Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 108

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest | Noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:43, 8 November 2016 (Archiving 7 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 105Archive 106Archive 107Archive 108Archive 109Archive 110→Archive 115

Change detection

User PhilOt repeated adds an uncited 2016 publication to the article, authored by Otto Philip. Clearly, this fails notability and COI guidelines and is Spam. Please semi-protect the page. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You've done three reverts without taking it to the talk page. Your edit summaries have misapplied policies - citing yourself is not automatically spam (see WP:SELFCITE), and notability is required for the topic of an article, not for the contents and references. That doesn't mean that the inclusion is due, but I suggest you and @PhilOt: discuss this first on the article's Talk page, before dragging it elsewhere. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nat Gertler: I have tried talking to him on User talk:PhilOt, including:
> you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s)
he does not appear to have interest in talking about this, or reaching a consensus. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
In other words, you templated him.
Perhaps one of the ways you might encourage him to have a discussion is to start an actual discussion, on the talk page of the article, where other editors of that article could see. That seems a better way of working toward consensus.
Also, if you are seeking page protection, this is not the best place to come. We have a separate page specifically for such requests. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The templates are well-written text, with relevant policies (for new users!) and invitations to discuss. By placing them on the user talk page rather than the page talk, it is usually considered to be less offensive rather than publicly saying "your work is not important enough to be added here" publicly on the talk page immediately. But yes, if he re-adds the publication yet again without discussion, I will go the page protection requests next. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nat Gertler: Thank you for the explanation of the Wikipedia Policies and recommending to use the Talk page. I was really wondering, why @HelpUsStopSpam: undid important revisions of the article for the reason of WP:SELFCITE or WP:COI. Now, I added a section on the Talk page in order to explain why revisions of the article are needed. My proposals are additionally added in this section. Moreover, I would like to point out that it is important to distinguish between WP:CITESPAM, WP:SELFCITE, and WP:COI. Not always, an uncited reference is not important for an article/section. The importance of sources must be evaluated in the context of the specific contribution (that means with regards to contents of the source), but not by a single view on the number of cites. PhilOt (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Mindcap - undisclosed paid editor?

This user is setting off multiple alarm bells pointing to undisclosed paid editing although they deny it. Kasha Mann was the first article I noticed as a recreation by a previous group of undisclosed paid editors. Particularly disturbing thing is the use of references that sound like they are RS but in fact are not and are seemingly operated by the same organisation e.g. links: [http://thetimesofmiami.com/kasha-the-national-and-international-award-winning-artist] (thephiladelphiajournal.com/worldwide/usa-sways-on-the-beats-of-kasha/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork> whois: [https://who.is/whois/thetimesofmiami.com] [1]. They've presumably been created specifically for use here in order to game the system. The content is obviously promotional (see The House of Angadi for example) and there are other hallmarks that I'd prefer not to disclose here. Given that they say that they aren't being paid, can others review their edits and comment on whether my hunch is reasonable or not. I've already sent quite a few articles to deletion, but others might need attention. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The user:Smartse seems more interested to deleting Wikipedia articles without knowing the subject. I noticed this user adding deletion tag randomly. I also noticed this user on his talk page for adding deletion tag for NDMC 311. This is a non-profit mobile application developed by Delhi Government for the sake of Delhi people. But the user:Smartse added deletion tag without knowing the subject.
For paid users, I would say i have created all articles for social interest not for my personal need or i never get a single penny for all articles i have created. You may double check my profile and all articles that i have created. I write articles on Wikipedia due to my personal interest in Wikipedia only. I have written all articles on Wikipedia by spending several hours of my life without any personal interest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindcap (talk • contribs) 15:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I've deleted The House of Angadi - the reason it was so obviously an ad is that it was loosely copied (some paraphrase, some just copied) from the company's website. I'd suggest the editor try WP:AfC in the future and avoid company websites and press releases as sources. I see that NDMC 311 was deleted by User:SpacemanSpiff who suggests this is a sock of Smileverse (talk · contribs) blocked in July 2015 by SmartSE for advertising.
And @Mindcap:, what's this about? Doug Weller talk 15:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm very concerned with the fake refs. This seems to have occurred before - SEO firms creating false sites to house content farmed articless for clients that also work nicely as "relaible sources" if you don't look too close. Will look through my notes tonight and see if I can find the previous instances. Kuru (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • News Chicago news-chicago.com
  • Washington Journal thewajournal.com
  • The Times of Miami hetimesofmiami.com
  • The Times of Texas thetimesoftexas.com
  • Atlanta Times atltimes.com
  • The Philadelphia Journal thephiladelphiajournal.com
Same concerns here. The Kasha Mann sources (above) all look really similar, like there's a common template for creating fake newspapers. Especially compare the identical banner font on most of them, identical navigation bar, stock ticker, copyright footer, etc. and identical "contact us" pages (without any actual contact information, naturally). Is that somebody's business model? Perhaps These sites should be blacklisted so that (AGF) good editors don't get fooled into using these fake sites as citations. Listed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Multiple fake newspaper websites. - Brianhe (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
There are more sites listed here - it's actually a different email to the one in the previous links but some of the other sites lead me there and they had identical physical addresses. I'm fairly sure I remember seeing The San Francisco Post and The Los Angeles Journal used before, but unfortunately I can't remember by who and the links are deleted now. @Kuru: The only previous case I can remember was in this SPI but I don't see any link between these sites. SmartSE (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
See my nom of this AFD which is confirmation that this set of domains is linked to smileverse. I'll start a new SPI to see if there is anything else to uncover. SmartSE (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Smartse: confirming that the Martino AfD includes a link to one of the bad domains, thelajournal.com. - Brianhe (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I can't find it in my notes. :( I remember seeing the usage of a fake news site and discovering two others that were not being used through a common registry. It may have been that AFD you list above. Kuru (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the account as an undisclosed COI/advert only account that was indulging in ref falsification (see the Angadi article for example along with the host of fake domains). Also this response indicates that it is indeed a sock. —SpacemanSpiff 16:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Indo Canadian Golf Association was created, apparently out of Mindcap's sandbox. - Brianhe (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Clean up

Appears to be needed of all these articles.[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Tagged them all for starters. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Accounts are here:

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Any thoughts on why an obvious shill created Spaces (app)? This is strange, seeing stuff related to a large market cap company with plenty of organic marketing resources. Otherwise, the list is unsurprising composed of the usual COI borderline or non-notable startups, books, films, etc. - Brianhe (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

PaveGen

Promotional editing by an IP. Is this a notable topic? Guy (Help!) 07:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Notable, yes. There's considerable press coverage. Useful, no. Added "Criticism" section. The Register did an analysis and writes that it generates only "tiny, pointless amounts of energy". John Nagle (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Michael Milken

A new SPA has appeared at the two Milken articles above. The Milkens have previously used admitted paid editors to polish their articles. [3] This comes up because the two were involved in one of the big financial scandals of the 1980s, and M. Milkin did prison time. They would prefer this be forgotten. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

So we have a brand new account, with no history on any other articles, making error free, complex formatted additions of philanthropy [4] and honors [5] to articles that have in the past attracted advocacy editing. Yeah, I smell a problem too. - Brianhe (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Just saw these changes were made to the page and I'm confused. A new SPA (or any user) cannot correct typos on a page without flagging for COI? There were no deletions by the SPA of any information that would suggest bias or to be "forgotten" in John Nagle's words, and the information I see referenced comes from sources that state facts about building specs and an event that took place with no language that describes positive or negative sentiment. Sonnet44 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Sonnet44: without putting too fine a point on it, what do you think the role of "web content specialist and representative for Lowell Milken" (i.e. you) should be at a third party issue in this venue? My view is you are involved and should not attempt to act as referee here. Brianhe (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Brianhe: Since Wikipedia is a website for facts to be discussed, disclosed and properly sourced (something you've kindly pointed out I do on my User page info affiliation according to Wiki guidelines), you will see that I was asking for clarification on how a COI flag is reflected in the edits from LBFLBF. It's not my job to determine such matters, nor did I make it so as a referee would (at least according to the definition on this website.) The only clear bias here is in your accusatory tone throughout this discussion. Sonnet44 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
When we see patterns of editing behaviour that match our previous experience of COI, we tend to suspect that COI may be afoot again. Let me turn the question around: why are you going to such lengths to insist that LBFLBF is not a COI editor? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Thanks for chiming in here. Patterns of behavior makes absolute sense. Thank you for providing the clarification I was asking for in my original comment. That is a reasoned response and if there is a pattern of behavior from the SPA that you discover, the editorial staff will take appropriate action I am certain. As all my actions on Wikipedia reflect, I am providing fact-based information and encouraging others to do the same without positive or negative sentiment. As you can see above, the tone and tenor of the discussion was not going in that direction. It's odd that merely participating in a discussion is something you consider "insisting LBFLBF is not a COI editor." That's not my call to make, as I already stated, and I'm glad that other editors can weigh in for this discussion. Sonnet44 (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
As all your actions on wikipedia reflect, you are a paid shill for your somewhat dubious employer and, hopefully, a reformed COI editor. Not, again, to put too fine a point on it. We certainly respect your view, but don't find it very persuasive. Indeed, going back to patterns of behaviour, you jumping in here as you have done raises more red flags about LBFLBF and you, which probably was not your intention, but is certainly the outcome. So it goes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Understood. Regardless of the facts I present and regardless of the work I've done to present the facts clearly in my edits, you assume dubious intent by (assumed and unfounded) association. As such I will comment no further, accept to say that those who have presented subjective opinions on the Lowell Milken page in the past with no fact or sources have rarely been given such scrutiny. Sonnet44 (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Your association is not assumed and unfounded. Lowell's association is not assumed and unfounded. That other bad stuff happens elsewhere has no logical bearing on proceedings here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
That you refer to the Wikipedia volunteers as "the editorial staff" speaks volumes about your orientation towards us. - Brianhe (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey all, I'm not a COI, I'm just new to wikipedia. I think the work you guys have done on Lowell's page -- in particular -- is great. I wanted to make a few edits to typos and add some updates. Would you all be up for making some other edits? I think that we could change Early life and Education to one section. Then we can add sub categories to Carrer: Irell & Manella, Drexel Burnham Lambert and Knowledge Universe. We could even add a Controvery section. I'm 100% not trying to undo the work you've put in. Let me know. Thanks. - LBFLBF — Preceding unsigned comment added by LBFLBF (talk • contribs) 18:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey all -- one other note -- I don't think I made any "complex" changes. I just added two lines with sources. LBFLBF (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone "new to Wikipedia" (your words) perfectly executes a complex and confusing template as their second edit. No cause for suspicion, of course; most brand-new editors are equally accomplished. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The 'visual editor' flag was set on that edit, maybe VE built the template using the auto citation builder? JerryRussell (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Philanthropies

For the record here are related philanthropy articles. There has been a history of SPAs and skulduggery at many or all. - Brianhe (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

From some of the same editors:
Some of these could probably be merged into the general Milken Institute article. John Nagle (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Proposed merges of Philanthropy Advisory Service and FasterCures into Milken Institute. Discussion at Talk:Milken Institute. Wikipedia usually does this for subsidiary business units, unless they're on the scale of Chevrolet. Also proposed deletion of Margaret A. Anderson. John Nagle (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Dame (group)

Article deleted, image with suspected dodgy licence queued for speedy deletion or some other fate. Good call by 331dot to bring it here. I think we're done - though keep the deleted article on your watchlist, since it may well be back. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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

I would just like someone more knowledgeable than I to review this article and its talk page regarding the copyright of the image on the page and the comments made by Josmoke9. It's getting into matters that seem above my pay grade, so to speak. They have declared a COI but I'm not really clear on if the paid editing policy has been met, or if what that user describes is acceptable. Thank you 331dot (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

With luck the article will be deleted soon and these questions will be moot. Clearly promotional guff for a not-yet-notable band. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
But, fwiw, 331dot, it is believable that File:Shawn Stockman and Dame.png was taken by the promotional person; it's less likely that File:Dame WIR.png was, and an OTRS permission for that should certainly be sought ... I've read the talk page. Whether the promotor has sent an email to the right place, heaven knows. We have a belated admission of COI on the article, which is better than nothing. But as I noted above, the article is promotional twaddle for a non-notable band. Unwinding all of this is easiest if we start with the deletion of the article. Were the article to stay, it woud need to be cut back to bare bones. I forget what the policy on commons is for an image with a dodgy licence, but I'll look into it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
and there it went :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm uncertain about the best procedure onthe Commons, so I've marked the image for speedy deletion, and presume a better informed commoner will deal with it appropriately now that it's in the speedy queue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2016 (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.

Richard A. Fowler

Richard Fowler or his staff have repeatedly edited this article to remove contentious and controversial information. Paco8191 (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The COI is obvious, but more concerning is that a BLP is repeating allegations made in a student newspaper of sexual assualt. I've removed the content per WP:BLP and unless there are better sources which confirm that anything further came of the allegations, it should not be replaced. SmartSE (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
This seems tenuous, I would agree if the allegations arose from a blog or similar source, but I disagree that the source can be discredited based on the reports originating in a student newspaper. The paper appears to be both established and credible, and published multiple reports on this topic. The incident remains relevant as it has continued to reverberate, at least in terms of the other individual mentioned, in other local media sources. I would cite the "Facts are Facts" segment, as seen in WP:CRYBLP. I welcome discussion on this, as I could see an argument being made for either keep or delete.Paco8191 (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@Paco8191: I agree that facts are facts, but allegations are not facts and we should avoid repeating rumours. If you think it should be included, I'd suggest raising it at WP:BLPN instead where you'll find more editors who are familiar with where the line should be drawn in cases like this. SmartSE (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_108&oldid=748417608"