This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 150 | ← | Archive 152 | Archive 153 | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | Archive 156 | → | Archive 160 |
I was approached by the student who was editing the article (Erikabucb), who stated that there was an IP address that was editing the article pretty quickly after they added content. Most of their edits lack any sort of explanation as to their reasons for their actions, which is concerning - especially as some of their edits removed negative material about the company like in this edit. This specific edit was reverted by Dibbydib, who warned the IP address about removing content without explanation. The IP removed the content again later, with only the explanation "Cleaned up criticism" - without stating why the material needed to be removed.
Essentially there is concern from the student and instructor that the IP address may have a conflict of interest. I wanted to reach out here just in case. There are some edits that suggest that it may not be the case, such as this one that adds an extra negative remark to the article, but the removal of content is a bit concerning and worth looking into. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Mxaviere stated here and here that they were editing on behalf of David Edwards. The individual was told of the COI policy here and later warned here that further promotion of David Edwards could lead to being blocked from editing. User:Mxaviere has continued to edit the article with which they have a COI including adding multiple external links in the body of the article.VVikingTalkEdits 21:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
This user has made quite a few very promotional articles, including at least three deleted ones: Sergei Savateev, Aliya Prokofyeva, and Kseniya Shoygu. This user is definitely paid to edit, based on the blatantly promotional writing in the articles. See, for example, Andrii Ostapchuk: "In 2009, Ostapchuk studied in Chernivtsi Trade and Economic Institute. He was the only student on the course who got 'excellent' in all subjects. After a year of study, he passed the first session perfectly, decided to leave the Institute and find a job." In Nadiia Shapoval: "The first chapter is a collection of ceramics handmade in Ukraine using traditional craft techniques in collaboration with Kyiv-based artist Masha Reva. With its signature thick black lines and strokes of bold colours, Reva's art brings out the warmth and beauty of Ukrainian pottery, which has been an integral part of family and community for generations." Extremely blatant advertising, this user should be blocked indefinitely for numerous paid articles.
Note: I posted this, but it was archived with no discussion from others (the archive page). The user has not been blocked or anything as far as I can tell, so this discussion is still relevant.
DemonDays64 (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
After I deleted Schibsted, I received a message from 90.232.110.139 pointing out that three editors had a very similar editing pattern - Alltidoppdatert, the IP 80.91.33.138, and Melodieinuk.
The IP is owned by Schibsted (see https://whois.domaintools.com/80.91.33.138), and I've blocked that for undisclosed paid editing and the types of edits summaries made by Alltidoppdatert, the IP, and Melodieinuk (see https://i.imgur.com/xmrZJXP.png, https://i.imgur.com/BpyTi8d.png, and https://i.imgur.com/da4ffGe.png) are similar enough to raise concerns.
Also something worthy to note is the Updated by Schibsted edit summaries found on the IP's and Alltidoppdatert's contribution pages.
Also reported at WP:SPI Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikiexperts and affiliated persons was/were banned in 2013. Wikiexperts.biz is – according to the about page – affiliated with, founded by, or owned by Konanykhin, the banned individual. The company is still buying Google ad space; I searched for "cheap business wiki page creation" and got this: "Experts on Writing, Improving and Translating Wikipedia Content! Improves Visibility. Free Estimates. Money-Back Guarantee. Full Compliance. Complete Confidentiality." (note that the last promise violates Wikipedia's ToS, therefore "full compliance" is also a lie) ☆ Bri (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Blatant promotional article currently up for deletion. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 19:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I am a complete novice, so I hope to get some insight, and forgiveness if I have overlooked some other pages with information I should know before posting here. I realized, after a colleague pointed it out to me, that the person editing the article in question (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_B._Dingwell) is an employee of the subject of the article, and likely this subject not only supplies the material, but does the editing too, using the employee's editor account. From what I have read, this may be a case of COI, especially because the page reads like an unnecessarily long list of past positions, awards and honours, down to the most insignificant ones, even though the subject is a scientist and far more coverage of concrete scientific contributions would be expected. Articles about other similar-level scientists in this field usually list just the most important 3 or 4 honours and awards, and a lot more specific scientific contributions, so this article appears to be affected by editor's bias. On the talk page of the editor in question, someone else posted a notice more than 6 months ago (in March 2019) kindly reminding the editor to disclose any COI, but there has been no response to that suggestion that I can find. Can someone advise me if (1) this is indeed a COI, and (2) if so, what should I do, since no action seems to have been taken by the editor involved, even after that reminder? This article is bothersome because integrity in all aspects of the job is expected from any scientist, and in science disclosure of COI is always a requirement too, so if a scientist is involved in their own Wikipedia page editing, at any level, I would expect a clear disclosure without having to remind the person to do so even once, let alone multiple times. --JurassicCrawler (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Sharing in case someone wants to help, add appropriate COI templates, or consider whether or not the Wikipedia user name is OK. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
This has got to be undeclared paid editing. Overly promotional fully formed adverts for too often non notable subjects. Dubious verification. Puffing up run of the mill details. Official photos from the subjects with otrs permission.
Some specific red flags.
Perhaps an admin could check if that was the case for the deleted 2017/15 articles. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, this article is being edited for promotion by the subjects "marketing technologist" on approval of the subject, please take a look, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
COI editing, reverting cleanup/tagging. Left messages such as "Good day! This is the editor of the page named "Tau Alpha". Please don't do any edits in my page for it was a clear case of vandalism. You're not even a member of the fraternity. Please just mind your own business. You don't know about the frat. Please please please just please" and "HEY I SAID DON'T EDIT ANYTHING ABOUT THE TAU ALPHA PAGE. MIND YOUR OWN PAGE AND BUSINESS. PLEASE. JUST PLEASE! YOU'RE NOT HELPING!" on my User Page and User:Naraht MB 18:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
On B. J. Fogg (diff): Repeated attempts by user with actual conflict-of-interest to edit and remove posts without any supportive evidence or proof. User has freely admitted in Talk he is repeatedly updating articles about himself and has characterized other user posts as attempts "to attack me." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B._J._Fogg&action=history). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:F7F:F3D0:8DB:A87E:A646:5794 (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
A WP:SPA account, editing primarily to promote Mr. Roure. This includes adding images of his paintings to other articles--the effect is akin to image spamming. I left a COI notice, and received no response, though soon afterwards a new account was opened for the purpose of editing the Roure biography. There may be nothing actionable here, but this seems to merit attention. Thanks. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
User "Adolph Verloc" (contribs) has performed extensive editing on this article, in a way that makes me strongly suspect it is a cover for the biographed person himself or an assistant of his. User Adolph Verloc has made circa 80 to 100 edits, most of which concern the article Geoffrey Cox (British politician) (history), a few edits concern titular details about Cox in the section King's College, Taunton#Notable students (edits 1, 2), one edit of the article about Cox' parliamentary constituency, and only two edits don't directly concern Cox, but the 2019_British_prorogation_controversy ([8]) which, however, is a theme that is very linked to Cox.
The type of edits made in the article Geoffrey Cox (British politician) are of a kind that appears typical for autobiographies. Some are 'vanity details' such as correcting titles or entering unnecessary positively biased, and non-descriptive details, for example adding "leading" before "barrister", or that his 2019 constituency result was "the highest vote share ever recorded in the seat and, once again, the largest majority in Devon and Cornwall. This result meant that he had increased the Conservative vote share at every general election in which he had stood." Another edit adds Cox' father's occupation, which is a relevant addition, but indicates that the user may know Cox' family history very well (no source is given). Some of the edits are done from a mobile device.
While it is acceptable to edit obvious errors or unfair sections, "Adolph Verloc" has extensively changed the wording of critical sections, the worst being the change of a sourced quotation by the Danish Broadcasting Corporation, changed from:
'Geoffrey Cox played a key role in Sanjay Shah's defence team by searching for loopholes and weak spots in the accusations against Shah. In total, Geoffrey Cox was paid more than three million DKK (330,000 GBP) for this work during 2015-2017, and last year [in 2018] he was appointed Attorney General with responsability for, among other things, the British prosecuting authority, Crown Prosecution. Indeed, Danish authorities are cooperating closely together with the British prosecuting authority during the investigation of exactly Sanjay Shah.'
— Danish Broadcasting Corporation, British top politician earned millions as a legal adviser for Sanjay Shah (10 December 2019)
to:
'Geoffrey Cox played a key role in Sanjay Shah's defence team, appearing for him in the court proceedings. In total, Geoffrey Cox was paid more than three million DKK (330,000 GBP) for this work during 2015-2017, and last year [in 2018] he was appointed Attorney General with responsibility for, among other things, the British prosecuting authority, Crown Prosecution. Indeed, Danish authorities are cooperating closely together with the British prosecuting authority during the investigation of Sanjay Shah.'
— Danish Broadcasting Corporation, British top politician earned millions as a legal adviser for Sanjay Shah (10 December 2019)
Obviously, it is absolutely not allowed to change a quotation to have another content. I originally entered the quoation and made sure to translate it correctly. If user Adolph Verloc believes the quote or the section is unfair, he should have take other measures to change it. If Adolph Verloc is identical with Cox himself, he should ask the Wikipedia community to give the article a check. --Sasper (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussions on my talk page, Eb.hoop2's talk page, his talk page and the articles talk page have failed to address the issues. Ken Behrendt has added information originally sourced from his own book. The addition has been reverted a number times by myself and Eb.hoop2, citing issues with COI, original research and lacking a reliable source. In the more recent additions, Ken Behrendt has removed the citations to his book but not sourced it.
The entire addition talks about how he discovered something about Johann Bessler's wheels. The edit to me also reads promotionally in places for Ken Behrendt.
Posting here as this needs to escalate, as previous discussions have not addressed the issue. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
collapse long reply by Ken Behrendt
|
---|
To Whomever It May Concern: I have been repeatedly forced to reload the two paragraphs I added to the Johann Bessler topic in an effort to make it more complete, less misleading, and more up to date. I have spent much time studying Bessler and his inventions over the last decades and only last year, due to an incredible stroke of luck in April of 2018, I was able to successfully reverse engineer the previously secret "self-moving" wheel mechanics he originally discovered and used about three centuries ago in his various wheels. Because of that, I did author and self-publish last February an 800 page volume on the inventor and his remarkable discovery in order to alert those interested in the subject of self-motive machinery about it. Currently, all I have to verify the discover are computer wheel models based on the very precise part parameter clues he carefully and cleverly hid in two portraits of himself that appeared in his last book that was published in 1717. However, the computer simulations of those model wheels DO work and they manage to remain imbalanced and to continually accelerate when released. I have ZERO doubt that I have, in fact, rediscovered his lost secret. Already, I have several craftsman in Europe who have expressed interest in trying to construct working physical replicas of Bessler's wheels based on the information in my book. My hope is that, when these appear, they will attract the attention of "serious" scientists and engineers and, with future improvements, Bessler's wheels can become important sources of clean, pollutionless energy. But, that's for the future. I want to stress here and now that I am NOT trying to contribute my two paragraphs on Bessler's wheel mechanics to the Wikipedia article on Johann Bessler because I am hoping that will help me sell books! My book sales were doing just fine before I came to Wikipedia and are not dependent upon it for advertising purposes. My only objective here is to help Wikipedia have an article on Bessler's wheels from which a reader will actually LEARN something of value. So far, my material has been constantly deleted by "editors" who it is obvious to me are not even reading it or, if they are, are not technically competent to understand and judge it. My research was not based upon spending a few minutes reading an online "timeline" of Bessler's life. It was based upon, literally, THOUSANDS of hours of painstaking analysis of every scrap of information I could obtain about him and his wheels. Someone said that the two links in my two paragraphs of material to "outside" Youtube videos are unacceptable for some reason. I only inserted those links because, when I attempted to upload MP4 videos directly to the Johann Bessler topic's editing page so that thumbnail video clips of them could be displayed along with my two paragraph contribution, the Wikipedia site would not accept the uploads for some reason. Actually, I would prefer just inserting the video clips with my two paragraphs, but after making multiple failed attempts I gave up from exhaustion. Since, however, the links to the Youtube videos were accepted, I just left them. So, I hope this will convince those who feel an ongoing need to censor via deletion my two paragraphs that they are NOT doing Wikipedia any favors by doing so and they are only acting to preserve an important historical topic in an incomplete, misleading, and out of date condition. If this is how you wish to keep the various topics on this "free" encyclopedia, then I'm sure you'll get your way because I am growing weary of having to try to compensate for the incompetence and biases of others here. However, I will continue to reload my two paragraphs until someone here can either provide me with SPECIFIC instructions on how I can make them safe from future deletions or until you all decide to gang up on me for telling the truth and then take steps to block me from uploading the material again...whichever comes first! If the latter, then please don't congratulate yourselves for preserving the "integrity" of the "editing" process on Wikipedia. All you will be doing is demonstrating that the articles here are not to be trusted as accurate and up to date sources of information which is, apparently, why most teachers and professors will not allow their students to reference articles here in any papers they are assigned to write. Ken Behrendt Sunday, January 5th, 2020 PS. Sorry if I offended anybody with the above, but I'm not one to mince words when expressing my feelings on a subject. Ken Behrendt (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC) |
@Ken Behrendt: you are welcome to add material to the Bessler article that has been discussed and published in reliable sources. Your book is not a reliable source as it is self-published. Your Youtube videos, which you used as a source in the latest edit, are not reliable sources either, as they are self-published. I see no recognition of your theories in Google Scholar, and in Google books all I can see is your book above andanother book on UFOs. So this is clearly Fringe science as XOR'easter suggests. If you continue to add your self-published theories as you describe above, we'll take this over to WP:ANI and ask for you to be blocked. As you have already added it persistently and said above that I will continue to reload my two paragraphs
, you are a mere edit or so away from that ANI request. We are not a place for publishing personal theories. You can get yourself a personal web site, if you do not have one already, and publish your theories all you want. But we do not accept fringe science contributions here. Thank you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@ ThatMontreal IP
LOL! The reality is that, currently, my book is the ONLY reliable current source in existence on the mechanics of Bessler wheels! My Youtube videos, based solely on the part parameter value information Johann Bessler purposely left in his last published book to aid future reverse engineers in physcially duplicating his wheels, are also the ONLY reliable video sources in existence that visually show exactly how Bessler's wheels worked. The fact that the book that documents these recent rediscoveries was self-published in no way diminishes the validity of the details it contains. I don't wonder that "Google Scholar" may not yet cite my work. What makes you think their citations are any more up to date than those on Wikipedia?! What I published is not my "personal theory"! EVERYTHING I've published was based on actual information that Johann Bessler carefully preserved in his published work. NONE of it is my "opinion" as you seem to erroneously believe.
So again I say that if one of you "think you know it all" editors here cannot give me SPECIFIC and RATIONAL advice on how to make my two paragraph contribution to the Johann Bessler topic safe from future censoring by "editors" that aren't even reading the material and are, imo, actually technically incompetent to judge its real value, then I will just have to keep reposting it. If, as a consequence, you are planning to continue the censoring of my efforts to make the Johann Bessler topic less incomplete, less misleading, and less out of date as it will be without my added contribution, then PLEASE do not wait for my next effort to restore the deleted material. Please submit your "ANI" request NOW before I yet again restore the material in the next few days. That will only prove to me that Wikipedia is not really the right place for factual information which is, unfortunately, exactly how most of academia now views it. Thus, they actually hold your "free" encyclopedia in the same low regard as you hold my self-published book! I'm sure you all just dismiss that opinion as due to their arrogance and ignorance. So, please do forgive me when I have the same opinion of the "editors" here who seem determined to continue to sabotage my efforts to provide readers of the Johann Bessler topic with some genuine, in depth information for a change about his wheels that they will not get anywhere else except, of course, in my book of last year on the man and his inventions.
Ken Behrendt Monday, January 6th, 2020
Ken Behrendt (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, THANK YOU "MrOllie" for your rather contributor friendly response. I think that you have finally and successfully convinced me that Wikipedia is not YET the right place for my recent research on Johann Bessler and his marvelous "self-moving" wheels. My research is, essentially, TOO advanced at this time! You have turned my irritating rejection into a well appreciated compliment and, as a result, I shall make no further efforts to repost the material (unless I am specifically requested do so at some future time).
I should mention that I did make an effort to provide Physics Review with a short article describing the results of my successful reverse engineering of Bessler's wheels. I emphasized that his wheels were NOT perpetual motion, but, rather had unique mechanics that chronically kept them imbalanced and, thus, created a situation where the rate of gravitational potential energy loss by the weighted levers on their turning drums' descending sides was always slightly more than the rate of regain by the weighted levers on their ascending sides even though the weighted levers fell and rose through the same vertical distance. That extra lost energy of the descending side weights and levers was then used to accelerate a wheel or drive attached outside machinery and could only be supplied by the energy content of the masses of the weighted levers if his wheels were genuine and did NOT violate the Law of Energy Conservation which I am most firmly convinced was the case. My "article" for Physics Review was approximately two pages in length.
Result? Within two hours of submission, I got a form rejection email back telling me that the article was "unsuitable" for them. I suspect that it was never actually read by a human. Rather, its text was scanned by an algorithm programmed to automatically issue a rejection email to anyone who dared to use the words "perpetual motion" in a submitted article even though its existence was being emphatically denied in the material. So, you can see why I'm a bit sensitive when it comes to having my research summarily rejected for reasons that seem arbitrary to me. Science cannot advance by pretending data does not exist! However, that now seems to be the accepted modus operandi when it comes to Johann Bessler's wheels.
Also, thanks to "Roxy" for the kind comment. Much appreciated!
Ken Behrendt Tuesday, January 7th, 2020
Ken Behrendt (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Back in 2011, Luenw created the article Luen Warneke.[11] Recently, they also created Jodie Rummer.[12] They have written a lot of about these two individuals in many articles about mountains.[13][14][15] Luenw has also added a lot of information sourced to WanderStories which is written by... Warneke and Rumer.[16][17][18]
Seems to be a clearcut case of a COI. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Note: Regardless of the original motivations, Dr. Rummer certainly is notable by our standards, and I'm separately working on a new article that is free from the copyright and COI concerns. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
See WP:VPT#Heads up: addition of potentially malicious material to computer security articles. The OP referred to this probably added by a scammer. I also found [19] and [20] and [21] -- Bri.public (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Very strange. Application security is not the name of a software program, as far as I can see, and recommending "Application Security"
says nothing because it's so vague. Likewise, for one of the other edits, "External security"
doesn't mean anything. Windows Firewall was recommended in Special:Diff/930204530, which does not appear to have a profit motive, but is also unsound security advice. From a content standpoint, none of these recommendations are verifiable because all of them are unsourced. — Newslinger talk 22:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be associated with KSI, sometimes removing sourced content, posting promotional, unsourced content or content sourced to twitter and primary accounts, and covering numerous related articles: [22]; [23]; [24]; [25]; [26]; [27]; [28]; [29]; [30].. In part, using Wikipedia articles to chronicle tiresome and often non notable arguments between group members. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Account is being used only for promotional purposes. Shashikala Dani. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 13:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Besides the mostly-SPA behavior, Giladsom seems to be connected to the organization. If an admin cannot find the obvious evidence, let me know if it needs to pointed out by private email. Instead of acknowledging COI guidelines, the editor is deflecting the issue pointing to other users instead. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Happy new year! I looked at consultancy articles and saw some edits made to the Eurasia Group page. I was advised about the outing policy, so I will avoid linking to the individual in question. However, there is ample indication that an employee of said company is editing those articles. Please advise as to how to proceed, as I am quite new at this. Thank you, PK650 (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Without trying to "out" this editor, there appears to be a connection to the London Chamber of Commerce in London, Ontario. Please see [33]], [34], and [35], as well as several edits to London, Ontario. I left a COI message on this editor's talk page, and their response was that there is no COI. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
The Gardens at SIUE (Redacted)
I am a novice at editing Wikipedia. This week I updated information on the page for The Gardens at SIUE, using the email address for The Gardens ((Redacted)). I am a retired administrator at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, volunteering in the role of Chair of The Gardens Advisory Board. My intent was to update some misinformation on The Gardens Wiki page which indicated the gardens property had been leased to the City of Edwardsville. I am not paid for my work for the board and am not promoting The Gardens through the Wiki page. We have many other ways we promote The Gardens (website, Facebook page, Instagram) and have no intention of using Wiki for this purpose. It would be helpful if I could update the Wiki information sometime in the future and I can do so, using my personal email address if that is a better approach. My personal email is (Redacted).
Thank you, Marian Smithson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.22.10 (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Username is the exact same as the registered agent of said organization. I have no issue with paid contributors, and they are new, so I gave them 24hrs to disclose the connection. Per the terms this goes against WP:PAID. I personally do not recommend a perma-ban, just a topic ban until disclosure is made. Jerod Lycett (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Three recent edit summaries—one at 21:16 and two others 50 minutes apart—suggest that User:Wageless is editing his own BLP, Nicholson Baker. This raises WP:COISELF. Please remind him of Wikipedia's behavioral guideline in this regard. NedFausa (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks BubbaJoe I will follow the guidelines going forward. Yes Bri.public thanks for reminding me: in 2013 I corrected my college major (it was English, not Philosophy), which nobody else was likely to know and which reporters had gotten wrong, and in 2014 I added a more up to date photo (which was then removed, even though my son took the picture). I've never done rewriting or fiddling or tweaking, though, only these few factual fixes. Nicholson Baker Wageless (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I found this one too. ConversationLAB is actually a PR firm, which would also make those edits blatant UPE. Best, PK650 (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Undisclosed paid editing ring operated by Buzzinga Digital (buzzingadigital.com), a marketing firm founded by Yashraj Vakil. There is an active sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BuzzingaWiki. Thanks, MarkH21, for filing the report that exposed this operation.
I'm continuing to search for affected accounts and articles. Feel free to add to the list above. — Newslinger talk 09:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Added Weikfield Foods from the SPI. — Newslinger talk 08:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
A website called Vakilsearch (vakilsearch.com) is closely linked to Buzzinga Digital. This domain was blacklisted in October 2018. See the COIBot report for details. — Newslinger talk 21:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Morbidthoughts has written, edited, or argued against the deletion of many pornographic performer articles. Flickr accounts and other media suggest that Morbidthoughts works as a promoter, photographer, or otherwise within the pornographic industry.--NL19931993 (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
The editor has exclusively edited articles on authors and books to add representation by Peter Miller. The editor has created a promotional article about the literary agent and claims no conflict of interest, but that's highly dubious based on editing activity. — MarkH21talk 22:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Single purpose account to promote Earl W. Bascom and introduce this commercial website which sells Bascom-related products. Has not responded to COI notice and continues to add the promotional website, as with this edit, and in the past, this edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I came to this via an WP:RfPP request. LogicandProportion has been adding content that has been reverted as "Per talk, all unsourced or sourced to Mattson's own works". User has messages about their possible COI on their talk going back to 2016, including a COI notice from Jytdog. User seems focused on Mark Mattson and related topics. -- Deepfriedokra 11:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello all. I would like to ask for advice and help relating to a COI editor above. Summary of the situation
I was reviewing the good article cranial nerves following a comment by Zmvictor and was disheartened to see how it has deteriorated. I did note this with the editor at the time [47] but only really in retrospect have I noticed the amount of damage and, with greater awareness of COI a few years on, I'd like some advice about how to repair it and anything else that needs to be done. With my retrospectoscope I think I may have been overly deferential to a claimed expert editor. Thanks for your help. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
There's a blocked sock who accepted all of the above AfCs. They are tied in to ADJEAD sockfarm I have a much larger list at User:Bri/COIbox92 which I'm going through for more likely bad-faith creations and/or accepted articles. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I searched my list for biographies matching one or more of these criteria:
The matching entities are added to the articles list above. Bri.public (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@DGG: Maybe you use a script and don't need this, but I'm preparing some text for user feedback on the draftified articles. The message will look like this:
An article you recently created,
[[DRAFT:ARTICLENAME|ARTICLENAME]]
, had an improper review and is not ready to remain published. I've moved your draft to [[Wikipedia:Draftspace|draftspace]]
(with a prefix of Draft:
before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]]
and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~~~~
edit summary will be: something like Draftified article due to improper AfC review by sockpuppet
. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Primary editor has written a very detailed description of the event, but is strongly connected to the subject. I've asked him to find some other editors neutral to the subject to scrub the article, but he insists that the article is non-neutral and notable and has provided lots of references. Is there a place where I can request a neutral editor to rewrite / unbias the article? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
As I can see this page has been deleted. If you want I can rewrite this article in my words. --HRC491 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2020 (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.
Recreation of a recently deleted article. This time the editor seems to be the subject, hence the COI. The last time it was deleted was for UPE. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
As hints in reviewing for COI (and reviewing generally):
I am a first time writer on Wikipedia. I wrote an article Saad Anjum and I did put the COI code in my talk section. I wanted it to be peer-reviewed and if someone can tell me the chances of my article being published. SaadAnjum (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Promotional account. Writing biographical article whose submission was declined in September 2019. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 00:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
This account says that removed slanderous claim against my colleague which was sourced. Saying colleague means they have COI with company. Please block user. 106.213.242.170 (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Editing biographical and related articles, and engaging in edit warring upon removal of promotional content. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
User simultaneously says that he is 'not advertising or being paid for my edits' and 'I work for Ken Schwaber and he is the creator'. Seems contradictory to me. Thoughts? - MrOllie (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Two more apparent employees:
More discussion on my talk: User_talk:MrOllie#Removal_of_content_for_Scrum_(software_development)_written_by_Ken_Schwaber There is a bit of resistance to using the article talk page. MrOllie (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Would someone like to take a look at this? Article created and maintained by an WP:SPA, repeated additions of unsourced content. I've had a few shots at cleaning it up, but been reverted each time. Notability is very doubtful, so it may be that AfD is the best way forward here. Any thoughts on that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Editor who states they are not paid but a third attempt to create article about industrialist, a businessman with his business INKAS on WP. I sent the article to Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulugbekhon Yusuphonovich Maksumov. Both remaining articles are almost identical in content, fact for fact comparison, all from 3 ref's. scope_creepTalk 20:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I feel like the name closely relates to the subject of the article. Also notability and the references should be a factor when looked at. Idan (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Promotional article for "49th best DJ in Asia" and a ONE Championship associate refunded after soft delete at AfD. Shortly after restoration, the article was kicked back to Draft space, whereupon ONEEliteAgency resumed editing the draft. As ONEEliteAgency is literally the name of the promotional arm of ONE Championship, I reported to UAA, and that editor was soft-blocked. Then new editor Sarahswj appeared and resumed editing the draft. It's not wrong to start a new account with a compliant name immediately after a corporate name is blocked, but is against policy to edit on behalf of an employer without disclosing that affiliation, so I dropped a UPE tag on Sarahswj's talk page asking them to respond before resuming editing. They waited about ten days, and have now resumed editing on the (promotional) draft, without disclosure or any response at all. More eyes on this would be appreciated, particularly since there are other accounts on ONE Championship articles that could plausibly be either UPE or just really enthusiastic fans. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
This is not a specific COI complaint - I'm just asking the esteemed and opinionated commenters here for general ideas on something that touches on a lot of our issues. Smallbones has suggested I write something about cryptocurrency and Wikipedia for the Signpost. 500-800 words on the situation here, nothing major.
As it happens, I'm someone with expertise in both - I was the UK volunteer press contact for Wikipedia for much of the 2000s (and still comment when asked), and I'm also an expert of telly-pundit book-author status on cryptocurrencies and why they're all terrible. And I also follow the crypto articles on Wikipedia, and do what I can to keep the firehose of spam manageable.
The problem is that whatever I write will be taken massively out of context, no matter what disclaimers I put on it. I tweeted a while ago about the Wikipedia COI rules including "holding crypto", several months after that rule was added - and it was immediately all over the crypto blogs. Because these guys think of Wikipedia as SOMEWHERE TO SPAM.
Our entire crypto problem, and the reason that GS/Crypto exists, is a stupendous COI problem - HOW GODDAMN MUCH THESE GUYS DESPERATELY WANT TO SPAM WIKIPEDIA.
The editors in the crypto area have come to a rough working rule on sourcing - WP:RSes only, mainstream press or peer-reviewed academic sources, no blogs, no crypto specialist sites (because they look like specialist press, but are literally all devoted to advocating their hodlings and never saw a press release they wouldn't reprint). This isn't a written rule - but it's enforced by the editors following crypto, and anything other than solid RSes in an article is a death sentence at WP:AFD. Crypto advocates complain regularly, but the rule has stuck - because WP:RS is solid.
(We also have many pro-crypto editors, who have realised that actually WP:RS is an excellent way to make our articles good and not suck!)
But literally anything I write will be treated by the firehose of spammers as a list of obstacles to work around to GET THEIR SPAM IN, and it's gonna suuuuuck.
So how should we approach this? I'm the person for this job, and Smallbones has been asking me to do this for months, but it's a tricky one. Should I even do it? General rambling ideas, advice and digressions welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for all the comments. From his intro, you can see why I've been bugging David for this - he is the perfect person to write it. But sometimes the perfect person can be too perfect. Well, it won't be in this issue anyway. The thing about the audience is that there are 3 audiences, Wikipedia editors (primary), crytospammers (sure to pick this up) and the mainstream press (I'd actually hope they pick it up) The last 2 have pluses and minuses anyway. I don't think that we need to worry about the cryptospammers getting a check list of how to get an article on Wikipedia.
Although, the following might work
That'll do it every time. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I threw a draft into my sandbox, after I realised I'd basically drafted the article above. Ran it past a crypto journalist friend who made useful suggestions for non-Wikipedian humans. I don't think I've misstated anything that isn't clearly opinion ... suggestions welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Adding unsourced and promotional content into biographical article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 23:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Adding unsourced and promotional content into biographical article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 07:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)::
Hi all, one of the new editors has explained their relationship with Isha vidya which as per their website is a subsidiary of Isha Foundation run by Jaggi Vasudev. Is this covered under WP:COI. (also ping WBG )--DBigXrayᗙ 22:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
patron of a children's rural education non-profit run by the Foundation, they have a COI. - Bri.public (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@KumareshPassoupathi: I didn't want to spell this out, but maybe it's best if I do now. A conflict of interest exists if you have an outside interest that may not be aligned with the interests of Wikipedia. Since you have declared that you are a patron of an organization, we can infer that you are interested in its success and its being portrayed positively. That presents the conflict. This would be true for anyone in the same position, not just you. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Autobiography, isn't notable. Idan (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Lockedinthebox (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I am concerned about the Jacy Reese Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacy_Reese), and a user called Bodole. It seems likely that Bodole might be Jacy, one of Jacy's friends or loved ones, or someone paid by Jacy.
My concern is that the Jacy Reese Wikipedia page seems to be used as a method of disinformation--as a method of hiding true information--rather than being used to spread true information. Specifically, the page seems to be treated as a diversion so that, if someone tries to research Jacy, they won't be able to find information about his past.
This is because the user called Bodole goes to a great deal of effort to stop Jacy's original name (Anthis) and school (Brown) from ever appearing on the Wikipedia page. He seems to have an alert set to remove this factual information any time it appears.
Jacy's original name was Jacy Anthis and he originally went to Brown University. Jacy's original name is easily demonstrated from many, many sources. To share a few: (1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NrhuXtFEo, (2) https://earad.io/introduction-to-animal-advocacy-jacy-anthis/, (3) http://www.thehighimpactnetwork.org/about, (4) https://animalcharityevaluators.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/26.07.15Boardmeetingminutes.pdf, (5) https://issuu.com/browndailyherald/docs/2011-09-06 (photograph of Jacy Reese labeled as Jacy Anthis), (6) http://web.archive.org/web/20190328223000/medium.com/@marcgunther/the-peculiar-metoo-story-of-animal-activist-jacy-reese-eb921b72c9c9. And Jacy's original school can be found from sources such as this school paper photograph: https://issuu.com/browndailyherald/docs/2011-09-06.
Jacy ended up graduating from a different school, though, and recently started going by Jacy Reese. After that, he seems to have started doing a lot of things with the goal of making himself well-known under this new name, and his Wikipedia page appeared. Presumably, the goal of the name change was to avoid people researching information about Jacy's past that Jacy would prefer to keep quiet.
I understand that Wikipedia isn't a place to spread negative rumors about a living person. But it also shouldn't be a tool that a living person can use to (1) promote himself and (2) prevent the world from accurately researching him. In other words, without this Wikipedia page, it would be that much easier for someone to Google Jacy and find his original last name or school. And that would lead them to other factual, accurate information, which would be useful for them to know. The Wikipedia page, as currently designed, helps blot out that kind of information.
As a result, multiple different users have added information to Jacy Reese's Wikipedia page stating his original name (Anthis) and school (Brown). Each time, the user called Bodole removes that information. Bodole gave lots of reasons for removing the information, but the reasons never really made sense. He would say the info needed a source and state, blanketly, that none of the sources were good enough. But he wouldn't engage with the individual sources to explain why they were deficient. Worse yet, the user Bodole himself has added information to this very same Jacy Reese Wikipedia page which was poorly sourced, such as citing to Jacy Reese's personal website, JacyReese.com, or Jacy Reese's Facebook page. Additionally, there is plenty of other information on the Jacy Reese Wikipedia page which lacks any source at all. But Bodole hasn't removed that information--He only removes Jacy's original name (Anthis) and School (Brown).
What's the evidence that Bodole is Jacy, or an agent of Jacy? My main reason is that a huge portion of Bodole's editing is focused on (1) the Jacy Reese page, (2) the Sentience Institute page (a group started by Jacy and his romantic partner), and (3) the End of Animal Farming page (a book written by Jacy). My other reason is that Bodole is dedicated to removing Jacy's old name or school from the page.
Seeing all this concerned me. I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor. This experience is teaching me about the power and importance of editing Wikipedia. Until recently, I just read Wikipedia. But when I read the Jacy Reese Wikipedia page, I knew something was wrong. That caused me to dig into the information I'm explaining above. And I also started trying to re-add Jacy's old name (Anthis) and school (Brown) myself. Bodole again removed them. Bodole's explanation was that all my six sources can't possibly show Jacy's "birth" name--They just show that, at some point, he went by another name. True. So I made another edit where I said that Jacy Anthis was Jacy's previous name--But didn't use the word "birth." Bodole still reverted it, and then commented on my user page saying that I'm edit warring.
Bodole also hasn't given a real explanation for why Brown University can't be listed. At first, University of Texas was listed without a citation, so I added Brown, also without a citation. He removed it. Since I pointed out that U of T didn't have a citation, he added a citation to Jacy Reese's personal website. So I added Brown back in, with a citation this time to the Brown school paper, which is surely a better source than JacyReese.com. But he removed it again.
I feel stressed and anxious and I don't know what to do. I am reaching out to you all for help. I don't care if this Wikipedia page exists. I am fine with it being taken down entirely. But I can't stand to live in a world where this page exists just to affirmatively hide the truth. There are good reasons why people should have the ability to research someone's past before they choose to engage with that person, introduce that person to others, or give that person a platform. Thank you all for your help.
Lockedinthebox (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I just did a big trim on the article for Onix Audio, which formerly featured a mountain of unsourced trivia and an incoherent lead full of inline external links. Tonyb1961 (who I believe is the Tony Brady referenced in his preferred version of the article) has reverted me, accusing me of 'Vandalsim', and remarking on my talk page that englsih is not you native langauge. Would appreciate a few more eyes on this. MrOllie (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The user has since also been reported at AN3 for edit warring on this article. –Erakura(talk) 03:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The new user is using their sandbox to make an autobiography. Idan (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Appears to have created an autobiography draft at Draft:Veerabrahmam nakka film director. Hog Farm (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
An IP has been editing a newspaper supplement's article over a period of hours. The article has been tagged as a COI problem for years. I have left three messages asking them to disclose their paid status but they have not responded. Ifnord (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Music Academy of the West got promotional edits by user MusicAcademyW on 22 October 2019. I asked them to disclose COI. They didn't, but stopped editing. Shortly after, user ArmenianHoosier started editing in similar fashion, I asked them to disclose COI, they didn't either. Today, ArmenianHoosier came back for a good faith edit. I don't know how to handle this, since the proof of COI could potentialy out them. Help? --OrestesLebt (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
New editor who has updated the page with what I perceived to be resume like content and non-independent sources, and said it is the only article they intend to edit [52]. I asked the editor if they have a conflict of interest but they did not respond. They have instead continued the same kinds of edits and asked many questions reflecting what I believe is a misunderstanding of the issues, but then asked me not to correspond with them further [53] (also making an editorial comment about me within the article [54]). Requesting some other editors look at the potential COI and other issues. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Using user page solely to self promote and user is managed by multiple people Idan (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey I am using the page as a professional to contribute to the WikiArt community. I will remove the InfoBox on my page if that is what is being considered "Self Promotion" I am here to help. Sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused. Manufacturedstudios (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Elizabeth Searcy is of no connection to me. I looked to the Brooks Art Museum in Memphis at the female artist they have and she was the only one without a Wiki page. After learning she did work for the President I considered creating her page. I do not wish to promote anyone only to help drive forward Wikipedia’s Art information. I am affiliated with the online gallery website but after realizing linking it was promotional I quickly took it down. Manufactured Studios represents work from mainly none notable artist. I personally just love art history and would like to do my part in contribution. I apologize again for any wrong doings as I am still new to the wiki world. Manufacturedstudios (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Manufacturedstudios/ArtWorldEditor has been blocked as confirmed to a promotional sockfarm, along with User:FadedOrange. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FadedOrange. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
He created Manufactured Studios Inc. to provide independent artist access to the gate kept privileges only available to gallery artist... Manufactured Studios Inc. was founded on the principal that independent artist deserve access to the gate kept luxuries only galleries have access to. Offering insider information and advice for younger artist the Independent Gallery is redefining what it means to be a fine artist in the internet era.Maybe I'm paranoid, but that sort of sounds like an advertisement for PR and/or paid editing. Might want to keep an eye out to see if articles on this gallery's artists pop up in the future. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Adding unsourced promotional content to article, as username indicates. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 21:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
User has admitted COI at own talk page. Poorly sourced and promotional content, edit warring. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I reported this user here once before, for promoting a non-notable DJ named G50X. The user apologized, admitting that the DJ was his close friend and he wouldn't promote anything related to him again. It so happens that the new Records label that he created a page for, also belongs to someone who goes by the alias G50X. This is a case of COI and promotion after warning. Daiyusha (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
So I came across this BLP where the latter user has a WP:COI. That, however, is not the real problem. The problem is that the COI user has alleged that (among other actors) the two IPs have engaged in spam and promotion for a rival Facebook group of the same name. There may be legal action pending in the name dispute, but I have discerned no on-wiki legal threats yet. I did redact some comments on the article talk page because they were designed to promote the Facebook group. So far, that may be as far as it goes. But, as we say, more eyes would be appreciated. Elizium23 (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Another paid editing sockfarm. There is a lot of articles - I don't have time today to send everything to the UPE quarantine pool or tag, so I'm posting here. This sockfarm appears to be socially engineering, riding on the backs of the effort to address gender bias. That said, many of their articles about women work in spam-prone professions. MER-C 20:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
There's about 100 articles affected (so not listing them here), still not all tagged. I have quarantined 36 of them. MER-C 10:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Editors here may be interested in the RfC about Status Labs at
Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:BIOSELF WP:BLPSELF WP:COISELF
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dario_Hunter#Be_aware_that_Dario_Hunter_is_trying_to_alter_his_biography_before_2020_rally and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dario_Hunter&action=history
Apparently
are Dario Hunter himself, as he revealed in the edit history comments what he knew about the bogus copyright claims he sent to the web archives before the information was published on the talk page.
62.192.168.106 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
"as he revealed in the edit history comments what he knew about the bogus copyright claims he sent to the web archives before the information was published on the talk page." Huh? That doesn't appear at all in the edit history comments. In light of the talk page posting, I suspect there's a conflict of interest here. It sounds like someone with an axe to grind because of a complaint against them for copyright violations. Oh, and please sign your postings! 2605:E000:1701:C274:A9DB:BBD3:FF5E:ABD1 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
This new editor initially created his or her account with the name "DACC-ExtRel." He or she has exclusively edited Doña Ana Community College so it's reasonable to surmise that he or she works for the college in its public ("external") relations unit. Although he or she has been warned about editing that article, he or she has ignored those warnings and has not acknowledged the obvious conflict of interest and violation of our prohibition against undisclosed paid editing. ElKevbo (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
<[[55]]> <[[56]]> This article keeps on being reverted by the user who has Conflict of Interest (proved by previous aliases) on this article and an obsession with manipulating content as attested on this endless strong of historical edits. Conversely the same user is on a mission to have the opposite end-result on this page I’ve tried Talk [[57]], See from Talk:
...In the Lead the Arab history of the Iberian Peninsula appears perfectly, I am not denying the influence or Arab history. Avoid adding equal or very similar information so as not to saturate the Lead of the same content. You have already been notified of this. NormanGear (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2020 NormanGear I am absolutely not repeating content. This is rhetoric you invoke when trying to justify your manipulation of this topic. My edits make complete sense in the historical context I placed them- an introduction which is further developed in the Lead, similarly to all other aspects in this Lead (and most academic articles which denote logical structure). There is a beginning, a development and a conclusion. Your rationale does not apply those. Your reverts reflect personal opinions and harassment as I have witnessed no such blatant antagonism, let alone systematic reverts from any other users. You appear to have made this topic personal, considering these are your sole contributions to Wikipedia. Again, I refer to Wikipedia:Five pillars namely: WP:5P2 WP:5P4. Finally and to address wrong assumptions you used previously “I noticed that Portuguese people are very nationalist”. I am British English, totally bilingual and with a fair knowledge of Spanish culture too. So again, you are going by pre-conceptions when suggesting I might take this personally. That is not the case, just to clarify. Melroross (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)...
Reported WANI, Harassment, Incidents to Administrators, asked for Third Party view/neutral collaboration... to no avail:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spaniards&action=history
Versus
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_people&action=history
Melroross (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
User editing from the IP address 213.21.60.4 has little grasp of the english language and refuses to use sandbox instead of publishing their incoherent gobbly-gook in the mainspace. I first noticed their problematic writing when their appalling edits to Yekaterina Zelenko came up on my watchlist. Upon further review of their contributions, I observed a pattern of machine-translated Stalinist apologetics (like changing the link to "Soviet war crimes" to "Allied war crimes" in the article about Destruction battalions, changing Karelia from Finnish to Soviet, and formatting paragraphs in Russian Wikipedia style instead of English Wikipedia style). Worthy of a block to prevent further damage from their behavior. Can't say if they are a typical vestnik narrative-pusher or if they are in a more official capacity involving a financial COI, but either way unacceptable.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The ip removed referenced content with an edit summary that they are from Belfor USA corporate team, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)