edit warring. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Mobile phone models / XTRDC again?

Previously, at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_109#User:XTRDC_and_Mobile_Phone_Models, there was an editor who was creating articles for every variant of some mobile phones. (The Sony Xperia has over 60 variants, and the main article has a table.) This continues, but now it's by an anon: 92.6.188.186 (talk · contribs). Possible sock? John Nagle (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

There are a huge number of Sony Xperia articles. There's the main Sony Xperia article. Then, below that, Sony Xperia Z series. Then below that, Sony Xperia Z1, Sony Xperia Z2, ... Sony Xperia C5 Ultra. Should some of these be redirected or merged out? If so, how far? Is this promotional, or are there just editors really into phone model variants? John Nagle (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
92.6.188.186 (talk · contribs) is now edit warring at Sony Xperia C5 Ultra . They're at 4RR now. Neither the IP nor user XTRDC has ever written anything on talk, despite many warnings and notices. I wrote the IP user a personal note on their talk page, asking them to please reply. Nothing yet. John Nagle (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Added another IP address involved. John Nagle (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

See archive 91 for background. This was a paid editor who needed some help getting his declarations right. Now he flunked the checkuser test. His contribs might need to be re-reviewed accordingly. - Brianhe (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Dealt with a number of them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Arya aiet jaipur

This user has been warned repeatedly since March 2015 about Conflict of Interest ([29], [30],[31]) but persists in (a) not complying with WP:DISCLOSE and (b) repeatedly seeking to place non-encyclopaedic promotional content (particularly a panel of advertisements). AllyD (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like User:Randykitty has indef'd them as a WP:ORGNAME. --Drm310 (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Was copyright infringement. Deleted all the articles.
Nominated all their images for deletion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Stephen J. Blackwood

A single editor has tended this article for some time now, and appears to heavily cite the subject of the article. More eyes on this would be appreciated. - Brianhe (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Cage Fighter

Tm853511 created this article, and said at the Help Desk, "I recently created a new page for my company Cage Fighter." (they wanted to know why the new article wasn't showing up in search engine results). They have made no disclosure of COI, instead opting to come to my talk page and complain about how we're mean, because lots of big-name MMA guys wear their clothes, so that makes them notable. Orange Mike | Talk 00:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed their ability to edit until they comply with the TOU. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Antonis372

This editor has acknowledged on their user talk that Mark Florman, about whom they have been editing, is a client. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

They have no disclosed. User talk:Dweller any specific concerns? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Promotional startup articles and their SPA creators

Startups
People

Articles listed above with their creator, if appropriate.

These articles all have several things in common: use of NextBigWhat as a source; relatively obscure startups; articles mostly covering funding and nn product lines. NextBigWhat is an Indian online advertorial platform that specifically solicits startups to push their PR through it, see my note at RSN (permlink). It turns out that this source is a pretty good indication of a terrible article overall considering WP:PROMO and WP:NOT. Every one of the articles has serious sourcing issues to the point of considering WP:TNT. Opening thread here for discussion of of next steps. Brianhe (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Brianhe you though of a SPI? Do you think their is enough evidence there? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: Honestly I think the evidence I laid out above is enough to clean up articles, but not enough to tie the editors via WP:DUCK. It would have to be the duck test because these are too non-recent for a CU. Besides which they might have unrelated authors anyway, who just happened to use NextBigWhat to push out PR. - Brianhe (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Regina Russell & Quiet Riot

Pinkmermaid seems to only edit things related to Regina Russell and/or Quiet Riot. Pinkmermaid has been editing Regina Russell's article since 2006 and created the film article this month. If the claim to be Regina Russell is false, social media pages for Regina Russell show a clear connection to 'pinkmermaid'/'pinkmermaidprod'/'pinkmermaidproductions'.

  1. You deleted content from a page I added. You sited that it was copied from another website. When in fact the writing is originally from MY website for the film and the website you listed copied it from ME. Please don't delete things from this page. This material is 100% owned by me and my company.
  2. This film has been OUT for two years. We will not financially benefit from a wiki page. Just providing an public service of information.
  3. Past COI warning from C.Fred re Quiet Riot and follow up pt.1, pt. 2
  4. June 2011/COI

The articles need to be cleaned up and accessed for notability, and the editor needs to be restricted to talk pages for these topics. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Have blocked the account until disclosure occurs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Mahamadou wague ‎

Only edits are to the unsourced article with a similar name to the user, possibly self-promotion or WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, also vandalized the Wikipedia article. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 02:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

PRODed as unreffed BLP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Aly & Fila

The editor explains his own background on their user page. A Google search established a close connection with the artist. I did a large WP:NPOV copyedit on the article to remov unreferenced and promotional material. That was reverted with this and this edit summaries. Karst (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The first edits that created the page appear to be copyright infringement by a paid editor[32]. Have reverted to your version and warned the editor in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Kali Uchis

During page patrol, I saw | this edit being made on Kali_Uchis where Kelalwlji attmpted to add an image into the article. The image wasn't added in correctly (they attempted to pull the image directly from their computer - leaving their directory path in the [[FILE:// brackcets. I removed the image and placed a polite note on their talk page advising them that they'd adding the image incorrectly, and also that they may need to read up on COI, based on the directory path shown in the attempted image upload. It appears this individual is either the subject of the article or closely connected to them. Extra eyes on this article wouldn't hurt. KoshVorlon 21:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Betsyuniversal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another unusual account. The image they uploaded has copyright issues it appears. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
They partly disclose here [33] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Erlinda M. Dyson / User:EximusDental

Account blocked by Doc James, contributions deleted. - Brianhe (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

EximusDental, a new account, has two contributions, both related to the promotional article they have created, Dr. Erlinda M. Dyson AusLondonder (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

User name blocked as represents a business. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harold E. Puthoff

This is a single use IP address, removing apparently negative material from the above article. I note that in the diff of the latest such edit, there is an apparent indication that the IP address belongs to the subject of the article, which, given the nature of recent edits, and the number of warnings that have had to be issued in the past, may be a cause for concern. Anaxial (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Note, the comment above describes an edit summary stating "my research..." and therefore is self-outing. It is a static IP that has been editing this article since 2011. - Brianhe (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
As appears to be a long term problem, protected the article for a year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Oliver Cookson

IP is SPA and suspected COI. They have dipped into this article 4 times over 2.5 years (100% SPA, 15 edits). I wanted to get advice regarding one specific edit before I acted - this one. It details a crime the subject committed in his youth and was caught/punished (non-custodial sentence). Clearly someone seeking to move from NPOV to PROMO would not like this fact (backed up by BBC article) mixed in with their achievements. The rationale for removing it is (as per edit summary of edit in question) Removed due to legal reasons under the ROA 1974 (UK). Now it's my understanding this conviction would not need to be declared say in a job application, however the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not, to my knowledge, limit inclusion of crimes in biographies. Because of the L word and me not categorically knowing the intricacies of this law and its application to wikipedia, I thought I'd pass it up here for consideration. My gut feeling would be to re-add the content.
Also please advise on the photo. It's been lifted from subject's commercial website and inserted by another SPA, User:RobertNikelson. I believe this creates copyright issues, however I'm not entirely sure how to deal with this other than removing the pic from the article (which would still leave it on wikimedia and therefore seems like insufficient action). Rayman60 (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Nominated the image as a concern due to lack of copyright release.
Agree with supported by the BBC should be restored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Reinstated; talk page updated explaining and requesting addition isn't reverted without discussion. Rayman60 (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Rcriteshchoubey

Rcriteshchoubey (talk · contribs) has a clear conflict of interest at Bindeshwari Dubey and has admitted it. Nonetheless, they keep on carrying on and do not respond to messages on their talk page. Worse, they're clueless when it comes to WP:V, WP:RS etc. What to do? - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I notice that their edits are mostly tagged as "mobile edit". Could that be affecting their receipt of notifications? - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes mobile editing is more difficult for sure. Appears they are working to create a number of articles about family members. Have warned. If they continue will need to remove their ability to edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I had warned earlier and also tried to explain. If it is the mobile element that might be causing the problem, is there some other way to notify them. Perhaps this is daft but maybe a temporary edit notice for the article? I realise that might seem like singling someone out, which is not A Good Thing, but if it draws their attention to their talk page ... - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: they're continuing. Perhaps a short block would catch their attention and prevent further disruption? - Sitush (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I've blocked for 31h as they don't seem to be listening and are continuing the same behavior after all the notices and warnings. Can be unblocked by anyone if they engage. —SpacemanSpiff 10:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Joe Lhota

(Please feel free to move this to any other more appropriate Noticeboard, but nothing happened when I posted it on BLP) I have tried to work along with the user (both at User talk:JoeLhota and User talk:Lindyharmony) to help him understand the conflict of interest in editing his own biography. At first I thought it was a fan for the use of phrases such as "Use Mr. Lhota's proper name, not his nickname." as an act of deference, when WP:COMMONNAME suggests the article say "Joe" everywhere except for the beginning of a BLP when we always give full names. I've incorporated quite a few of their requested changes, but have tried to draw the line a few times. E.g. the individual does not want to be called a politician, but that is unfair to the encyclopedia that someone who was a major candidate for one of the most high-profile positions in the US, Mayor of New York, not be listed as a politician, or as a compromise "former politician". The user also has been removing well-sourced data, quotes from interviews, and references left-and-right and adding things like LinkedIn profiles. I don't want to keep fighting this user and a few times let it sit for a day (the 17th and the 19th) in the hopes that another disinterested party would come along and take up the mantle. It seems for the most part the user is, perhaps in good faith, seeing this as "his page" which is why he is focused on refactoring it as more of a prose resume and less of a biography, so it will fit his image of how he wants to be presented rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. They are continuing to remove information from a mistaken belief that they are protecting themselves from identity theft when the subject is a public figure and the links are from very prominent websites and the articles are not behind paywalls. JesseRafe (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User:JesseRafe which diffs do you find particularly concerning? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I finally got others' attention last week, but the troubling portions were treating his page like "his page" and inputting a recency bias by scrubbing past jobs and removing that he was a politician, and changing the wording to what is more commonly found on a resume like "experience" replacing "career" and using overly precise job titles, etc. He also was removing sourced information under the mistaken idea he was protecting his identity from theft when the sources are still up and on well-known websites such as NYMag's. Not to mention the extra dubiousness of publishing his phone number and using his dogs' names as an alt account name which is reminiscent of how hackers got into Paris Hilton's account. It just seemed that the aggregate of his edits was to make it appear more "professional" in his current role with far fewer references to previous work (removed just because) and far fewer personal life details (removed under a faulty premise). JesseRafe (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Idein Ventures and its execs

I don't want to say too much here at the risk of a claim of canvassing. Could another regular take a look at the editors above, and the articles they are active at, and the AfD? We might have a UPE situation here but since I opened the AfD it's probably not right for me to lead this side of it. - Brianhe (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I have put this on my Talk as well. Yes I have a conflict of interest with Idein ventures now. I should have declared it but I am not a direct beneficiary or employee. I am not getting any commercial benefit from the company either. I work for an organisation invested by them. You may take relevant action but when I created the page the investment was not done. You can check from social media news and so on. Ashok.Mehta.31122 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Denis Piel

This article's history will demonstrate the long-standing COI, neutrality, tone, content, sourcing, personal resume abuse and contraventions that have existed in the 8 years of this article's existence. Most prolific is a defunct user who has added much to this article single-handedly but not exactly demonstrated much commitment to the rest of the project. Also complicit in this exercise are two others who've demonstrated similar behaviour (much enthusiasm for this article, zero for any others), namely the creator and one other contributor (whose name matches the business partner of the subject as per their own edits on another article) - whose username tallies with that of subject's wife as per article. Bearing in mind I already removed ~10,000 bytes of rambling, incomprehensible data, the article is still a mess in so many ways. The latest editor is an unregistered IP, whereas previous contributors were all registered. I personally am of the belief that this actually fails notability, because other than this brief profile in the Guardian, there are mere splatterings of coverage on the net (e.g. here and here), nothing anywhere near significant in my interpretation of the term. I'm not convinced everyone will agree with this because of the subjective nature of 'significant' and me not being fully versed with which sources in this field are considered important, however I would like to this article will be looked at through the lens of notability and considered for AfD if appropriate. Whilst preparing this report, I did also stumble upon this connected article about the subject's chateau which similarly seems to lack notability too and was created/majorly contributed to one of the COI editors listed above (the creator of the Piel article in question). Rayman60 (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Trimmed a bunch more unreffed stuff. Agree we are not their CV.
If their is not enough sources to support notability should be deleted.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I note your edits to trim it down to something more appropriate. I was hesitant to do so myself as felt my axe would land close to the WP:TNT end of the spectrum. Rayman60 (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there's any doubt about his notability – numerous Gbooks results, even if many of them are mentions rather than in-depth coverage. Gbooks doesn't throw up the Rizzoli monograph on him, though. The problem with this kind of COI editing is that it stifles any chance of a proper article developing by normal Wikipedia evolution. Anyway, thanks to both Rayman60 and Doc James for clean-up there; I've done a little more, and I think the page is now ready for expansion by non-conflicted Wikipedia editors. I'll keep it on my watchlist, and suggest some others do the same. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Big new sockfarm

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brilbluterin is a possible WP:Orangemoody related case. There are dozens of accounts. Article creations and edits still need cleanup, Smartse has scanned about half of them and I've done a handful; help is appreciated. - Brianhe (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_110&oldid=1076621449"