Indian fashion models and contests

I came across some apparent promo stuff related to beauty pageants and contestants and suspected some sort of collusion and COI editing and filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sky Groove as I also expected some sort of socking related to the PR agency for the contests. I did not expect such a huge set of socks and associated articles. Not being fashionable, I haven't a clue about this industry and don't know what's what, I hope somebody else can take a look at this -- maybe The Banner?. I am only notifying one of the sock accounts as they are all blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 13:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know there are multiple sockfarms active in the pageant world. There are also a multitude of meat puppets and SPAs active. But what it makes difficult: there are also genuine editors active. I guess the only to clean out that polluted pond is by fishing with help of the check users. Unfortunately, that is not allowed. So in effect I have no clue how to solve this expect running behind them and file SPI after SPI. But you will always be five steps behind. The Banner talk 20:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
See for instance Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riza1234/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jcchard/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dosmil2011/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cesaro2012/Archive. The Banner talk 21:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The pageant articles are so bad, it's hard to find a legitimate editor in, for instance, Miss World 2015. I did some analysis you can find here: User:Brianhe.public/Beauty pageants. My gut feeling is there's at least three sockfarms at play, one for Asia/Philippines, one for Latin America, one possibly specializing in Miss World. Brianhe.public (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive gives some useful background. Obviously there's a ton of socking and/or meatpuppetry going on. Look at Maria Harfanti, if you dare. One contributor said that Mrdhimas has a real-world connection to the pageants without further explanation. Checkusers have said there's extensive proxying going on that makes it hard to tie individual actors together. I had a look at contributions from a certain ISP since October and they are almost 100% related to this area (). - Brianhe (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Second addendum. A brief web search leads to the blindingly obvious conclusion that there's an Indonesia based publicity company at play here. It may be just one person. I suspect the 93.110.x.x range is the agency acting through a proxy (since December 2014 clumsy AfD notice removal), and have requested an open proxy check. - Brianhe (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Third addendum. Based on the links at Miss World 2015, I suspect that Blizz Infotainment (angelopedia.com, bollypedia.in) may be conducting SEO on these topics. If angelopedia.com were blacklisted, this problem might abate considerably. – Brianhe (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Colombiabeauty/Archive, another three confirmed sockpuppets. The Banner talk 08:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Massive infusion of references from a single author

The following edit popped in my watchlist: "These authors' papers have been entered into so many WP pages (wo justifications) that the effort represents more of an advertisement for their papers".

I decided to double-check, and this is what I wrote to User:Iss246:

Hi I noticed your edits and I double-checked what's going on. On one hand, Vikas Mittal claims to be notable in the area of marketing research. On the other hand it seems to be a major campaign tnow o spam wikipedia with Mittal's references:

I don't have time now to think how to handle such situations. At the first glance, the additions may be relevant, but I feel uneasy at such massive infusion of a single name. Which discussion boards do you think will be relevant to notify? WP:COI comes to my mind.

Google gives about 200 hits in wikipedia. Does this guy really that notable? Contribs by SPA IPs smell COI to me. Does anybody have an experinece/advice in handling such situations? - üser:Altenmann >t 22:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Participant observation techniques are different than self-report techniques such as focus groups and in-depth interviews ref>Mittal, Vikas, Qualitative Research for Customer-Focused Insights (November 1, 2015). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2682846</ref."
  • A longitudinal study in healthcare setting showed that job satisfaction affected actual turnover behavior through turnover intentions <WTF does this mean;>

However my question is more general: do we have any policy to handle this kind of behavior? Besides WP:COMMON? - üser:Altenmann >t 17:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

As always, follow the money. I suspect that Fox Learning Systems+Debra Fox may have something to do with this. Note Debra Fox is listed as coauthor on at least a 2003 paper [2] and one in 2012 [3]. Haven't gone digging for more. @DGG: you interacted at the FLS AfD, maybe you want to look at this. Brianhe (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Refspamming included healthcare related subjects listed above. Brianhe (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Whacked Out Media

Socks involved:

There are a lot more articles, I've just added a small selection up above. The PR agency involved above is Whackedout Media as is evident from the draft above. There's a slightly different modus operandi in this one. They've been trying to spam around Nithya Menen by creating a website for her (copying over her facebook page and news quotes etc as a blog) and claiming it as being updated by her. This is a ruse to probably get customers by saying we've got a notable actress on our client list and manage her Wikipedia page or some such thing. I've found no evidence to say that the Menen's actually using them, in fact, what I see indicates the opposite. The focus is all sorts of Telugu productions. @DGG, Ponyo, and SuperMarioMan: pinging you as you've attempted some sort of clean up in this area in the past. —SpacemanSpiff 04:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the m.o., but I've listed for deletion a number of these where I would do so in any event--usually because not yet notable, or not yet produced without substantial pre-release discussion. Everything in this field needs screening. I tend to distrust all Indian sources for films, including major newspapers--this is one field where we need objective data, like major prizes. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
We could pass this to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force, but not much happened the last time I tried that. We need some list of reliable sources for Bollywood. John Nagle (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
This one isn't related to Bollywood, this is linked to Tollywood :); the sources wary by the wood version and we don't have any "regular" editors in here unlike with Bollywood or Kollywood. —SpacemanSpiff 08:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

My pessimistic suggestion is to leave locally Indian subjects to Indians. Do you really have a zeal to battle over 1,000,000,000 potential POV/COI pushers? I have no idea why, but Indian topics are in stark contrast with Chinese topics in terms of wikipedia quality. For some time I myself wasted lots of energy cleaning up unreferenced Indian names, deities and geograaphy, but gave up. When I mentioned the state of affairs at WikiProject India, I was quickly dunk in shit: why, Indian is the best, how dare you. Therefore I say, unless an article is of some international importance, post the issue at Idian WikiProject, tag the article, and let them clean heir own mess. - üser:Altenmann >t 23:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Altenmann, I have to disagree on that. The regular editors at WP India are always the ones highlighting problems at WT:IN. Just take a look at WP:DSI and see who brings in the "systemic bias" arguments or WP:SOFIXIT. For every regular editor on the project who attempts to keep things in check there are 10-20 drive-bys who want to promote their religion, film star, village, and what not. I'm not sure when you got this pushback at WT:IN, but I doubt most of those who have tried clean up in that area would agree with you. The drive-by editors are high and blocking them is like cutting the head of the Lernaean Hydra, but I doubt that WP India regulars exhibit the attitude you assign. —SpacemanSpiff 02:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I was going to express the same view. We need to establish and maintain clear standards in this area not subject to press releases and sources indisguishable for press releases. DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK "press releases" are explicitly excluded by WP:GNG WP:ORG. So I guess "maintain" is the operational word in this case. - üser:Altenmann >t 17:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Distinguishing a news-domain article as "press release" doesn't always happen well on India related articles. What web-hits should be used to establish notability and what should only be used to write content but not establish notability in itself is a tough task to explain to Indian editors; you might include me also in that at times. What @DGG: proposes to do with establishing and maintaining clear standards is a good way to start with it. But this requires mending of various polices and guidelines of Wikipedia itself to tighten up and not be lenient. For example, WP:TVSERIES says that television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a television network with a national audience and that is one loose end. Similarly, WP:NAWARD is defunct and its revival hasn't attracted many editors. These are all long-cuts, of modifying global guidelines but if small-scale guidelines are to be made, that too would be welcome. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem with that Dharmadhyaksha is the film/TV afds get flooded with alphabet soup of essays that are neither policies nor guidelines. I invite anyone to take a look at film AfDs at WP:DSI, ignore the pre-2000 films for now (those are not promotional but just have verifiability issues -- a painful statement to make) and take a look at 2012+ films or actors listed at WP:DSI. —SpacemanSpiff 13:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

100 years of women in transport campaign

Could somebody please review 100 years of women in transport campaign which is definitely suffering from WP:CITEKILL and WP:OWN. It was accepted at AfC and the main contributor is AnaFerreira (talk · contribs) who changed her Username from 100yowit. She seems to have a COI with the campaign and London Transport, so I would like to have others review please. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

If you read the referenced articles you will realise that the campaign celebrates women in transport in general, and not only in the UK. The number of women that entered the transport industry because of the First World War is a UK number, though, as I couldn't find an overall number. Happy to be reviewed and for the article to be changed, if the information is still correct. AnaFerreira (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Another batch of Orangemoody accounts

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xenoradixde. I've dumped the entire account list so far to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts#Blocked after 10 November. I think I've deleted everything. I have automatically generated a list of potential spam links added this time at [4]. MER-C 21:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

From where to what language evolution theory

The editor first expounded this theory at Origin of language, but was repeatedly reverted per clear WP:UNDUE, WP:N, WP:V issues and a suspected WP:COI (same username as the name of the theory's creator, Oren Poliva[5]), and didn't take part in the talk page discussion.

He later admitted on my talk page that it is, in fact, his own (published) theory. Since he was getting reverted and was past WP:3RR, he decided to create a separate From where to what language evolution theory. All of the editor's contributions so far have been about this theory, making it an WP:SPA among other things.

The situation has been explained to him.

LjL (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@PolivaOren: to answer your question on your talk page: users who want to create articles on a topic with which they have a conflict of interest are directed to Wikipedia's Articles for Creation feature, where drafts are reviewed by uninvolved editors to ensure that they meet Wikipedia's guidelines before they are published to the main article space. Since you created the article directly, it is a little late for that now. As a user with a conflict of interest, you are requested to no longer edit the article directly, instead limiting your contributions to the article's talk page where you can make suggestions for improvement, suggest sources, etc... A deletion discussion has been started where other editors will give their opinion on this article's admissibility. You are welcome to give your opinion there, but your conflict of interest will be taken into consideration when determining consensus. Regards, Vrac (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Vu Digital

Need folks to help clean up this article found by links from a recently blocked Orangemoody sock. Also wonder what DamcoGroup is about; see this promo stuff. – Brianhe (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I took a shot at cleaning it. The company's current product is still basically vaporware with buzz but no coverage on actual implementations. TOOSOON in my opinion. I would have redirected it to its parent company C Spire Wireless (incidentally, also written like an ad, with a history full of SPA's), but Vu Digital has already survived an AFD. Vrac (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Stuart Styron

Three WP:NOTHERE accounts

Behavioural evidence:

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Styron (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_80#Bert_Martinez_(2) , Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 79#Bert_Martinez

Widefox; talk 15:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The Danse Society Wikipedia Page

"In" faction
"Out" faction
Prior noticeboard activity

I have been a long time fan of the Danse Society way back to the early/mid 80s, and was thrilled when they reformed in 2011. However the Wiki page is not reflecting the true nature of things as they currently stand. While it states that there was a split in the 'Alternate Danse Societies' it fails to state that there are now two The Danse Society bands. I remain a fan of both and so to me it is a little disingenuous that he current page - edited and maintained by two of the band members listed in the 'Current Members' section - excludes the other Danse Society, who continue to tour and record.

I have researched both, and they both appear to have equal claim to the name, despite both insisting they are the only one. The one controlling the wiki page holds the domain names for the www site with conventional (com and co.uk) TLDs, whilst the other band have the limited company and it would appear rights to the band name.

As with all these things they are never straightforward, however the page does not reflect the current situation and I believe that the ability of one set of band members to completely exclude the other is a definite COI, and needs to be remedied.

I am willing to edit the page to correct the situation, along with the correct and proper references to back this up. However currently any edits to reflect this position are being removed by the two band members as can be seen in the page edits.

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Ianvenner (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Ianvenner I see a number of single-purpose accounts editing this article. Which ones are the two band members that you are referring to who are "controlling the page"? I see that your only Wikipedia edits are to this noticeboard, have you previously edited while unregistered or under a different account? Vrac (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Vrac The prime one is the Paulnashuk1 who is guitarist for the band, I think the other is the Journalist Astonomist account. THe TArnhall account I believe is associated with the excluded band, but again is a COI ianvenner (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
With the exception of the above-listed IP address, none of these accounts have edited the article for about a year. The contributions from the IP were reverted by an automated bot that looks for vandalism; while it isn't exactly vandalism I can't blame the bot since the content is clearly promotional and sourced from things like Facebook. This appears to be a very stale content dispute. I recommend that you post your intended changes and sources to the article's talk page and see who shows up. You haven't answered my question about your prior editing history. I will point out that this noticeboard is not intended as a means to gain the upper hand in a content dispute by claiming COI on the other party. (By the way, you are supposed to notify the users that you suspect of COI that this discussion is taking place, see the instructions at the top of this page.) Vrac (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Vrac I will post as you suggest. I have not edited a page previously under my name, but have been an 'over the shoulder' source for people who have, one of whom I believe was a reviewer, if that is the correct term. I will also inform both sides that this is happening and point them to the talk page. There is no intention to gain an upper hand, just to reflect what is happening at this point in time. I have already seen the lineup that is represented on Wiki in concert and am going to see the other in 2 weeks, so just looking to be fair. Thanks. ianvenner (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Clear aligners

Got a new account, Unbraceyourself‎ deleting material and overwriting it with (probably their) company's information. Alexbrn (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a case for WP:ANEW. – Brianhe (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ɱ

(minor point - there's stale drafts under User:sandboxXX)

This is a technical question to clarify, but with a specific editor: Is a COI disclosure on a subpage User:Ɱ/COI, not easily accessible from userpage where one must uncollapse and uncollapse a second time to reach it a valid disclosure? The editor also has a link in light blue on dark blue on their talk, and there's disclosures on the article talks. They seem to be good faith but claim to be justifying this is OK per the essay WP:COIDEC [6]. The editor considers it hounding for me to continue discussion of COI, so I post here for others.

The WP:TOU only uses "userpage" and from what I can see, policy too. COIDEC is out of line, and I've removed the seemingly most out of line, and escalated for deletion (or fixing) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:COI declaration. Widefox; talk 19:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please close this discussion. I previously had a link to User:Ɱ/COI on my main userpage, this should be sufficient and the rules are unclear. However, I now have it directly on my userpage. I don't want to continue this any further, we all have better things to do.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
You were hounding because you came into conflict on me with another issue and decided to create this one due to it. That is hounding, basically the dictionary definition.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I am an uninvolved editor (who warned both parties about edit warring). Don't distract. If someone like me objects to your COI disclosure, which is seemingly not easy for me as an advanced editor to quickly see. Justifying with an essay rather than TOU and policy as I pointed out. No indication has come forth yet, so somewhere neutral like this seems appropriate, rather than accusing an uninvolved editor of hounding, and removing COI templates from the articles (during discussion). Widefox; talk 20:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
--ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The good news is the essay is being recognised as needing attention/deletion. Thanks for that. Care to provide any justification for involvement in any article with you, or why a COI disclosure shouldn't be looked at by editors talking to you? Widefox; talk 20:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I won't converse with someone who's harassing me on different unrelated issues. If other editors have concerns with my work, they should open the proper channels. If you pursue criticism of once more, I will open an ANI discussion on your conduct. ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
So, you're being paid to write User:Ɱ/sandbox23 but you have no disclosure in the draft, or linking to that draft. Your only disclosure is not correct per the clear WP:TOU and policies. What isn't clear about that? The correct place to discuss that is here. Widefox; talk 20:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
According to the clear terms, they need to disclose on their user page, the talk page of the article OR in the edit summary of any such edits. There's nothing there saying they have to disclose on the draft or link to the draft. They could say "Paid by X to edit on behalf of Y. There isn't anything in the TOU or the Meta FAQ that requires explicit linking to a draft or article. Ravensfire (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but almost right

That's a bit shy of the word and missing the spirit of it. It's 3 clicks from the userpage! Several partials is not a full (per ToU or PAID)

@Ɱ and Ravensfire: need to read the policy Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. It is definitely and not or for where to place the disclosure. The hiding of the disclosure in a double-hidden box is just astounding - please correct that immediately. Also you need to disclose employer, client, and affiliation in the ((connected contributor (paid))) template. All paid contribution need to be disclosed, including drafts Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Did some cleanup on the Interactive Brokers article. Added history and litigation sections, removed product section. It now looks less like an ad and more like an article. The company is a major brokerage, there's good press coverage, and it passes WP:CORP. John Nagle (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
That's not cleanup. I didn't mention history because I went into great depth with the full entity's history at Interactive Brokers Group. As well, please put the products section back. There's absolutely no promotional wording there, I merely stated tools that Interactive Brokers gives customers. And I know very well that they're not things offered by other online brokerage firms. How much do you know about online brokerage?
On another note, I'm saddened by all of the sickening assumptions of bad faith. I am 90% a volunteer editor, and I strive as much as possible to write in a neutral and encyclopedic tone. Please look at the articles I've written, which include the two FAs Briarcliff Manor and Elliott Fitch Shepard. My user sandbox page is a personal userpage. Users are perfectly allowed to put nearly anything on their userpages, especially sandboxes. It's not a formal draft at all, and still has some way to go before I request publication. I don't see anywhere that I need to mark that I have a conflict of interest on a personal sandbox in my userspace.
As for the COI disclosure, per a previous essay it seemed acceptable to post a link to my extensive COI declaration so prominently on my talk page. I don't know why people think that's hidden. As for my primary userpage, I have always appreciated minimalism and the use of blank space, so I have things collapsed. There's no rule against that, stop pretending that there is. Regardless, I'll make it a bit easier for y'all.
I dislike how none of you have addressed that Widefox has been hounding and harassing me. This conversation shouldn't have even started, he's basically picking on all my faults right now.
If I didn't address any of the so many things above, please let me know.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 08:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
One thing I didn't address was Frank Shiner's notability. I was at first skeptical, however he has two songs top five on national music charts. Your cited WP:NMUSIC has pretty close to the top of the list: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." So do your research by reading the very top of my draft and very top of this before such accusations. The fact that you cited NMUSIC as Shiner being unnotable just tells me you're trying to have my work deleted.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 08:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that was me, Nagle, editing, but I forgot to sign the edit. I haven't touched the Frank Shiner article. As for the product list, when something looks like an ad, it's routine to remove ad-like material such as a feature list. The general idea for company articles is to mention the sort of thing Bloomberg or Reuters would mention, not what the company itself would mention. This is a neutral way of dealing with promotional material. The end result tends to be a bit dry, but that's Wikipedia's house style. It's an encyclopedia. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The ToU is T or U or E. PAID is more strict, it was T and U. I've fixed PAID to include E: it is now (T or when not possible E) and U.
The letter of PAID is now explicit that all contributions (that covers articles, drafts etc) shall have a disclosure on their talk page. User:Ɱ has yet to declare on their sandbox23. (they have even removed the userpage tag I put there, which they are not meant to do)
The letter of PAID is now explicit that a list of all paid contributions (clearly visible) shall be made on the main user page. Ɱ has yet to declare.
The letter of PAID is that full disclosures are required on each article. Ɱ has yet to declare.
The baseless accusations of Ɱ, removal of COI tags, removal of userpage tag from a draft, are not the spirit of COI. If the full disclosure I've clarified about is not made, I will escalate this. If there is any doubt about what a paid editor must do for legal compliance, then it is their job to ensure they are compliant rather than attempt to shut down any complaint about inadequate disclosure. Ɱ must also disclose at all places, which includes this page. Widefox; talk 10:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Having had a look through this, Ɱ needs to apply the tags and disclose as mentioned above by Widefox samtar {t} 11:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Yup, now that's clear, COI goes further - stating that editors are discouraged from editing an article with a COI. The way I see it, is if someone drags their feet doing the legal minimum, the content needs a check, hence the COI tags on them (which really shouldn't have been removed by Ɱ. Also, the other COI stale drafts mentioned above were commented out by Ɱ against talk page refactor guidelines (now restored). Why should normal volunteers have to put up with this? ANI seems the appropriate escalation venue. Widefox; talk 11:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, AN/I would be the appropriate next step should the editor refuse to follow guidelines samtar {t} 11:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

(←) I'm so confused here. Point out a guideline I'm refusing to follow, please! As well, as I commented, my other sandbox pages were just out of personal interest. If I was paid to write them, they'd look much more done. Anyone who knows me knows I work quickly; I only got the Shiner job two or three weeks ago and look at the article. So that's why I hid the irrelevancy, that apparently Widefox blew up over. Jeez, calm down people.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 17:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, it may not be obvious, but I'm trying to cooperate here, and you all keep assaulting me with whatever rules you happen to find that you can stretch to fit. I changed the placement of the COI disclosure. I added about the sandbox. However, I removed the COI tags from my articles because, as I stated on the edit summaries, per the template: "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning." You never started a discussion, so I had EVERY RIGHT to remove those tags.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 17:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Can I remind you, Widefox, that I'm just as much a 'normal volunteer' as you are? Why do I have to put up with so much prejudice? I write good and featured articles, I linked two above. I revert vandalism. I take photographs. I scan photographs. I've done months worth of research for Wikipedia articles. As an objective observation, you seem primarily focused on formatting, vandalism removal, and other tasks, and seems to include very little of any of the above listed items. Perhaps you'd appreciate my work more if you were more of a content creator? Please look at the photos I've taken or found and digitized over the past few years: link. I hope this helps you all realize I'm not the enemy, I'm not some faceless PR guy, I am first a Wikipedian, and second one who needs money for living. My work here has helped with that. I could care less about promoting Shiner or IB; sometimes either entity has been pushy about wanting promotional material and I've done my best to tell my employers 'no'.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Ɱ (ignoring the characterisation of my contributions)... your claim "as much a 'normal volunteer' as you are" is factually incorrect - you're not 100% volunteer so you must disclose per ToU (including in conversations like this) - rather than make claims like that to the opposite. (let's just let that go for a moment, as we all deserve just equal treatment and AGF etc)
Now I've looked into the paid editing documentation, I can understand your viewpoint, which seems close to mine - one of frustration!
You asked for a "guideline" you're not following, and added "I don't see anywhere that I need to mark that I have a conflict of interest on a personal sandbox in my userspace." (also adding a disclosure on a draft in protest that it doesn't need doing)
I will do better than that - the ToU are a legal requirement to edit here, stronger than a policy, stronger than a guideline. It states "on all contributions" "any paid contributions" - so after double checking this I can report back definitively that the consensus is this covers not just "all articles", but "all contributions" "any paid contributions" - so your sandbox is included. That could be construed (as is) that you are required to disclose on this talk page too (although editors will care less than that unless you claim otherwise as you are asserting).
The best practice (as detailed by policy WP:PAID and links from it) says that your paid COI disclosure must be "clearly visible" on your "main user page". Note that wording has been put in my me with feedback from others to prevent the hiding that your user page disclosure still has. As such, feel I need to separate my role of writing that wording from someone asking you to comply, but several others have so I can point out that you still haven't complied with that best practice, which others have characterised as completely unacceptable.
You would do wise to see WP:PAYTALK, which advises us volunteers not to spend too much time discussing with paid editors, before the paid editor is deemed disruptive. It is your paid job to disclose, not mine.
Why the attempt at offwiki communication? and the L3 harassment warning on my userpage? They've been challenged but not explained. Widefox; talk 16:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Widefox, I have come over here from the ANI thread, and I must admit, while I think you are trying to work for the best, I have some concerns. You are claiming to quote from the terms of use, but nowhere in the whole of the terms of use does the phrase "on all contributions" appear in any context. What the terms of use actually say is:

"You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

As you have accepted, you have been instrumental in recent changes at WP:PAID, to tighten the guideline, and Ɱ does appear to fall short of the current text. However, as that has only been in place for a day or two, and by your own admission (here), "we've got limited consensus here", I think it is over the top to expect Ɱ to have been adhering to those guidelines, particularly as you are referring to events that occured before you even changed them. Harrias talk 19:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Harrias thanks for pointing out essentially a typo of misremembering my own editing (which is just a copy of the ToU wording)! "any paid contributions" is of course correct. Please point out if I've misquoted myself with "all contributions" elsewhere (the context being paid editing I might add)! The point is that it covers drafts. So User:Ɱ and User:Ravensfire were corrected above (by not just me). I'm mindful of separation of legislation from enforcement, so please note other's comments, not mine. Widefox; talk 19:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but what the ToU says is "at least one". By having a statement on Ɱ's userpage, this is met, irrespective of the other two points. Harrias talk 20:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:LAWYERING Maybe yes the letter of ToU but not the spirit - the disclosure is still hidden - has gone from three clicks away to now one click from visible - and that's despite others saying that's outrageous! It's not an emergency, but I've not taken this to ANI.
WP:PAID/WP:COI guideline is explicit that it must be visible (for exactly this example - it was 3 clicks away!). Paid editors have to abide by more than just ToU here, so PAID and COIN etc matter. You may now be at the start of the same journey I went through to understand this lot (ToU being "or", but the community wanting a "preferred or" or stronger). That started for me at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure#Disclosure contradiction. Some of us consider this is just an intermediate step, as clearly the difference between ToU and anything else is wikilawyer-able (and as a legal requirement, together with incentives, is may be a good source of it). Widefox; talk 20:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree that PAID is an important guideline, but as I said above, until your edits to it on 6 November, after the start of this discussion, it was not explicit that it must be visible, and it did not state that more than one of those three criteria must be met. I do, actually, agree with the changes that are being made to PAID, but I would recommend that the work there is completed and a fair consensus gained (be it by strength of numbers, or stability over a time period) before the guideline is over policed. Ɱ made changes to meet the guidelines as they were at the start of this discussion, it is unreasonable to expect that user to adhere to the changes you have made to PAID during the term of this discussion instantly. Ɱ has shown good faith through most of this conversation, and made efforts to make their COI editing more transparent. Harrias talk 21:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Come on, "it was not explicit that it must be visible" - factually correct yes, do you really believe an invisible disclosure is OK? Want to get another opinion on that LAWYERING?!
The issue of more than one seems resolved - legally it's one per ToU, policy - whatever gets decided by normal process. I just bandaid-ed policy, guideline and template to be in-line with the letter (and a bit of spirit) of the ToU to make all this more obvious - the ToU is the only firm ground and it applies to drafts.
My personal feeling is that Ɱ is good faith (as I state #Ɱ), but as per WP:COIBIAS has misjudged this, and consistently dismissed it (see above, and at ANI). Personalising doesn't help - this section starts with me asking for clarification, not all guns blazing. It is not my job to ensure about legal compliance - it's literally none of my business.
I do care about misleading things like the essay, and in all these places there's been agreement. Thanks for your comments about PAID, as you say more scrutiny is important, but I don't think the conflation of the ANI urgency with a COIN helps. The ANI is about harassment - something another editor has already dismissed, and let's not forget there's still an open question waiting for a simple answer about it at my talk. If you find it acceptable for paid editors to contact volunteers offwiki, or my conduct in any way suspect, I suggest I take this to ANI for proper scrutiny. Widefox; talk 22:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Harrias In fact, the disclosure still isn't actually on the page User:Ɱ. It is on the subpage User:Ɱ/u and may look like it's there (it is conditionally shown there - depending on the date or something from what I can work out). I only just noticed this, so although it may be visible sometimes, it depends on other things, indexing may be disabled, it isn't included in popups, the history isn't there for instance, may depend on browser, and there'll be other restrictions. The ToU says "a statement on your user page" - technically, there is no disclosure on the user page. Fact. Widefox; talk 17:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Just a note that I'm away until Monday. In general I don't think having the note "physically" on a subpage, but visible on the main userpage is a problem, but the date dependent user page is more of an issue, I agree. Harrias talk 11:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I see any conditionality as an issue - if we're relying on it being "visible", but not there in the normal WP sense - it depends on many factors - date, file, browser, let alone other aspects such as indexing, popups, accessibility, mirroring etc, and the purpose is for internal use - so we have no history and have to check multiple file locations for dated files etc - it's overengineered! There's a ((paid)) template, which is best practice. Several of us agree (see above and links) that locating on a subpage is not correct per ToU (this was before yesterday's discovery that this disclosure is not even on the user page - adding a new aspect). Best folk just follow best practice, eh? I wouldn't describe this as worse practice either.
User:Harrias One could interpret it in both ways - "on" the user page: 1. visibly 2. physically . As the ToU is a legal requirement, that is something I'm not sure we're in a position to legally determine. Practically, we are allowed to interpret in policy and guideline, which to not risk diminishing the ToU (we can't), we have to interpret in the most reasonably stringent way - assuming both 1. and 2. . This is only common sense that a disclosure is both "visible" and located where it is meant to be. I will propose that is explicit in guideline - the "clearly visible" is explicit due to this case, the physical is not (yet) explicit, but also due to this case, will be proposed. Widefox; talk 13:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Coalition for a Secure Driver's License

User CSDLKIDSeditor made a huge addition to the article here. I reverted, and posted the standard COI template and additional advice on this user's talkpage. Now MichaelBJones21 (either the same user with an improved username per WP:ISU, or one of their colleagues) is re-posting the same content. That content violates WP:NPOV (as a biased self-description from the organization), WP:WEIGHT in it's length and excessive detail, and WP:RS (mostly uses self-published mission statements and affiliated sources with a clear bias on their own). I could use some help from experienced editors in evaluating and fixing the situation, currently the article is blatantly misused as publicity platform for the organization and its goals. Note, that I am not against concise additions of some of that content, as I tried to explain on CSDLKIDSeditor's talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that user mbjones is editing out any criticism of the organization. This is obviously not NPOV; the editor definitely has an agenda. I tried adding some back in, but need to do some more research. I would suggest that the editor be blocked. I don't see any other solution. LaMona (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Edwardpatrickalva

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Continued at WP:ANI

Cross-posted from ANI but User:Edwardpatrickalva's COI editing over The Hunting Ground has been brought up in the press here. There's a number of edits to BLP articles as noted there. I don't know what to do here. Someone already added The_Hunting_Ground#Controversy but that's not sufficient to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This editor arguably violated WP:BLP with pejorative edits to Jameis Winston. Based on that, I would say the appropriate action is to report this editor to WP:ANI to discuss sanctions and possibly a ban. Cla68 (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This is already over at ANI, there is no need to duplicate efforts here. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2015 (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.

Konstantin Monastyrsky

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Continued at WP:ANI

A new editor with essentially the same name as that of the article has appeared, making massive changes to the article. I have alerted them to the COI process on their talk page, to which (I assume) they replied with this. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Editor officially notified via subst template. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
There are other problems with their edits, such as using Wikipedia, LinkedIn and other unreliable sites. Making unreliable claims such as Neither of these three individuals is a medical researcher or a member of “the scientific community,” and they use Wikipedia to promote their respective commercial websites by placing... Bgwhite (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2015 (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.

Lab Made

This may have been connected to Orangemoody per this. I did some trimming of astonishingly promo content, more may be needed. Brianhe (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Clevedon Hall

The new article Clevedon Hall was created by User:Jojourneypr who may have been editing on behalf of the Journey agency. I have edited the article to add references etc and I have added tags to the article, talk page and user talkpage, but could someone more familiar just check I've done this right. I do not know if anyone else from the agency is doing similar things on other articles.— Rod talk 10:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I see WP:PAID, and had already made a formal request to User:Jojourneypr on their talk page. They seem to be a WP:SPA, here only to create this article. The article itself is fine, though, like all articles, requires improvement. It is the editor that concerns me. WP:PAID seems to offer no obvious remedies when a suspected paid editor fails to disclose. Am I missing something obvious? Fiddle Faddle 16:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Removed most of the PR material. It's notable because it's a Grade II* listed building, not because of its current use. John Nagle (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Business 2 Community

This probably goes just as well at RSN, but thought I'd ping the COIN folk about their experience with business2community as a source. here are the pages linking to it.

And while I'm at it, the article Business 2 Community looks like it's mostly written by a single editor, has no talkpage, and says it "has a high quality standard for contributors" cited to blog.shareaholic.com. Brianhe (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Business 2 Community per WP:WEB. It's a blog. The refs are either article which mention multiple blogs, or were generated by PR activity from the company. John Nagle (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
PROD removed by the IP editor behind the article.[7]. Send to AfD? Comments?

City Car Club

Alexzor1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A number of edits have been made to the City Car Club page and other tenuously related articles by User:Alexzor1 in such a way that leads me to believe they are an employee of City Car Club, as it looks like advertising/promotion to me. It's the type of thing I would usually edit away on sight, but I myself have a conflict of interest here because I work for Zipcar, a competitor of City Car Club.

Why I think they have an interest in / are promoting City Car Club

Many many edits to the City Car Club page - example - changing "City Car Club is a carshare operator based in the UK" to the (still unsubstantiated) "City Car Club is the leading carshare operator based in the UK"

And edits to other pages adding links to City Car Club:

Request for edit

Almost all of the above have already been reverted, but the contributions to Telematics and City Car Club still remain. In my humble and undoubtably biased opinion, the statement regarding them being "the leading" on City Car Club needs to be either clarified, cited, or removed, and imo the Carsharing section on the Telematics page does not benefit from the small list of operators that has grown from the initial addition of City Car Club - I think the link to car sharing operators is enough, and the list should be removed.

I would like to note that the rest of the City Car Club page does seem high quality and does not read very "advertisy" to me, including User:Alexzor1's contributions.


The above report was from an IP address/unregistered user. Whilst I agree that Alexzor's edits do seem to be borne out of some undeclared link, he hasn't made any edits to the article since 2007. What he has written hasn't met the standards at all. I'm also concerned about Hi, you share the same name as the article you edit, suggesting a potential conflict of interest. It is therefore advised, according to the guidelines, to refrain from editing the article. The aim of the encyclopaedia is to present relevant information in a neutral tone, and it is difficult to remain objective when someone is linked to the subject. This also goes for sockpuppets which is where someone creates a new identity to effectively continue with the same behaviour. If you feel there are pertinent edits required on the City Car Club article, you can either raise these on the talk page or by requesting assistance at the Teahouse. Rayman60 (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC) and the general tone of the article, it just reads like one giant advert. I'm leaving the article for now so others can see it, however I would have removed a LOT from this article had I stumbled across it. Rayman60 (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Toned down the PR language in the lede. ("Billed as "The thinking person's car", the company has received huge press attention, particularly as an example of a unique business thriving during the recent economic downturn.") That was overdoing it. Major, legit business, clearly notable. John Nagle (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

School of Economic Science

As can be seen from the article, the School of Economic Science, also known as the School of Practical Philosophy, is a spiritual group that has been described as a cult. It has admitted to historical cases of criminal child abuse after an investigation in the UK, as can be seen in the 'Reputation' section of the article.

To repeat what I have already stated on the Talk page there: This article, as noted on this Talk page by other editors such as User:KD Tries again, has at times read like Public Relations, in which verifiable, reliable sources commenting on the subject are undermined by editors' POV commentary in breach of WP:NOR. A few years ago it was so bad that I joined Wikipedia in order to improve this article, which first entailed reading up how to edit and how WP style guidelines and policies work. The PR tendency here was so tiring to work with that I then chose not to go and work on other articles on Wikipedia for fear of burning up additional precious time. Life really is too short. It's precisely discussions like this that puts off newcomers such as myself from volunteering more time into this project. I could, of course, now spend days of my life working on articles about my favorite civil rights heroes, my favorite train lines and my favorite nature preserves. But after this experience, I'm deterred.

I am concerned about User:Skyring having a COI. By their own account on the on the School of Economic Science Talk page on August 10, the editor says: "I'm a member of the School of Practical Philosophy. As such, I have a strong interest in the truth."

Note that Skyring's real username is concealed on their signature, which instead appears as 'Pete'. It seems they may be blanking their own Talk page, so I am not aware of their discussions with moderators or sanction/block log history.

I've found their edits at School of Economic Science to be concerning, in that they appear to be (i) questioning sources and interpreting sources in a way that pushes an agenda of reputation management of the organization rather than (ii) being as faithful as possible to the sources. This is known as SYNTH.

Certainly, it has resulted in actually false information being put into the article, as I've stated in my 19 and 22 September Talk page entries there. There have also been issues raised with this editor by users Keithbob and KD Tries again.

By their own account on a 28 Aug Talk page note, Skyring/Pete says: "Wikipedia editors are more than gnomes, diligently cutting and pasting whatever presents itself in the world of sources. We also evaluate and contribute our life experiences and skills."

Skyring/Pete here is stating that editors' experience is more valid than what verifiable sources say. My understanding is that the opposite is true. It's especially problematic because of the COI.

In the main, Skyring/Pete appears to be trying to make it appear that the child abuse and other alleged abuses all happened as long ago as possible, that it is over and that his organization has changed for the better. This all may be perfectly true, but the problem is that he is pushing this version without accurately representing sources to back it up (and in some cases, openly undermining sources that don't fit this agenda.)

I have raised my concerns with Skyring/Pete and received the reply that I am a 'Single Purpose Account' - and I explained my small journey into Wikipedia as I did above. I warned Skyring/Pete that I would have to voice my concerns if their behavior doesn't change, and in my assessment it has not.

I don't have enough time to go through a lengthy discussion process, and have no intention of getting too involved in Wikipedia for the reasons stated above. I leave this for the record. -Roberthall7 (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert! You appear to be a single purpose editor because every one of your edits are concerned with School of Economic Science/School of Practical Philosophy. Perhaps you could explain why this particular topic engages you to the exclusion of all else. Do you have your own connection?
Members of communities are not generally prohibited from editing articles about that community. So long as material is reliably sourced, there is no original research, and WP:NPOV considerations are observed, there should be no problem. Australians are not excluded from articles about Australia, Boy Scouts are encouraged to edit articles about Boy Scouts, and Harvard alumni may edit articles about their alma mater. You do not indicate any financial or other interest here, merely membership.
Your main concern about child abuse is that it happened fifty years ago, according to reliable sources, and you suspect that it continued. Do you have any sources to this effect? You say that there was criminal behaviour, but do not show any sources to back up your charges. Who was prosecuted, when, and what was the outcome?
Could you point to any diffs you consider problematic or counter to policy, please. --Pete (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
This looks more like a content dispute than a matter for WP:COIN. John Nagle (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Press coverage of Wikipedia Tea Room invitation being discussed

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Notable Tea Room invitee looks like a highly probable case of an Internet marketer getting a newspaper story written about himself, and using his invitation to the Tea Room as a mark of notability (really). Newspaper in question is The New Indian Express with a daily circulation upwards of 300,000. For general awareness but especially to DGG for your attention as one interested in the relationship of the Indian press to subjects of their reporting. People have figured out which WP account it is, but I haven't bothered, not to discourage someone else who wants to add it to this case. – Brianhe (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Lindy Robbins

Music PR company writing excessively on 2 subjects. Have been advised/warned in 2013 and again in 2015, are routinely ignoring requests to familiarise with and adhere to policies. When I first encountered their edits, I was able to link the PR company to the subject via a quick google search (i.e. on their list of clients). This isn't available now however it's quite clearly a case of COI and SPA, unproductive and non neutral edits. I haven't looked at notability criteria yet but suspect there may be issues with that too. Also Lindy Robbins links to the wiki page on her twitter bio, indicating to me that they are promoting the page as a supposedly neutral and authoritative source of info to add credibility. Rayman60 (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. MER-C 20:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

OnPath Testing

In metadata for the version of this file visible on 3 November, the uploader identified herself by real-world name. The real-world person has identified herself off-wiki as a marketing-related employee of OnPath Testing. Editor has ignored Sam Sailor's September COI notification and my recent request to disclose a connection, instead resubmitting AfC once again. Brianhe (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

DGG had previously deleted a spammy draft in September. Given they took no notice of the warnings and created another spammy draft, I've deleted it and indeffed them. SmartSE (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Vanessa Silberman and others

editors

Something odd here, possibly a music company or promoter editing under the name of a client. Brianhe (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Kabir Sadeghi

Article created by SPA, maintained by long list of anon drive-bys, and linked from a suspiciously spammy userpage. Brianhe (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Taking a quick look there are a handful of problems. The two users mentioned haven't edited in a while, and the COI username isn't active. I also found numerous links on other pages, many of which I have removed because they were dubious and appeared to be attempts at asserting notability... Looking to the recent IP edits, all of the ones from this year aren't necessarily horrible, just a bit of peacockery. With the only concerning COI edits coming from last year from 94.78.79.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), of which I placed a COI warning on their page. But even that IP's recent edits aren't a major concern... Overall it seems like this page just need a good copy-edit, and no administrative action are necessary. It doesn't appear to be a current problem with the last edit at all being 2 months ago, and nothing serious recently. I've tagged the page itself for peakcock and coi. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I also did a quick cleanup to remove some of the peacock, fixed some formatting, and trimmed the extensive use of over-citing. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

William Morris IP editor or editors

editor #1
editor #2

Subsequent to being invited to look at an ANI report on the anon editor 143.223.0.1, identified as a William Morris Agency (PR) address, I looked a bit more at contribs from agency's IP addresses. The addresses appear to be static so are labeled presuming each is associated with an individual; top articles are listed here.

In summary, the top two articles edited are about themselves, so this is problematic for COI. They may also be involved in entities they represent. Also this removal of cited information on another member of the same industry. And there may be other, logged-in accounts involved. Brianhe (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree - definitely COI problems here. I've notified 143.223.9.249 and IMGGolf15. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
What's current policy on paid editing from IP addresses? WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY says "Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions, on their main user page, the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (articles, drafts etc), or, if the talk page can not be used, in edit summaries." That assumes the existence of a user page, which IP editors usually don't have. This has been coming up lately; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Widefox. An unambiguous policy on paid editing from IP addresses would be helpful. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
It would be nice to get specifics about editing from ips into the policy. IPs like this are paid editors by definition, and should disclose on article talk pages even if they are strictly adhering to WP:COI's editing recommendations. --Ronz (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Gerber Scout Reservation

Notability hasn't been established; a previous merge appear appropriate, but the apparent COI account prefers to make this a stand-alone article. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I did some cleanup, notified the editor, and also did a PROD on the page. Not sure there is enough notability for the article. It appears to be partially merged out from another article. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Sydney59

All editing here is promotional editing based around Matthew Wills.

Matthew Wills (born in Sydney in 59) is a teacher who, according to Sydney59 "is responsible for the creation and establishment of several unique and international educational initiatives including the Dialogue Australasian Network, Philosothons and the Ethics Olympiad." Draft:Matthew Wills. Editing is dedicated to promoting Wills and those three initiatives. Even it that one sentence you can see the obvious peackocking. Wills is

The drafts for Matthew Wills and Ethics olympiad have been repeatedly declined ([8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]) so Sydney59 just ignored that process and created the articls himself, both first runs were speedy deleted G11. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This notification is a blatant case of harassment in that the Dialogue Australasian Network article and the Philosothon articles were written over 7/8 years ago and received B and C rating respectively. They are plainly about encyclopedia worthy topics and have been written and revised to reflect Wikipedia standards. I am not sure why suddenly someone calling themselves "Duff Beer for Me" sees themselves as being in a position to challenge the integrity of these articles. I am an academic that is well placed to see the worth and quality of these articles. These articles are important go to places for schools around Australasia and the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney59 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sydney59: This is definitely not harassment - it is about maintaing the project's integrity. All of your edits are related to this set of articles which are all related to Matthew Wills. Considering that Mr. Wills was apparently born in 1959 and resides in Sydney, it doesn't require a great deal of deduction to come to the conclusion that you have been writing about yourself. Put simply, that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. While it's not forbidden, attacking other users who point out concerns related to this as you have done above is not going to do any favours. Please disclose any conflict of interest that you have and in future only request edits to be made on the talk page of articles. Thank you SmartSE (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I applaud Smartse's attempt to maintain the projects integrity by avoiding promotional and un-notable postings. The most recent of my postings did have a conflict of interest, but be careful not to assume that all these postings are a conflict of interest....In his attempt to highlight this Smartse is destroying two well written articles with integrity that I have written about events where there is no conflict of interest....which are notable and well written. I have no involvement in the Dialogue Australasian Network at all and have not done so for the last 8 years. In terms of the Philosothon the management of these events is by two independent educational networks as was explained in the Philosothon article. Therefore there is no conflict of interest there either. While I participate in these events this does not preclude me from writing an article about the event with integrity. Do not through the baby out with the bathwater. I will not be writing such articles in future.Sydney59 (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Rohinimahesh

Draft article appears to have been written by subject's son. Brianhe (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Deakin University 2

User has returned and performed the following.

The user who was attending to the previous report linked to above is currently under ArbCom block, seeking review of the above evidence and any appropriate action taken. I personally feel that we may be dealing with a single purpose account here. -- sandgemADDICT yeah? 05:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC) 06:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The above report was removed without explanation or cause in this revert. I understand that I failed to provide the required UW, which will be provided. Explanation would be appreciated for further revert to my talk page. -- sandgemADDICT yeah? 06:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Al Jaffee and his brother Harry

When adding to Al Jaffee#Personal life, I mentioned the fact that his brother Harry had various mental illnesses. I sourced this to Mary-Lou Weisman Al Jaffee's Mad Life, HarperCollins, 2010. About 80-90% or so of the book seems to be an "as-told-to" biography. Modernist removed the word "mental", as part of an edit summarized as "ce". I put it back in, she removed it again, saying "disputed". On the third go-round, she went to the Talk page, revealing the dispute. She stated she knows everyone involved personally, that "the family is appalled", the book is wrong and verging on "libel", Jaffee was merely sharing an "opinion", and the like.

The strength and vehemence with which Modernist dictates terms, and the fact that it is all based on her personal knowledge, suggests COI to me.

Disclosure: I originally posted on this at ANI (closed as wrong forum), DRN (closed as unripe), and RSN (no responses).

Harry died in 1985, so there are no BLP issues regarding him. Choor monster (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is a COI issue, or even really an RS issue. It's just common sense about whether it should be included, especially when it's of questionable relevance and based on a primary source with no expertise in diagnosing mental illness. I could flippantly tell a biographer that my brother has mental illnesses but that doesn't make it so, and it certainly shouldn't appear in an encyclopedia article about me. I agree with statements made on the article talk page by Modernist and NYB weeks ago, and this feels a bit like forum shopping. You lost the argument, let it go. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
By the way, it would have been courteous to notify Modernist and Newyorkbrad of this posting. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Spike Wilbury. If this were important to the article's subject, there would be reason for discussion. Given that this is contentious material, peripheral to the article, and without multiple sources, it's not worth this much time and trouble. Newyorkbrad explained this already at the article's talk page. JNW (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Spike: your statements about Al Jaffee are improper. You should not imply regarding a BLP that he "flippantly" told his biographer something, or suggest that he's incompetently rendering his own amateur diagnoses. According to Weisman/Jaffee, Harry was diagnosed by professional psychiatrists, and kept at psychiatric institutes, until the newly invented psychotropic drugs made it possible for Harry to go home. They gave him shock treatments, and they recommended lobotomy, which Harry's wife declined.
JNW: you are citing BLP regarding a long dead person. Irrelevant.
There has been no discussion based on WP policies/guidelines/essays. It was railroaded from the outset by claims of outside personal knowledge. NYB cited this outside personal knowledge as tipping the call.
A discussion regarding the relevance and bearing of Harry's mental illness based on WP policies/guidelines/essays and restricted to RS is fine by me. I even mentioned why I included it, how it helps make the article more encyclopedic. And I did so based on RS, not outside personal knowledge.
Regarding COI, it says here "A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality." Modernist has claimed a personal connection, and has explicitly edited for the sake of those outside interests, calling it "private". Choor monster (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that writing well is somewhere in a Wikipedia policy/guideline/essay. My main point is that the information is of very questionable relevance. Something can also be challenged as contentious regardless of whether the subject is a BLP. When it is, you should provide multiple RS not only confirming it, but also illustrating why it's relevant. You don't have consensus to include the material. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Your comment on consensus is presumptuous. Consensus is based on respecting WP policy/guideline/essay. Citing outside unverifiable knowledge is nowhere acceptable. Modernist relies entirely on that, NYB said that for marginal material, it tipped the balance. You and JNW yourself state that you agree with them. So far as I can see, we have a self-declared COI editor being defending regarding her COI edits. I see exactly one editor sticking to WP policy/guideline/essay versus several who aren't.
For example, your statement about contentious material is nonsensical, invented on the fly. Think for one moment. Why does WP:BLP even bother to require multiple RS? Wouldn't it have been simpler to just remind everyone about this alleged policy that applies to all contentious material? It would be, but since that's not policy, it's explicitly a BLP-extra. Bluntly put, you are declaring open season on an incredible volume of WP material.
As another example, Modernist invented the "only statements about his cartooning are allowed" idea, since that's the reason Jaffee is notable. Such statements meet DUE rather easily, of course, but that's about it. As it is, I stated on Talk:Al Jaffee why this minor point is relevant. It's in fact relevant to Jaffee's cartooning. From 1970-77, Al hired his brother to draw backgrounds for him, to provide for stability and routine in his life, since after Al's 1967 divorce Harry was harder to deal with. Harry's work was quality material, but Harry refused an offer from Al Feldstein to freelance directly for Mad because of his paranoia. Harry then quit when Al remarried in 1977 to a social worker, since Harry believed she was automatically in cahoots with psychiatrists, who of course wanted to give him more meds.
I would say UNDUE is respected if we stick to the one word. That's proportionately much less than Weisman/Jaffee devote to Harry's mental health.
As it is, the RS I've cited is as rock-solid as you could hope for. Al Jaffee isn't some latter day scholar piecing through an obscure paper trail, but he is telling Weisman from up close and personal. He had been there. And he had been paying for it all, and not just in cash. Choor monster (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Big Yellow Group

Hello there,

I am getting in touch on behalf of Big Yellow as I have noticed some inaccuracies in the original post. These are as follows:

1) Under "Big Yellow Group" In line 1 of the first paragraph, replace "London and the South East of England" with "throughout the UK".

2) In the same section in the second sentence please replace, "The company is ranked third largest self-storage company in UK " with "Big Yellow is the most recognised self storage brand in the UK.(Self Storage Association UK Annual Survey published by Cushman & Wakefield 2015)"

3) Under the "History" section on line one please replace, "the company has 55 storage sites in UK" with " the company has 70 storage sites in the UK"

4) In the information box on the right of the page called "Big Yellow Group plc", Replace "Revenue: £72.2 million (2014)" with "Revenue: £84.3 million (2015)"

5) In the information box on the right of the page called "Big Yellow Group plc", Replace "Operating income: £67.9 million (2014)" with "Operating Income: £114.2 million (2015)"

6) In the information box on the right of the page called "Big Yellow Group plc", Replace "Net income: £59.5 million ( 2014)" with "Net income: £105.6 million (2015)"

I have tried to get these changed in the past but been rejected - is there anything else I can do?

Blencs (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Update the financial table and number of stores to match the 2015 annual statement. It's interesting that net profit is greater than revenue. The big money is coming from the real estate investments, not the self storage business. As for being "most recognized", you're not #1 yet; SafeStore stil has more locations. John Nagle (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Most recognised is not the same as biggest. http://www.ssauk.com/wp-content/pubs/SSAUKAnnualSurvey2015.pdf page 25. OP is correct, though they do not get to choose which metrics we display, I think we can add this one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC).

Diego Grez-Cañete

User
Other accounts

A conflict of interest has already been established and admitted between Diego Grez Cañete and his website El Marino. El Marino (online newspaper) was a redirect that he recently turned into an article that is a REFBOMB of self-published, self-written, and hyper-local sources. The user has stated that this is ok because COI editing "is discouraged, but not prohibited". It could use some more eyes. Vrac (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

A similar concern was already up in 2014 when Diego's site Memoria Pichilemina was discussed. There must be much more conflicts of interest related to this user but since he has moved around 5 different usernames since 2008 or so it is difficult to track all activity. There also reason to believe most Pichilemu people and newspapers/radio stations he wrties about have some relation to him since the town has only 13,000 inhabitants and Diego is very interested in journalism. Sietecolores (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that history; in light of recent developments I would say that AndyTheGrump's analysis at the time was spot-on: he isn't going to stop this gross abuse of Wikipedia facilities for the purpose of personal gratification until forced to - by topic-ban and/or block, as necessary. Vrac (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The issue with Diego is that he tries to promote himself or subjects very close to himself (his newspaper, his school, or his schoolmates?). He has tried to do so over a long period of time. He should by now know the rules, otherwise he is just gaming the system. Another problem is that Diego tries persistently to cover Pichilemu with such a depth that is not compatible with WP:GNG. Do not mistake me. Diego is good editor, who can if he wants create really good content. He just need to stop editing about topics too close to himself and way to local to be relevant. Sietecolores (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Un-retirement and sock puppetry

Surprise, surprise, the above IP address that geolocates to Chile just reverted my speedy nomination on Pichilemunews. Vrac (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to see how he has gotten away with it for all these years. Pichilemunews was deleted G4 by one admin, and a different admin declined the speedy on El Marino (online newspaper) because it is a redirect. Diego has created variations such as Pichilemu News and Pichilemunews.cl; this could go on forever. Without consistent support from admins the system is being successfully gamed. Vrac (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Softlavender, yes an Diego Grez has a more stories back in time (I don't have time to dig into that). It does not matter to have uncivil and disruptive behaviour in the past if the used has changed that. Everybody deserves a fresh start. But Diego has had chances to recover and still he insists in such immature behaviour. PS. let me know about any deletion nomination i would like to see if any content can be savaged. Sietecolores (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Sietecolores and others, please check the ANI again, as there is a proposal now. Softlavender (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
This is all well and good except for the fact he apparently writes (or is heavily involved with) that newspaper. Should he be allowed to create Wikipedia articles based on sources he in turn creates? --LjL (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

FFBFFB

FFBFFB was reported at WP:AIV as a "spammer", but since the behavior of this editor isn't obvious as a mere spammer, I'm bringing it here to defer to this noticeboard instead. FFBFFB's edits are promotional and, in my opinion, they have the appearance of a paid PR effort. I invite more experienced editors here to have a look and respond accordingly. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Chris Christian seems to have problems. It claims he's won several Grammy awards, yet I can't find them in the official Grammy database.[17]. Citations at both Chris Christian and Home Sweet Home Records are very weak. Google searches are not bringing up reliable sources. A Grammy-winning musician should have more press visibility than this. Am I missing something, or is something badly wrong with these articles? Help requested from someone who does music articles. John Nagle (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Referred to WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Chris_Christian. John Nagle (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Conley family

Around Conley family
Promotional editor who started this page.

SPAs involved
1. Only edited Conley family

2. Those with other edits

3. Others

Around Roger Cameron Wood, a member of the Conley family

SPAs invovled
1. Only edited Roger Cameron Wood

2. Those with other edits

3. Others

See also the following post from Index theory taken from Talk:Roger Cameron Wood
begin quote "
Sock puppetry?

first try
we never give up
  1. Roger Cameron Wood, 6 November 2009
  2. ORCA (Internet currency platform) ("co-founder Roger Cameron Wood")
  3. Conley family (Wood "is the 4th generation of the Conley family members to attend Morehouse & Spelman")

--Index theory (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
" end quote

There is other SPAs putting Conleys into other articles that have not edited the above three articles.

What we have here is a mass of paid editing, promotion and sockpuppetry surrounding these subjects. Thoughts? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

My first thought when I saw it was sockpuppetry. It ought to be reported. 00:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Start at WP:SPI, and notify mentioned editors of this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Abhishek Agrawal

SPAs for article Abhishek Agrawal. Authorabhi not communicated about COI concerns raised on his talkpage a week ago. SPA anon editor recently added same author to list of greats at Indian literature. Brianhe (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Article is now at AfD. – Brianhe (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
More