Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 101

Richard Sokoloski


User has admitted on my talk page that they are an RA to this professor, representing an obvious COI issue. Jodamaster (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Marek Glezerman

 * - PRODed here

Strightforward COI editing of autobiography, with reverts and deletion tag removals. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * yep, nice catched. i noted your PRODing above.  Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This could be closed now, I think. LaMona did a nice job bringing it up to snuff.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the article is ok at this point, but I don't see evidence of complying with COI as the user has not responded. Should we continue to try to have a conversation? LaMona (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The Cavendish School, Camden


User is creating a page whose name shares their username. Jodamaster (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Is that bad? I can change my username if that would help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecavendishschool (talk • contribs) 08:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Thecavendishschool; your username violates our username policy. I will leave a note on your talk page about that, which will have a link to fix that.  In addition, you need to follow the WP:PAID policy, and please also follow the WP:COI guideline.  I leave you a note on your talk page about that too!   (But short story is, especially after you change your account name, you need to disclose your connection to the school (I assume you are an employee?) and now that the article exists, you should offer changes on the Talk page for peer review, instead of making them directly; that way the integrity of Wikipedia is protected from the conflict of interest. Jytdog (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note - they changed their username and consented to draftifying it, so of course they can work on it there. Almost done working through COI management with them... Jytdog (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Abolitionism (bioethics)

 * - at AfD
 * - at AfD
 * - at AfD
 * - at AfD
 * - now blocked a now-blocked sock per this SPI
 * - now blocked a now-blocked sock per this SPI
 * - now blocked a now-blocked sock per this SPI
 * - now blocked a now-blocked sock per this SPI
 * - now blocked a now-blocked sock per this SPI
 * - now blocked a now-blocked sock per this SPI
 * - now blocked a now-blocked sock per this SPI
 * - now blocked a now-blocked sock per this SPI
 * - now blocked a now-blocked sock per this SPI
 * - now blocked a now-blocked sock per this SPI

It looks like there are several newly created or newly active WP:SPA accounts posting to a recent series of deletion discussions, centered around the topic of effective altruism (though not on that article itself). Some searches on Facebook have provided evidence of canvassing by involved organizations, to try and get people to prevent deletion. As I'm also involved in the discussions, I'll declare upfront that I have no COI with respect to any of these articles. NeatGrey (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have been involved in the effective altruist community. I became aware of the abolitionism discussion through Facebook. However, I've been pushing for stricter standards of Wikipedia publishing and trying to prevent advocacy among effective altruists. I've been the one who wants many of these articles deleted, shortened, or made more neutral.  02:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Pawg14 (talk)


 * Edit: Added User:Ruairí Donnelly, as he created one of the articles involved (although that was several years ago), and appears to have a COI from being the head of the organization which is the subject of the article (per some quick Googling). NeatGrey (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Brian Tomasik is involved in the same way, although neither of them has participated in the deletion discussions so I'm not sure it's relevant. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh. Did Brian Tomasik create any of these articles? Can you link the relevant diffs? NeatGrey (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * He made many edits to wild animal suffering, which cited his self-published essays heavily. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, none of my edits involved my own writings. I also agree it could be good to remove the footnotes to my writings from the article. Brian Tomasik (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I became aware of the effective altruists on Facebook subsequent to becoming interested in this topic in the last few weeks, but have never met any of them in person. One member of Animal Charity Evaluators approached me on Facebook to talk about the views I expressed in the deletion discussions, subsequent to my voting. I am not personally connected to any of the individuals or ideas which these articles concern, and I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of effective altruism. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to the Facebook discussions you are referring to? Meatsgains (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would prefer not to. The discussion occurred about an hour ago in Facebook messenger. This was after all my comments, I believe. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are some FB links at Articles for deletion/Abolitionism (bioethics). Some have called them canvassing. - Brianhe (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, it looks like Animal Charity Evaluators is a non-profit whose article was deleted a few months ago (link). It seemed like there was some kind of off-wiki fight about Animal Charity Evaluators, which was bleeding over into the deletion discussions (link). Could someone explain what that was about? Thanks. NeatGrey (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is an off-wiki fight about it, but most of the people above are connected to Animal Charity Evaluators. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Although I have been involved with Animal Charity Evaluators and the effective altruism movement, I have had no conflict of interest on these articles. I have never edited any of these articles. I am also not a "new account"; I have been on wikipedia since 2004. I have been active ONLY in the AfD discussion on these articles, and for good reason: because I am familiar with what the articles are talking about. This does not constitute a conflict of interest. I am merely an editor who knows about the topic and is explaining why the article should not be deleted on the related AfD page. I do not think it is appropriate to label me as having a conflict of interest here when the only edits I have made are to the AfD discussion page. &mdash; Eric Herboso 03:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the OP just indiscriminately listed everyone involved in the discussion. I wouldn't take it personally. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also involved with the effective altruism movement and feel I can contribute in a similar way as Eric. I am a new account, but I've been looking over Wikipedia's standards thoroughly to try to make sure they're applied fairly. I think this is important because there seems to be a fair bit of misinformation going around and at least one user who is trying to delete articles due to their ideological views rather than Wikipedia standards. (Not mentioning who it is because of WP:HA concerns.) Tempo mage (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))
 * You're referring to me. And no, I'm not trying to delete articles based on my ideological views. What I wrote on Facebook was about my opinion of ACE and its "wild animal suffering" concept. It does not pertain to why I voted to delete those articles. The reasons for that were, respectively, the complete lack of independent sources for ACE, and the fact that "wild animal suffering" is not notable as a coherent subject in the academic literature and the article was a coatrack for a fringe idea about eradicating all suffering through either transhumanism or the destruction of nature; although some people are also concerned about "virtual animals" which exist in future computer simulations, extraterrestrial alien suffering, and the suffering of fundamental physics, a notion I will not bother to explain. It's true that also I think this is BS, and am of the opinion that it's bad for an animal rights charity evaluator to be involved in it. You can call that an "ideological view" if you like, but it wasn't the reason why I voted the way I did. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's hard for me to believe that the alignment of your ideological views and your editing views that seem to clearly deviate from Wikipedia standards happens to be a coincidence, but I appreciate you sharing that. I hope you'll do your best to keep the two separate. Tempo mage (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))


 * It is unclear to me what apparent COI has been identified here; no conversations have been opened with any individual here, on their talk pages. Is the concern about actual COI (and if so, with what company or organization?), or this about advocacy?  Neatguy, please do explain.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To use an analogy which I think is a good fit for this situation, suppose politician Bob Jones has a Wikipedia article. Bob Jones wants to look good, so he writes to the volunteer group Friends of Bob Jones, and asks them to all come to the article and write nice things about Jones. In your view, would this count as a COI, since the writers have a conflict between their interest in helping Jones, and their interest in improving Wikipedia? Or would it be advocacy? Or both?
 * Or, to use another analogy, suppose there's a website at www.instantcure.com which sells Dr. Quack's Snake Oil (the issue here isn't medical content, but I think some of it qualifies as WP:FRINGE; see discussion here). John Brown is not himself Dr. Quack, but he really likes Dr. Quack and thinks it cured his cancer, so Brown goes to Wikipedia and writes an article about how Dr. Quack's Snake Oil cures everything. Is this COI, since John Brown is a member of the group "Dr. Quack adherents", and is conflicted when editing articles about "Dr. Quack adherents"? Or is it advocacy, since Brown is not himself Dr. Quack? NeatGrey (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying! In your first example, these editors are part of an organization that supports Bob Jones so yes, they have COIs with regard to the organization and Bob Jones.  They have an interest in a person or an organization.  In the latter John Brown is an advocate - a "fan, a "believer."  I run into that all the time when I ask people if they have some connection to B.  Plenty - maybe 25%,  say "no, but I love B". Then I pivot the conversation to advocacy, explain how it creates problems and giving examples of other kinds of advocacy (something simple like a vegetarian who thinks eating meat is evil and comes here writing about how great vegetarianism is and how bad factory farming is, etc).  COI and advocacy are distinct issues in Wikipedia.  COI is a subset of advocacy, but a pretty well-defined one. Jytdog (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool. So, there are probably several issues here, but I'll start with the most obvious one. As far as I can tell, the article Abolitionism (bioethics) is really about the theories of David Pearce, although there's some window dressing to make it look like it's not just Pearce. Pearce, who openly edits Wikipedia as the account User:Davidcpearce, also runs a public Facebook group called "The Hedonistic Imperative" (link), which he started in order to spread and organize support for his ideas. When Abolitionism (bioethics) was put up for deletion, Pearce posted it to this group (link), with a direct link to the deletion discussion. This link was then re-posted to similar groups on Facebook, such as "Abolitionist Transhumanism" and "Transpolitica". From your explanation, it seems that if a user came to the deletion discussion this way, they would have a COI with respect to David Pearce, since they are trying to keep a separate article on Pearce's ideas in Wikipedia while being a member of a group that advocates for Pearce's ideas. NeatGrey (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would point out, btw, that Davidcpearce, who is an active and experienced Wikipedian, has edited perfectly well around this topic, and IMO has done nothing even slightly wrong here. This is not so much a clear COI problem as a call-to-action problem. Many of the new/very-occasional contributors are contesting basic Wikipedia sourcing rules, for example - so they're entirely open and sincere, just approaching this in an unproductive way - David Gerard (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn this. Blatant meatpuppetry from Davidcpearce at Facebook here - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a distinction between having an interest in, and having a conflict of interest. Someone who writes extensively about, say, free-living animal suffering is clearly likely to be interested in the topic, but (s)he also has a conflict of interest only if (s)he has undisclosed shareholdings in a firm manufacturing veterinary anaesthetics (etc). I don't think this is the case here. Advocates of the status quo who believe that e.g. humans shouldn’t be tampering with the wisdom of Nature - or simply that humans have an unlimited capacity to screw things up even further - are unlikely to believe that wild animal suffering merits a Wikipedia entry in the first place. Critics will disagree. And so it goes on. In the case of (use whatever label your prefer) abolitionist bioethics, if I were writing or contributing to the entry, I’d give pride of place to the largely unknown Lewis Mancini (note the date of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2189064) for any discussion of scientific (or purportedly scientific) approaches. [I'd argue just as strongly in favour of a “Keep” if we were discussing the Flat-Earth Society. Cover the arguments of its proponents - Wikipedia would be poorer for their absence - but the Comments/Criticism section should make absolutely clear that their core tenet of belief is not consensus wisdom in the scientific community.] --Davidcpearce (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been a Wikipedia editor for well over 10 years. Other individuals listed here are also longtime contributors. I do have an interest in effective altruism (as I declare in my homepage), but I think it's clear that this by itself doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. Furthermore, to my knowledge there has been no canvassing for any of the articles listed above, though I'm happy to be corrected if presented with the relevant evidence. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * https://www.facebook.com/groups/vegan.transhumanists/permalink/620461634768335/ and https://www.facebook.com/groups/hedonistic.imperative/permalink/10153422569096965/ Pawg14 (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The post by Davidcpearce is a violation of WP:MEAT and is in my view, a post that calls for an indefinite block or TBAN. Blatant violation.  Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Meatpuppetry and a personal attack! Lovely. (There's a copy on archive.is at GGtOF in case that Facebook post disappears.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh, sometimes I wonder... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html--Davidcpearce (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not a response that is helpful to you. This piece of this probably needs to be escalated to ANI. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can go through the procedure for this, I'd be most pleased to co-sign - David Gerard (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. It is here. Jytdog (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Curiously, the proposer under her normal Wikipedia editing handle seems to be a long-standing member of the FB group...Abolitionist Transhumanism. So I'm confused.--Davidcpearce (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Humanity protecting party


The user created an article, Humanity Protecting Party Sri Lanka, an article on a Sri Lankan political party, which I tagged for speedy. He went on and created Humanity protecting party, a recreation of the first article, and messaged me on my talk page at User_talk:Optakeover saying he is the general secretary of the party, and requesting that the article not be speedily deleted. I am making this report as this is the first time I'm dealing with what I see as a COI issue, with a user directly associated with an organisation creating and editing an article of his/her organisation. Request for comment and/or action, thank you. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 14:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Editor has already been blocked for making legal threats (here ). I suggest everyone to keep a look out for page recreation/socking activity. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Boy, that escalated quickly. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 15:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Breakage of the Sunflower: pain of a war correspondent, diaries, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kurdistan, Iraq (Documentary_Literature)


I just have a hunch that this is not the nost objective editing possible as there is astrong promotional tone to these articles. The novel pages both list/listed a list of other works by the author. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you HappyValleyeditor for pointing this out as it will promote me to revise the content carefully. In fact, all these articles were originally written in Arabic and translated to English. Indeed, I am interested in providing an idea about this writer and his work especially with all the wars going on in our area. However, that does not mean that it should be with promotional tone, rather it should be written and received objectively. I will spend time revising and I would be grateful if you can point out what is meant, for example, by "The novel pages both list/listed a list of other works by the author".
 * thanks again..
 * --Katib-mo (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for replying here. What means is that an article about a book should not contain "a list of books by the same author". An article about an author can have a list of books. I would also like to ask you a question. Are you by any chance related to Jamal Hussein Ali (for example, friend/family/employee/publisher etc). Please let us know here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Added another book, has same section with list of author's works. Under-referenced. LaMona (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you much not only for pointing out to me that lists of publications of an author shouldn't be included in a book page, but also fixing it. I actually didn't know that. I will go now to the Arabic pages and fix accordingly. As someone new here and despite intensive time in educating myself about Wikipedia rules, it seems there is always something new to know. so thanks for people like you who help in that regard. In terms of any relationship with the author, I don't know him in person and he is not a relative or a friend or a colleague. I wrote about him as someone who is interested in the situation in the middle east (wars and human tragedies), he is a known writer that I found his work and publications unique in terms of his approach to what is facing this area. thanks again for your help. I will actually go back to all the posts in few days time to look at them with a fresh eye. let me know if I can do anything to make them better please. Katib-mo (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, do you mean the list of books published by the author, as it has been removed by another editor thankfully (please see my response to above)?. If there is are other remarks, kindly share with me. Thank you. Katib-mo (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * - yes, that is what I mean. I saw in the Arabic WP that those lists of books were included and that seems to be ok there. English WP uses different article styles so those don't work here. It's good that others are doing edits - the style/content norms here are hard to explain in words, but are fairly obvious when we look at articles. LaMona (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Brian Watson (entrepreneur)


This article was just created by a new account and has all signs of a paid job: the new account made a number of inconsequential edits to a bunch of random articles and then created this article in just 5 edits. It has a grand total of 24 (!) references, but a quick check shows that it's the usual: either very minor coverage, unreliable sources, or really absolutely trivial stuff ([http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2014/09/02/denver-business-journal-names-2014-power-book.html?page=all "In September 2014, Watson was included in the list of Denver Business Journal Power Book finalists"). I have currently no time to look into this in more detail, perhaps somebody here can have a look and see whether I am just being paranoid... Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Your paranoia seems justified. Note how they mention in their edit summaries of that draft - that was created by  who has a very similar editing pattern. Probably worth an SPI. SmartSE (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree, this one needs an SPI. I get a feeling that there could be paid editing involved. The edit summaries are highly unusual. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I managed to shave off 2100 bytes of puffery using my patented puffTrim human algorithm. COI aside, definitely notable.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I spotted this one on Upwork, and yes, it was a paid editing job, by an editor blocked some time ago for running a large paid-editing sock farm. - Bilby (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you allowed to say which sockfarm? - Brianhe (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have said that. It is User:Mamadoutadioukone. I've blocked Iamhuman9925. The Happywriter101 account is also interesting - Shawn McNulty was in all likelihood a paid editing job as well, as it was advertised on Elance before it was taken over by Upwork. So it seems very likely that Happywriter101 is connected. - Bilby (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Has it been noted before that the master kept a "portfolio" in his sandbox ? Also de.wiki and fr.wiki  with a different username. Neither appears to be blocked. The sandbox stuff leads me to IronFX and User:Andrew Condie who is blocked but there seems to be a team at work there. I'm sure there's more if we go looking. - Brianhe (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * More accounts likely involved in sockfarm, via interwiki connections:


 * These all created/expanded IronFX on the es.wiki and interesting stuff on en.wiki. - I can't see deleted articles, but an admin might find more connections at Crossinvest (Asia). - Brianhe (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I'll follow it up. IronFX is an interesting case, as it was before he was identified as running a sock farm (but was a paid job through Elance). Since Elance was taken over by Upwork a lot of the old connections are hard to make. But hopefully we can do something. - Bilby (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * These all created/expanded IronFX on the es.wiki and interesting stuff on en.wiki. - I can't see deleted articles, but an admin might find more connections at Crossinvest (Asia). - Brianhe (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I'll follow it up. IronFX is an interesting case, as it was before he was identified as running a sock farm (but was a paid job through Elance). Since Elance was taken over by Upwork a lot of the old connections are hard to make. But hopefully we can do something. - Bilby (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I'll follow it up. IronFX is an interesting case, as it was before he was identified as running a sock farm (but was a paid job through Elance). Since Elance was taken over by Upwork a lot of the old connections are hard to make. But hopefully we can do something. - Bilby (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * (blocked by Kuru 3 April 2012) [IronFX on zh.wikipedia, ko, ja]
 * (blocked by Bilby 21 July 2014) [IronFX on es.wikipedia]
 * [IronFX on en.wikipedia, ja]
 * More above. See global contribs for continuity. It's apparent we have a long-term sockfarm at play. - Brianhe (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Pali Road


Hello. I'm not sure if this applies, and I don't know exactly how to initiate conversation if it does, so please forgive me if I'm out of my lane. A large number of edits to this article, which is about a film, seem to be made by the film's director, who is registered but whose user page hasn't been created. If this user is the director, is this a conflict of interest (is a creative work a "company?"), and if it is a COI, should I create the user page and seek clarification? Mitchell k dwyer (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting this. This is surely a COI, assuming of course that the user account belongs to the director. The user in question has also been uploading images whose copyright status will need to be verified. I have tried to initiate a conversation on the talk page. Let's wait for a reply. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And thanks for your example in how to deal with this situation. I'm filing it away for reference and will keep an eye on the discussion. <3 Mitchell k dwyer (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Jon Lindquist


Something fishy going on with the above accounts. The two pages mentioned are connected, as, I believe, are the editors. Looking at the references used in one of the pages, I was able to establish that ahasalone probably has a strong conflict and is behind the engineering/creation of references that support the notability for these page. USer aliciadewi only leaves the edit comment "Improved article and references" or "improved article", regardless of what was done. Strange. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed, a COI is probable in this case. I looked over the edit logs, the "Improved article" is suspicious. User:ahasalone definitely has a COI. User:aliciadewi might work in an advertising company, due to not just making COI edits on one page or related pages. I left a message on User:aliciadewi's page about her edit summaries.  ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 18:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * an admin might want to take a close look at user ahasalone and the first reference on the The Honorifics for an apparent very active and deceptive COI.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All you have to look at is the band members. It's really easy when COI editors use their real names or some approximation of it. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's worse than that if you look closely! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I ran CU on one of the accounts but found nothing obviously wrong at first sight. However, and this is why we should call on for instance, there is a clear connection with what I think is a pay for play editor through Bikini Luxe--Sockpuppet investigations/TejaswaChaudhary. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Bearing in mind that the data in TejaswaChaudhary is somewhat old, the two accounts are ❌.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * KLAV added to page list.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, company promotion, want to make money, bogus-looking products. I found it, User:HappyValleyEditor. I also don't think the accounts are related, but that article should be deleted as fast as possible. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Amanda Reid


IP is repeatedly removing significant chunks of referenced material from the article, doing so once with the edit summary I like it this way if you change it I will change it back and this is the way amanda wants it. Unsure if genuine CoI or just a fan? Gricehead (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked them for now, and left a message on their talk page. Let's see what happens. Graham 87 14:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And I've semi-protected the article. Graham 87 14:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately these good measures have not stopped the vandalism. A registered account has taken up the cause. I've requested mosre stringent page protection, and issued a final warning to the account. I'd also suggest a sock puppet investigation. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also wondering if, considering bizarre claims like this, this conversation ought to be moved to ANI. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hang on, let me try to have a discussion first. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , they've responded to you on their talk page, claiming to be a friend. But their username is the same as an online account used elsewhere by Ms. Reid. I'm trying not to out this user, but the vehemence with which they've attacked the article, and the claims that have been made re: life and death consequences, probably merit more eyes at ANI. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If anyone is outside the EU, there are a number of google-eu blocked results on searches related to Amanda Reid and under her previous name. Someone might want to take a look (I would but I cant really get around the EU block at my current location) - I only noticed it as I did an idle search for reasons why she might have changed her name. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If someone wants all knowledge of her former identity linking to current removing from the internet, they need to try harder, as there is still a google-cache of the Australian Paralympic team page showing both her names. I'm now intrigued as to what user:Only in death was searching for... Gricehead (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just general fishing in case there was a legitimate personal harm issue for the name change. Close relative being a famous mass murderer for example. There are currently still swim Australia documents online with her old name so if she is seeking to scrub it for some reason - not doing a great job. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The account has indicated that there is a personal harm issue. (See discussion on talk page). Unfortunately I cannot verify if this is true. I have asked them to go through WP:RFO as they are probably better equipped to deal with this. If anyone else has any other suggestions, please feel free to post here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you help us understand what's going on here? Brianhe (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I've admin deleted content on the user talk page which is relevant, but cant do or say much more at the moment, except to say that I know who the editor is, that the underlying problem is legitimate, and I am talking with people closer to the subject to better understand the underlying problem myself so I can determine whether it calls for WP:RFO or not. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

West Los Angeles VA Medical Center et al
VA IP's: something else
 * 23.243.161.240 contribs
 * 23.243.161.240 contribs
 * 23.243.161.240 contribs
 * 23.243.161.240 contribs
 * 23.243.161.240 contribs
 * 23.243.161.240 contribs
 * 23.243.161.240 contribs
 * 152.132.10.197 contribs
 * 152.131.10.197 contribs
 * 152.132.10.196 contribs
 * -- see here

I noticed the very tidy and professional-sounding page for the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center in the new pages feed. Page created by Katomin, who interestingly has an edit on his/her user page for "PM&R Mnemonics" by 152.132.10.197. In whois, 152.132.10.197 and the similar Ip's above resolve to the "Department of Veterans Affairs" near Pasadena California. 152.132.10.197 has done 28 edits to the UCLA/VA Multicampus PM&R Residency Program since 2007. There are other potentially connected pages in the histories. Given the promotional edits to the pages of certain doctors and the rsidency program, I thought this was the work of bored medical students at first, but the network of edits to VA-related hospitals might be a more professional effort. I asked Katomin about potential conflicts but no answer as of yet. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * these SoCal med schools are really really self-promotional. for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * added 2nd user above. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikijan2016, Bellevue Education


User:Wikijan2016 has three times removed an allegation made in the Sarawak Report (referenced to http://www.sarawakreport.org/2016/04/how-1mdbs-stolen-money-funded-top-uk-private-schools/ and based in turn on the Panama Papers}, that money from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal was used to fund Bellevue Education.

Wikijan2016 has also added the comment that "Bellevue Education has no financial stake in the Bellevue Education Trust" which is not obvious in the reference, http://www.bpet.co.uk. This specific comment would not be directly relevant to the allegation made. It appears to be an attempt to confuse any reader who may have heard of the allegation (as if the ownership structure wasn't complicated enough already).

Wikijan2016's other substantive contributions so far are all on the articles of other Bellevue schools etc. These edits may generally be described as puffery, relying on the websites of the organizations themselves.

Wikijan2016 has been warned not to make statements that could appear to be legal threats: "the applicable processes will be taken with wikipedia to ensure wikipedia is not misused to promote incorrect information" and "The last sentences refers to a discredited and illegal blog, and is as such not a trusted source that can be used. This will be reported to wikipedia.".

I note that to date Wikijan2016 has not posted on the talk page despite being invited to do so. Instead, they have for the third time removed the allegations and their reference, though this time without the legal threats. (I also notice some minor changes in this diff that may in fact be marginal improvements to the article.)

I suggest that this is the pattern of an editor with a serious conflict of interest. I'd be grateful for any advice on how to handle this. Hunc (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I reverted Wikijan2016's edits, which were mainly deletions, to Hunc's "last best version" earlier today, following unsuccessful attempts to establish communication with Wikijan2016 by way both of their talk page, and the talk page for the article. While I have to say that I am not experienced in these matters, and must also declare that I was the editor that Wikijan2016 made a formal complaint of edit warring against as referred to above, I share Hunc's suspicion. I suppose that in practical terms we must wait and see whther or not Wikijan2016 returns to remove material again. If that were to happen, I would have thought there is a dispute. It would be very helpful if some other editors were to have a look at the history and talk page, and say what they think.Daithidebarra (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So far Wikijan's only communication with the community has been filing this ANEW report. It looks like a textbook case of WP:NOTHERE. Brianhe (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hunk (talk) and Daithidebara (talk)have been seriously edit warring on the talk page for a while now, which is shocking and quite aggressive. I'd be grateful for some advice from senior admininstrators of wikipedia on this topic, so that this matter can come to a resolution. It is naturally very concerning that the two users are allowed to freely post accusations about a company with a highly loaded tone and language. Any information on wikipedia should be from reliable and accurate sources, and not posted with a clear agenda. The edits of which it is shocking that they continue to post (clearly in violation of the 3 edit rule) is that the company has received funding from sources of which it has not. Could someone please advice the best way forward to end this edit warring from Hunk (talk) and Daithidebarra (talk)? Thank you in advance. Please also note that the reason why I have not posted on a talk page until today is not because of no interest in resolving the matter, but simply because I do not know the ins and outs of wikipedia as well as the two users clearly. Please also note that whilst I may have edited on other pages that also belong to the group, that does not take away from the fact, that wikipedia should not support blatant accusations about an organisation - I merely wish for wikipedia to be a descent and accurate source of information for users. Wikjan2016.talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijan2016 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Wikjan2016 I am glad you have started talking - it is fundamental to eveything that happens here. Would you please disclose any connection you have with Bellevue Education or the trust.  That is the first order of business for this board.  We can talk about other stuff after we deal with that.   Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments Jytdog Jytdog. I really appreciate it. I have absolutely no connection to the Trust whatsoever, but I do care about and know staff of Bellevue Education - hence my interest in the matter. What frustrated me is that the user Daithidebarra (Daithidebarra is allowed to publish very accusatory and aggressive posts. I just now tried to edit the content to present a more accurate and objective presentation of the content of which the user is edit warring me on, however, as soon as posted they revert back. He is by all means in breach of any proper edit etiquette or rules on wikipedia. I am not quite sure what or where the agenda is coming from. His posts are: "In April 2016, the true source of much of the investment funding behind Bellevue was exposed as being the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal, by the release of the Panama Papers, as covered by the Sarawak Report.[1] There has also been coverage of this matter in the Sunday Times, and the National Union of Teachers has called for a public enquiry[2]". I changed it to the following: "In April 2016, a blog based in Asia posted accusations about the group in relation to one of its silent investors and their separate business ventures internationally.[1] The Sunday Times followed up on the story and linked it to the Bellevue Place Education Trust, however they were forced to post a full statement from the Department of Education clearly stating that: "No one will be handed control of a school unless we are entirely happy with the results and checks. [2] The Link made to the Trust comes at a time when members of the media and NUT have been at war with the Department of Education in relation to the pending academies plans in the UK." with all relevant links highlighting all content presented. Not sure what more I can do my end to stop the edit warring and poor edit behaviour by Daithidebarra (Daithidebarra)? Could we look into banning him from editing and as such using the article to convey some kind of agenda? Thank you so much.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:41, 12 May 2016‎ (talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 May 2016‎ (UTC)
 * User:Wikjan2016 Please take a break working on the article, while we try to figure out what is going on here. You have left your description incomplete.  What is your connection with Bellvue Education?  Please be clear.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you also please explain how this logo is your own work?
 * The purpose of this board is to help deal with the COI issues and manage them. As in academia, we try to manage conflicts of interest here.  We only seek to eliminate them if they cannot be managed.  The first step is disclosure; the second is a kind of peer review (not banning or anything).  We are just trying to get clear on the disclosure part. Many people come here and aren't aware of these processes, which are very common in academia.  So.  Please disclose your relationship with Bellvue Education so we can start the process.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks so much for taking the matter seriously. It is much appreciated. Very happy to refrain from editing the page so you can look into the matter and the personal agenda that the Daithidebarra Daithidebarra user might have. My connection to Bellevue Education is of a personal matter, and I have edited some of their wikipedia school pages from personal interest - and professional as I myself work in digital communication independently.

I would appreciate if you could look into the legal matter of posting accusations in a fairly loaded and biased tone. It is my understanding that the Asian blog has posted unproven allegations to support a case built against a silent investor in the group and their international business ventures - and is clearly in breach of UK and international media law from actions and presentation of content. The question then is whether it is ok for the user to re-publish such content - what is morally and legally correct here? Happy to provide any further information my end that might help you in looking into.

-Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijan2016 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please sign your posts by typing four tildas after them "~" . I would appreciate it would you would make a clear disclosure. Let me try to pull out what you are hinting at. It appears that you have family or friends who work at Bellevue Education.  It appears that you are being paid by Bellevue as a communications professional.  Is this accurate? Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah sorry, not used to wikipedia - will sign off as requested. Nothing to pull out of me, apologies if I was not clear - I am not paid by the group, but I know and care about staff members there who are on the receiving end of these allegations. I am paid by my own company, with no relation to Bellevue Education. "Wikijan2016 (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)"
 * Getting clearer, probably just a couple more back and forths are needed. OK, so you have friends at Bellevue.  You don't work directly for, nor as a contractor to Bellevue.   Is Bellvue a client of the company you work for? Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Great. No they are not. That would be fairly interesting as I work in the comms department (on digital side) of a shipping insurance company. Do let me know once we can discuss the matter of legal and moral issue around the wording of the editing on the Bellevue Education page. That is really were the matter solely lies. Thanks so much for taking this seriously. "Wikijan2016 (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)"
 * Thanks. It will be clear when we are done working through the COI management process.  Only after that will I get involved in content.  It is too messy to mix this up with that.  You've taken an interest in several articles related to Bellvue including uploading new logos.  Were you asked by the people you know and care for to update these articles? Jytdog (talk)  21:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry could you clarify what you mean by COI management process? Just so I am clear on the process here, and what the messiness you are referring to is? Could we possibly also obtain some more information on the other user so their personal or professional agenda also is a bit clearer? I think I mentioned earlier that I have edited a couple of other articles for them from a personal point of view, I have also edited other articles in the past, I think under different user names as I have changed computers and forgotten user name and passwords - nothing to hide there - again I wish I would have been paid for any editing, but unfortunately not. Logos have been available online already, as most are on google images. I assume you have been satisfied with information my end, and will obtain the required information regarding the other user, so we can look into the matter of the content as soon as possible - which is only where this dispute lies. Thanks so much again. Wikijan2016 (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have written you five short messages here in which I already explained that I am trying to engage you with the COI management process in Wikipedia, the first step of which involves disclosure of conflict of interest, and I have asked you to clearly disclose your relationships here.  Again, this discussion is about conflicts of interest.  As a Wikipedia editor, you agree to follow the Terms of Use and to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, every time you edit Wikipedia.  That is your (and my) primary interest as Wikipedia editors.   People often come here who have outside interests in the real world, that are more important to them, than are their interests as Wikipedia editors.  They have a conflict of interest.  It happens all the time.  You have disclosed that you "know and care about" staff at Bellevue.   That is creating a conflict of interest for you here in Wikipedia.  Will you please acknowledge that?  Once you do, I will explain what we ask of editors who have a COI.  Then I will start dealing with the content issues.  Thanks.   Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

All clear now. Thanks for clarifying again. It was not clear to me the first time. Again, nothing to hide - complete transparency my end, I do know staff members of the group as said all along, which is why I was horrified to see the tone and language used and the posting of the source as previously discussed - and have taken a personal interest in the page over the last few weeks as the user has gone to great lengths to ensure their edit is on the page. To be clear, I have all along stated that wikipedia should be an objective and reliable source of information - my latest attempt to edit the user's content to ensure just that is a testament to this - as it is a much more objective and clean way of presenting content vs their use of strong words such as "exposed" etc. Do let me know if you require any further information my end. I don't know whether it is worth looking into the other user and whether they have any connection with organisations/media etc that might benefit from sharing the supplied content in the way they have chosen to do so? Thanks. Look forward to hearing an update and to discussing this further. Wikijan2016 (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I asked you to acknowledge that your relationships with folks at the Bellevue have created a conflict of interest for you. Please respond. Jytdog (talk)

No I do not think that is the case, so I cannot tell you that I am afraid. My problem with all of this is the moral and legal aspect of someone posting content in a certain tone for their own agenda or to promote their political views. It is morally wrong - not to mention in this case also legally. I would be appalled if wikipedia supports such behaviour. As someone from a long line of lawyers I cannot sit back and say nothing to this. The reason why this morally wrong behaviour caught my attention is because I know hardworking people within the company, yes, but my interest is purely moral and legal so no conflict of interest. The only one with a conflict of interest is the other user, as the shear persistence suggests a very clear agenda - do I post a conflict of interest case against them perhaps, so we can look into this, or can you initiate it from there. That is actually the root of the problem, and why we are all wasting our time with this. Thanks again.Wikijan2016 (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, could you point me in the direction on wikipedia of where I can file a complaint of this user in terms of their moral and legal wrongdoings on wikipedia? Ultimately that is the aspect we need to get to discuss, otherwise we are all just enabling such behaviour. Thanks again. Wikijan2016 (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually we are done here. You were warned not to continuing accusing others of doing legal wrong at the edit warring board here.  You have ignored that, and per WP:NPA you will soon probably be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia.


 * I hear you that you feel like you don't have a COI. I have worked on a lot of COI matters in Wikipedia, and it is very clear based on what you disclosed here and on the way you have behaved that you have a very strong interest in your friends, and that interest has prevented you from even taking the time to understand the polices and guideline that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. That is how strong the conflict is - you cannot even see Wikipedia - you completely ignored the warning about legal threats, at the article you just reverted content you didn't like without providing a basis in policy or guideline, you haven't actually discussed the content you disagreed about, you just edit-warred; and then you escalated things to a noticeboard, all again without discussion.  You hardly paid attention to what I wrote here - you had to ask me what I meant about the "COI process" even though I explained it twice before, in my short messages. Instead you tried to use this forum to continue arguing about the content you don't like.


 * You have a glaring conflict of interest with regard to Bellevue Education. But that is moot now.  I will give you a notice of the ANI board discussion where I will seek to have you indeffed for making legal threats. Jytdog (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Kikai Labs


Company page created, editied and reverted by founder of company. Editor name identical to founder name, also acknowledged "Yes, I am the founder!" on his/her talk page. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I am merely posting the history of a company that IS relevant in the 3d printing scene of South America. I know its history well because as stated, I founded it. If this article were posted by a third party would it be acceptable? Also as I pointed out it is an entry similar to all the other entries under List_of_3D_printer_manufacturers, so if mine is not acceptable then all those other entries should be removed as well. If you google "Kikai Labs" you will see many many newspaper articles about the company. These can be listed as the Sources (just give me time) if that will make it more acceptable.  The editor removed almost the whole article, in particular the history of Products and also the company's contributions to 3d printing (even if minor).  The article is not self-promoting, it is not selling anything, it is just recording history (this could be relevant to anyone doing a news story, for instance). Thank you. Mruizcamauer (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming here and talking. It's great that you're doing that. You have correctly pointed out that some articles have content issues and need correction. However before we address that, it is important that you do one thing then we can continue the conversation. Since you have acknowledged your conflict of interest as the company founder, would you agree to abide by the community practices for editors with a conflict? There is a way for you to suggest changes for others to review in our model, but best practice involves you allowing other editors to consider those changes, and to apply them or not, in a dispassionate way. Details here. - Brianhe (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Would this be what I need to put at the top of the page to disclose the "COI" properly? If so, can I add the missing content again? (sorry, I'm a newbie in this) Mruizcamauer (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes to question one. As for question 2, you should discuss the problems on the talk page with editors, and not directly edit the article. You should not add content without editor consensus, because you should not be editing the article. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I added no wiki to the template to prevent COIN from being added to Category "Connected contributors". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Buhram

 * - entirely sourced to the company and PR
 * - copied from somewhere as references in a Feb 2016 creation have 2010 last accessed dates
 * - self or client published claims of importance to pass A7
 * - Draft was moved to mainspace by another new editor
 * - AfC was declined for being promotional but was moved by the user - PROD by brianhe
 * - AfC declined thrice for being too promotional, repeatedly requested
 * - currently declined at AfC
 * - moved after AfC decline, now deleted
 * - moved after AfC decline, now deleted
 * - deleted at AfD
 * - deleted at AfD
 * - trying to promote The Location Group
 * - trying to promote The Location Group
 * - trying to promote The Location Group

Given the breadth of the topics and the persistent addition of advertorial content despite multipe AfC declines suggests paid COI that ought to be cleaned up. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Added who is clearly trying to promote The Location Group and had tried to create Marc-Christian Riebe at AfC. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Buhram for an undisclosed COI, since it looks to be a WP:DUCK situation. I'll look at GraceSophie next. I'm debating endorsing a SPI for socks, given that edited the AfD for Noah Miller and his edits solely revolved around that person. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I found some off-wiki evidence which confirms that this was a paid COI. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Flag of Syria


User has indicated that he is working for the Syrian Interim Government, is editing at the instruction or request of the Interim Government, and is a politician. User has made changes based on a clearly partisan view and has refused to provide secondary sourcing. Can another user provide assistance to make sure that policies on verifiability and neutrality are followed in this article? —C.Fred (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes this is a problem.  I have written to them at their talk page.  We'll see how this goes but my sense now is that this is person is going to end up being blocked per WP:NOTHERE.  We'll see. Jytdog (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I left a note on his talk page. I doubt this will get anywhere, he will be blocked soon if he keeps this up. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you remove the "all westerners are idiots" material from his user page, on basis of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as he is attacking all western editors? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh my! I just posted this a few minutes ago on the user talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If he continues, I'll send this to AN/I, due to his behavior being out of control and completely unacceptable. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

AN/I started, go to WP:AN/I for more. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeffed at ANI. (see here). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Electric & class action lawsuit


this edit was made a few hours ago.
 * Mitsubishi settled a class-action lawsuit in 2016 brought by consumers who purchased the LaserVue line of HDTVs for models L65-A90, L75-A91, L75-A94, or L75-A96 purchased between between Jan. 1, 2008 and July 13, 2015. According to the class action lawsuit, the “Optical Engine” component in Mitsubishi LaserVue televisions contains a defect that causes video and color anomalies. Verde alleges that Mitsubishi is liable for breach of express and implied warranties as well as violations of California consumer protection laws and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Although Mitsubishi denied any wrongdoings of allegations, they agreed to settle the class-action lawsuit in order to avoid the further cost of litigation.
 * Mitsubishi settled a consumer class action in 2011 alleging that defects in the company's televisions caused them to break down far earlier than expected. Under the agreement, Mitsubishi agreed to pay to fix certain WD series DLP televisions, reimburse the televisions' owners for repairs or parts, or allow the owner to buy a new Mitsubishi television. The televisions' resistors, diodes and DLP lamp assemblies failed prematurely, and the sets' cooling fans, filters and heat sinks were also defective, according to the complaint. As a result, the televisions lasted only 25 to 33 percent as long as they should have.

Thoughts on whether we have a conflicted editor here? Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we can do better on sources than "Hustler Money Blog", and both of those items seem to reference the same problem. The LaserVue settlement info is here. Press coverage: . Apparently their DLP TVs broke down early. In 2012, Mitsubishi stopped making DLP units, rear-projection TVs being obsolete by then. Probably worth a short mention. John Nagle (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I just thought this was so blatant class-action marketing, even down to the username. :) The "hustler money" site is marketing for the lawsuit. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This user has denied any connection with the litigation and are arguing for their content on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Peter Devonald


New contributor writing about their career. Film maker's resume featuring unsourced trivia (number of theaters in which a movie ran) as well as listings of awards. If notability is met, this needs be restarted in prose format, and properly sourced. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Creation Infoways Pvt Ltd

 * - deleted
 * - draft declined, possibly the main account in this web
 * - confirmed client
 * - at AfD
 * - confirmed client
 * - draft declined, possibly the main account in this web
 * - confirmed client
 * - at AfD
 * - confirmed client
 * - confirmed client
 * - confirmed client
 * - confirmed client
 * - confirmed client
 * - confirmed client

A few of the accounts involved:
 * (blocked)
 * (blocked)
 * (blocked)
 * (blocked)
 * (blocked)
 * (blocked)
 * (blocked)
 * (blocked)
 * (blocked)
 * (blocked)
 * (blocked)
 * (blocked)
 * (blocked)

Dormant accounts involved:

This is only the tip of the iceberg, there are more accounts involved that I haven't touched yet. I filed this SPI -- Sockpuppet investigations/Satya satapathy but the main account doesn't appear to be technically linked to the rest. However, from the draft article and stuff it looks like the main account is the boss of the company. There are also many other articles that I haven't yet come across (I've deleted a few G11) and the account linkage to other accounts needs investigation to get there. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They have locations in multiple continents, so reps in all those locations; individual SPIs have to be filed. Also, the website has links of clients, my eyes hurt now, hopefully someone else can go through the next round of checking for now. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added a few more accounts that haven't been linked by the SPI yet. Per this from we are looking at a large sophisticated operation, at least two of the above pages are self claimed to be clients on their website and they do offer Wikipedia promotion and monitoring services, have offices in the US, UK, Europe, South Korea, and India (so multiple locations for SPIs). I'm not entirely sure, but it looks to me like  Just Eat might be linked to this and I'm also left wondering if this SPI isn't connected. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked at most of the accounts above, and they all seem to have done a large number of speedy delete tagging and AfDs. I didn't see a pattern to it, and it appears that many of the articles they put up for delete deserved that. Any theories on this? It doesn't seem to me to meet the usual COI pattern. LaMona (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia page creation/monitoring services and per Draft:Satya Narayan Satapathy the lead account in this appears to be their founder director. I will block the non SPI linked accounts for TOS violation if they don't respond soon. As I noted on the SPI, this is one of the most absurd editing patterns I've tracked and I had asked for some leeway from the CU/clerk on the evidence, I was proved right though. There's groups in multiple geolocations working on this, so SPI linkage will be a bit difficult. It's clear though that they have been going at this undetected for a few years now, and there's likely a boatload of articles and accounts involved. As for the deletions, I think they are tagging articles of possible clients, then they will push their story out with the promise of longstanding Wikipedia articles. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This note shows another company offering Wikipedia page creation services. It seems this company is linked to Creation Infoways and based in the UK. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the contract for creating the Wikipedia page. Interesting to note that this paid editor sock farm also bid for the project. For reference for those looking into the TejaswaChaudhary paid farm -- here are some recent works. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the freelancer bids, we've seen the names (renamed to Boskit190; see Archive 89) and  before, too. The latter is part of another sockfarm that I turned up about a year ago. Brianhe (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Surprise surprise, the other bidder created/recreated articles for variants on the name Creation Infoways. - Brianhe (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Woah, is still active and it seems he is still accepting jobs. I suspect he has simply created a new account on Wikipedia. It's funny that I noticed Hilumeoka2000 while searching for  (another paid editor, see case above). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And I thought Buhram was linked to an earlier farm, these connections seem endless but I guess it's mostly just multiple groups bidding for the same contract and one taking over when the other fails. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  02:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there enough here to block Hilumeoka2000 at least? The evidence is pretty clear cut that he's not "retired" as his userpage states. - Brianhe (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Chevelle (band)


Editor who in this diff performs a section blanking and noted in the comment 'Edit by Band / tony@getmorechevelle.com / manager)' COI warning given on the Talk page of the editor and since then two different editors have performed similar edits. Karst (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note both Samuelhasproblems and SaltandPepper have been banned after a Sockpuppet investigation. Karst (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not banned, but blocked indefinitely. —C.Fred (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Olejjoerges


This is really more of a request for comment at this point, than a request for action.

Olejjoerges has admitted a COI, but doesn't seem to have disclosed anywhere what that COI is. To their credit, they are trying to do right by WP and are getting a bit spammy with edit requests on a shot gun blast of people who have been a part of the Red Bull Music Academy, rather than doing the edits themselves.

Still, the overall effect seems to be more promotional than encyclopedic, pasting Red Bull and links to the RBMA in lot of articles for its own sake. Doesn't quite feel in line with the spirit of COI requests. Moreso, each edit request taken independently seems fine, but taken as a whole seems somewhat less so. Timothy Joseph Wood 22:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I counted seventeen (17!) edit comments on their contribs page that read "Requesting edit: Participation in the Red Bull Music Academy in Melbourne 2006". Pure advertising efforts. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I found this user yesterday when I was going through the requested edits list (on the top right). Although the user has implied a COI and thankfully just requested an edit, the edits still count as promotional. Personally, I would decline all these edit requests unless there are reliable secondary citations discussing the artist's participation in the RMBA. I'm curious to hear what others think about this though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've implemented a couple of these, before realising their somewhat spammy nature. I would be happier implementing them if the details of the COI was declared. That said, I don't think the edits are necessarily bad, as many of the articles they are on are somewhat stubbish in nature, so adding more content wouldn't go amiss. WP:N only applies to articles, not content therein, and I don't consider  to be an unreliable source. The question really is if it would be giving undue weight to Red Bull Music Academy, which I personally think it wouldn't. To clarify, my personal opinion is that these REs are mostly harmless, but I will stop implementing them until we have a clear consensus here. —  crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 17:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd ignore them on the basis that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Also from that page: Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. The requested edits are clearly using Wikipedia as a means of promotion for a product.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Based this discussion, there is no consensus to implement the edits requested. I have therefore declined all the remaining open edit requests by Olejjoerges. Altamel (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Mantinea (362 BC)


New editor adding external links to academic papers he's written. Perhaps his notability as a scholar ought to be established first. Further opinions welcome. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If I'm wrong on this I'll appreciate being corrected. Self-citing always throws up a red flag for me. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the COI policy on self-citing isn't very precise, instead of a prohibition it's more about being reasonable and deferring to community judgement. But in my experience some self-citers don't have a good idea of what's "reasonable" here. That policy might be fixed one of these days, especially now that some sites have begun tracking citations in wikipedia as a kind of score keeping for whose papers are most important. But these links go to academia.edu, and since they aren't explicitly sourced to a journal, it's WP:SELFPUB as far as I'm concerned and should be removed as unreliable. I don't have an account there and I'm not inclined to go over there and inspect it further behind the login wall. Geogene (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It's probably wise that Wikipedia hasn't enunciated a firm policy against such edits, and allows for community discussion. And it's fair to say that not some, but most, self-citers lack objectivity; that's human nature. I think you got at the relevant issue, and that's self-publication, which I wasn't sure about. If that's the case, then the external links needn't stay. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually we came close to stating in the COI guideline that people really should not SELFCITE. As it stands, if the SELFCITE is challenged, it goes to the talk page and the self-citer needs to recognize that others might not see their work like they do, and let it go.  This is very clear.  And it makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In this case the editor made three edits, adding a paper to each of those articles to the EL/further reading section. That is pure refspam.  I removed them.  Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion per WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for further clarifying this, . 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just as an FYI Geogene, I normally consider self-cites to reach COI status if they are just dropping them in the external links like this, or including a large number of primary studies in text. If it's a single source, but of good quality that actually adds to the article, then a self-cite is ok if it's not part of a pattern of them just citing themselves. Regardless, I normally just direct such editors to not cite themselves at all though, and if their research is really noteworthy, someone else will cite it here. If they're really a WP:EXPERT on the subject, they should have no problem finding other literature that says something to the same effect. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's probably the optimal practice. The only self-citers I recognize as such are the ones that act like spammers, and that may be skewing my perception of things. How many benign self-citers there are that are creating balanced content it's hard to say because they're unrecognizable for privacy reasons. Unrecognizability might be a criterion that experts who self-cite should strive for, or be held to. Just some thoughts. Geogene (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Without disagreeing with any of the above, at least one of Spyros's papers contained points and usable references that were useful to me in improving articles on archery. I haven't looked at his other work but I propose to do so. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Michael Ehrmant
All this editor does is add fake content to have reference spam on. Am not providing diffs as this is what all their contribs are. These are the sites they have used as references:
 * colgate.com
 * modernimplants.com
 * coimplante.odo.br
 * utahtrustattorneys.com (we have seen them before, here)
 * social5dg.com
 * staydrywaterproofing.com
 * rainshadowlabs.com
 * jacanawarranty.com
 * willa.com

This person is WP:NOTHERE; please indefinitely block them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They were warned when they were here back in Oct 2015 not do this. They went away for a while and recently came back.
 * User:Doc James reverted some of their edits and warned them here and again here
 * I reverted others and gave them notice of PAID and COI here
 * Today they went back and restored all their spam refs, with no reply on their Talk page.
 * I beg to differ. I've also made valuable contributions to Wiki. I'm a new editor. All my edit issues were pointed out and then I was indefinitely banned. This editor responded to my edits after I had added citations to a page that was important to them. This is against wiki's "good faith" policy. All of us who are here to edit this encyclopedia and learn while doing it. "Indefinitely suspending" an editor when they are new is kind of against Wiki's good faith policy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Ehrmant (talk • contribs) 07:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Show us one contribution that you have made that is valuable as opposed to being spam. Also, when an editor says that they have been blocked or banned, and there is no evidence that they have actually been blocked or banned, there are three likely explanations.  First, they were blocked or banned, and are evading the block or ban, which is sockpuppetry.  Second, they are deliberately taking advantage of the policy to assume good faith, and are in bad faith playing a "pity card".  Third, they are a completely clueless editor who isn't even trying to understand, and don't belong here.  Which is it?  Also, since nearly all (if not all) of your "valuable" contributions have been spam, who is paying you?  You have not been indefinitely banned, or blocked, but you are about to be banned or blocked.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for talking finally! None of the references you have added to any article have any scholarly value. They are all advertising.  You were warned 3 times on your Talk about doing this, and didn't respond.  I gave you notice of the COI guideline and asked you to reply.  You didn't.  You restored all the bad referencing.  You have used up the good faith that was extended to you already, and demonstrated that you are here to add spam links to Wikipedia. I wish you had started talking to with the community earlier.  Jytdog (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You threw up all these warnings at once. Not all of us who contribute to Wiki monitor it every day. You took down my page for American Board of Criminal Lawyers which was actually a legitimate page. I have put this through the Wiki dispute process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Ehrmant (talk • contribs) 08:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi The page you are talking about American Board of Criminal Lawyers was not deleted by Jytdog, but rather by . Would you like to ask him for a copy? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * AGF doesn't apply here, as I find it hard to believe that only adding spam and advertising links in is good faith, considering the many warnings you got.  ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 11:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That this user restored spam links I find concerning. Would support a ban at this point in time as they do not appear to understand the concerns in question. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hum This user added a link to the same blog User:DrMVeg in this edit Started an SPI here Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Ehrmant

Xandyxyz (undisclosed paid editing)

 * ✔️ cleaned up by Brianhe
 * ✔️ currently at AfD opened by Lemongirl942
 * ✔️ Brianhe proposed deletion
 * ✔️ trivial Geogene proposed deletion
 * ✔️ cleaned up by Theroadislong
 * ✔️ cleaned up by Brianhe
 * ✔️ Brianhe deleted refspam
 * ✔️ gave up on cleanup, Brianhe proposed speedy deletion
 * ✔️ Brianhe deleted refspam
 * ✔️ Brianhe reverted recent changes
 * ✔️ Brianhe deleted refspam
 * ✔️ gave up on cleanup, Brianhe proposed speedy deletion
 * ✔️ Brianhe deleted refspam
 * ✔️ Brianhe reverted recent changes
 * ✔️ Brianhe deleted refspam
 * ✔️ gave up on cleanup, Brianhe proposed speedy deletion
 * ✔️ Brianhe deleted refspam
 * ✔️ Brianhe reverted recent changes
 * ✔️ Brianhe deleted refspam
 * ✔️ Brianhe deleted refspam
 * ✔️ Brianhe reverted recent changes
 * ✔️ Brianhe deleted refspam
 * ✔️ Brianhe deleted refspam


 * User accounts

There is some undisclosed paid editing going on here with a possible abuse of WP:CLEANSTART. I have offline evidence of this, but I am not going to present it here for risk of WP:OUTING. I have listed some user accounts who seem to be working in close cooperation. Could others have a look at it? Pinging, , --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a connection to Sockpuppet investigations/Satya satapathy? I notice editing by the sock at Jamie Waller (entrepreneur). – Brianhe (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That is one connection, but I also think someone from the Med area ought to look at this, there are a lotta medical (dental) articles. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see I crossed paths with this editor/group already at ER24 Emergency Medical Services‎. - Brianhe (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Brian, there may be a connection to Articles for deletion/KartRocket via Vedas (Indian Restaurant) to Katherine Keating. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * One more oddity ... Brian F. Martin and Childhood Domestic Violence Association were favorites of indeffed per Sockpuppet investigations/Seeknikkihi. So many coincidental intersections, hmmm. - Brianhe (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * can you help piece this together? You mentioned you had some offline evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Kickingback77. - Brianhe (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you have a look at the situation below. I feel this is a sock. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah found this. Xandyxyz seems to be a sock of . The correlation (verified from off-wiki evidence) is way too high. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See also this and this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Record of a previous conversation User_talk:Bbb23/Archive_32. Interesting. and, you might want to look at this and see if there is anything useful here. I'm afraid I don't have any knowledge of stuff happening in 2015. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

A previous version of the De Molliere family article was an Orangemoody job. Geogene (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not terribly surprised. (mentioned above as possible connection) displayed OM-like behavior like posing as admin to gullible clients. - Brianhe (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This does fail WP:DUCK does appear to be a case of paid editing. Brian F. Martin is clearly a paid job first done by Kickingback77 and later the job was given to another paid editor Sockpuppet investigations/Cada mori both cases of undisclosed paid editing.Note Childhood Domestic Violence Association is an organsation belonging to Brian Martin.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Reply by Xandyxyz

 * Thanks to you all dear editors. Well, I'm a dental medical researcher with particular interest in dentistry. Majority of my edits are based on that. They have been very useful to the dental community out there and the general medical world. I also research on digital technology once is a while as can be seen in the "Help desk Software" article.

Yes, there are other edits I made. Majority of them are more of clean-up and maintenance. I've never engaged in vandalism, tag removal or any unruly behaviour. In fact, one of my recent articles was tagged for speedy deletion and was eventually deleted. I never contested it. I respect the opinion of every editor here.

But, I must admit that some of the clean-up edits are helps I rendered to friends who don't really know how to go about the wiki-editing process. You know how difficult wiki editing can be especially that of "Orphan Tag". I never get paid for them. Most of the edits are geared towards making the pages better. If this is considered conflict of interest, then I promise I won't engage in it any more. I'll continue to use my account for medical research and other digital-related research topics. Thanks.Xandyxyz (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, could you let us know if you had any previous accounts on Wikipedia? And also, have you edited any article on behalf of your employer? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No dear. I've not edited on behalf of any employer. thanksXandyxyz (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. Have you been involved in/disclosed any COI previously? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No dear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandyxyz (talk • contribs) 12:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I find this highly suspicious. Why did you try to create the article Pakistan Green Building Council? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That should be my very first article. Well, I have interest in Green Building Council So far, there are 19 established councils across the globe and "Pakistan Green Building Council" is one of them. Some of the councils already have wiki pages. They are all non-profit organisations meant to better our world.  A friend of mine who is also part of the council in Pakistan tried to create the "Pakistan Green Building Council" page either by himself or through another wiki editor. According to him, the attempt was rejected. He asked me to help. If I remember, he showed me an already existing draft that was deleted or rejected. I cleaned up the text and created the page but it was later deleted. I didn't contest.Xandyxyz (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I see. Would you mind letting us know who is this friend of yours and which Wikipedia account is this friend using? And I also noticed that you edited ER24 Emergency Medical Services 10 months ago. Were you paid to edit this? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for late reply Lemongirl942. I've been busy with series of events lately. Quick reply - I don't really know the wiki account the friend is using. It's been a long time now. I don't think it's right to mention his name on this platform either because editors here go by acronyms not real names.  Coming to ER24 Emergency Medical Services, I only cleaned up the page to look better. I didn't get paid for. I think wiki edits can be reversed  if need be. You can reverse the edits if they are not okay.

Pls Lemongirl942, I'm seriously engaged in some events right now. I may be off and on the internet network. I'll still respond to further questions when I'm back. But, I think I've cleared myself here. I edit Wikipedia once in a while when I have the time. Thank you Xandyxyz (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Alright, no problem. I apologise if I have offended you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations results
Following users were confirmed

See Sockpuppet investigations/Boskit190. A bunch of socks have been found --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice work you all! Now for the mopping up. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is odd... when uploaded a photo of Craig Pisaris-Henderson, he piped the author "Craig Pisaris-Henderson" to himself: . Is this an attempt to conceal the uploader, self-outing or impersonation, or something else? - Brianhe (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * also looks suspicious based on Cleojason !voting to keep an article Daisybest created. Most of their articles have already been deleted but these remain: SmartSE (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)



Abof through Zizoo
One editor has Two editors Three editors have created the articles above, or uploaded their logos. There may be a connection to the creator of TaxiForSure. I'd like someone else to tell me if this looks like COI editing. - Brianhe (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (also signs name "Zach Taiji" )
 * articles
 * an online fashion retailer founded 2015
 * businessperson
 * a car rental aggregator service founded 2011
 * an Indian real estate and construction company
 * an American notebook brand
 * an online trip planner website founded 2012
 * Social analytics company
 * US-India Venture capital firm
 * a residential rental management company founded 2012
 * an Austrian boat rental service founded 2014
 * Social analytics company
 * US-India Venture capital firm
 * a residential rental management company founded 2012
 * an Austrian boat rental service founded 2014
 * a residential rental management company founded 2012
 * an Austrian boat rental service founded 2014


 * It certainly looks suspicious to me. I've added another user who previously created Inspirock and has a similar contribution history. SmartSE (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Added articles created by Azntaiji to the list above. - Brianhe (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Zach Taji is some kind of PR person for this company. His name is included in one Commons file upload, and displayed on the Inventus Capital website as its creator. - Brianhe (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Article expanded 2x by has a matching personal website designed by Zach Taiji. - Brianhe (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Look who showed up at Medecision 5 minutes after it was created by Conor Lee: our old friend . Brianhe (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you notice he patrolled it as well? SmartSE (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Conor Lee removed a section from CMD Group about a lawsuit - here, that looks suspicious to me. LaMona (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Conor Lee also sanitized the article on Angie's List removing criticism here, and here, and the information that most revenue comes from advertising here. Conor Lee seems to be inactive, but IP 74.203.211.243 began editing the Angie's List article the day after Conor Lee stopped, and continued to remove all negative content. Much was reverted, but IP 74.203.211.243 was removing material from Angie's List as recently as January 2016. LaMona (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Conor Lee also sanitized the article on Angie's List removing criticism here, and here, and the information that most revenue comes from advertising here. Conor Lee seems to be inactive, but IP 74.203.211.243 began editing the Angie's List article the day after Conor Lee stopped, and continued to remove all negative content. Much was reverted, but IP 74.203.211.243 was removing material from Angie's List as recently as January 2016. LaMona (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbaaz Khan (actor)


Seems to be someone who has created an autobiographical article. It is sourced, but the user has not responded to posts inquiring about their COI. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Has also created a page about a film he appeared in, I Miss You (2014 film). 331dot (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * More than just this -- Sockpuppet investigations/Nouman khan sherani. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Malta Medical Students' Association‎


Article is entirely unsourced. I have tried to reduce the amount of promotional material within the article, but WP:SPA continues to reintroduce promotional material without explanation. The following diff gives further insight into the situation. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This user has violated the page and is harassing me (an editor) personally as well. The WP:HA continues to do changes with no explanation and saying that there is promotional material which is not the case. The organisation is entirely voluntary and has no gains from it's projects. This user needs to be blocked. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmsaito (talk • contribs) 21:28, 7 May 2016‎  (UTC)


 * That note on Chris' page says it all. Mmsait is WP:SPA working on this article for the past 4 years. It had already existed 6 years before then. I'll see if Mmsaito will talk to me on their talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep, clearly a WP:PROMO editing style. Stop your COI editing. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 20:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Natalia Toreeva


I accepted this AfC submission but the article still needs in serious copyediting. I do not have an impression that the edits of the subject of the article improve the text, but of course I am not a native English speaker (neither is she).Ymblanter (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate assistance in explaining to the user that she must stop editing the article. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll try opening a dialogue on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a go at trimming this page down. It was a perfect example of why people should not edit their own Wikipedia pages. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A;lso, Ymblanter, you need to notify her on her talk page that there is a discussion here, with  ~ ..... HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will notify her now.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks both of you, let us see how the situation will develop.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * she was back on the page today adding invented references (ref title for exhibtion attached to general web site ref).HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Lemongirl942, I did not add anything, I deleted [ ] around O. Sidlin, and it was missing the Reference from the text, so I included this Ref to the text. But now you deleted it. Someone of you deleted almost all the text/pictures, sections/references and now I got the missing of Notability message, asking to add the References. How I can do it if you are laughing at me, and I'm not permitted to do any editing? I need help to fix the problem. I did not expect too much stress from how the editors handle it. Please help with the article problem. Should some material be restored/rephrased, etc? Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Toreeva. Sorry, I didn't have time to look at this before. I just read your response on your talk page. Thank you for responding. First let me say that I empathise with your desire to tell the world about soviet non-conformist art. I understand that certain aspects of history have been documented less often than they should have and it is necessary to document it before it slips away. I appreciate that you are trying to tell the world about it.
 * Now let me talk a bit about a very important concept of Wikipedia - verifiability. Any article in Wikipedia needs to include citations. You can think of Wikipedia like a peer-reviewed journal - anything added needs references. Now these references need to be reliable and independent. News reports, articles in scholarly journals, books etc. are considered reliable references. However personal websites/blogs are not considered reliable (as there may not be an editorial process). It is also preferable that these references are independent. Any information added to Wikipedia needs to be supported by reliable sources.
 * I have seen that some of the content you have added has been removed. This is possible because of 3 reasons - 1. There are no references for the text 2. The reference may not exactly talk about the subject. 3. The reference is either not independent or not considered reliable. (References to blogs and personal websites, where anyone can submit content are not considered reliable).
 * I would also like to add something. It is not necessary that references have to be in English. If you have references in Russian, it is OK as well. In this case (about Soviet art), I feel there might be more Russian references than English references.
 * The last point is, Wikipedia discourages people from directly editing the article about themselves/any related people/organisations. This is something we try to follow. So I would appreciate if you do not edit it directly. However, you can always suggest edits to the article and someone else can edit it. This is done by going to the talk page Talk:Natalia_Toreeva, clicking on the link "request corrections or suggest content" (on the top) and telling us what you want to be added.
 * Thank you! I hope I have answered some of your queries. Please post here if you need any more help. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Lemongirl942 and thanks for your response. You included Ref only for the exhibitions, but about Museums and Publishing was all deleted. I did not use any blogs, so all ref. were reliable and can be used as you feel more appropriate to use. But delete all? I did not have before question of Notability, only promotional tendency but since all material was deleted now I got notability. Someone from Teahouse told that since I was an artist and emigrated from USSR, it is automatically should be in Notability category. Now, it is problem since, I think, it was all deleted that I emigrated from USSR. I understand the text needed to be edited but delete everything I don't understand the goal. Please check all my references in Museums and Publishing, what you think it is appropriate, I would incl. back. But in the format of 1 line I don;t think it is enough for the article. Please help me with the article to be appropriate to be accepted. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'll explain that as well. Let me take this discussion to your talk page since I guess the COI thing has been sorted for the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Lemongirl942, sorry I'm writing from our library since my computer does not work. I just want to add the following: When I started article I looked other's artists articles whom I know from St. Petersburg to follow the structure. I don't want to show the wrong things, I'm happy for them that they are included in wiki, but look at their articles, for example, Alek Rapoport, Anatoly Belkin, Alexander Ney, Vladimir Lisunov, etc. They have their Sections as Early life, Careers, Exhibitions, Museums, and almost no References. If the reference, it is only ref. to Museum itself, but no artist's name there. It is because, the Museums don't list the artists in their collections. So you should not delete the Museums where the artwork in their collection, since no reference is there. They put names of the Museums only. And if they put the books, it does not show their names there. I can included the ISBN in the books I mentioned if you want. I don't understand why someone deleted Museums and Publications sections with the reasonable list of References, but comparing with other artists Articles, these sections should not be deleted. As I see that for the Articles for the artists, probably who understand the art and specifically the Russian/Soviet art 1970s-1980s, would understand that you can't find any record/references of the artists of that time (before falling of Soviet Union), but it does not mean that those artists were not notable. So, it should not be deleted the sections of their activities at that time as the artists. Same with the Education. Only art schools are mentioned, so the Education section also should not be deleted. I asked to correct grammar, sentences structure, but delete all material? And now it is 'notability' problem, how I can prove notability if all participation in Museums, and publishing were deleted? Probably to the artist's article, it should be some specific approach. And why Filmography was deleted? Is it part of the Career in USSR? Does someone checked why the pictures were also deleted? The copyright numbers sent to the wiki review, should not have the problem. Then, why they were deleted? Hope you would look again to the article and correct it in the way it would not have a problem. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Lemongirl942, You can check: 1) www.artdialogues.narod.ru/1997 for "Dialogues: Biennial of Contemporary art. Central Exhibition Hall "Manege", 1997, where 3d Dialoques exh was presented. 2) artunion.ru/painters/e2-17-1.htm, where Natalia Toreeva is registered in the Register of Professional Artists of Russia Empire, Russian emigration, etc. 3) best.artunion.ru/be2-20.htm or best.artunion.ru/best_engl.htm, then click on 'T' or http://www.10000best.com/be2-20.htm 4) http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/2182510/ The book "Twenty Thousand Faces of Pasternak" is there. 5) http://encspb.ru/object/2855704621?lc=ru "School of Sidlin" and its members of this art group included in St. Petersburg Encyclopedia (in Russian), but you can go to their web and click on "Translate this page". All these references could be valuable from wiki point of view. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will verify the links you provided in a while. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Lemongirl942. Also, in the Ref #6 the word "smena" is in red. "Smena" is the Russian on-line newspaper. I did not see this article before, very good info. But Red color probably meaning that the word "smena" is in [ ], so please check it, and if indeed it is the problem, just delete [ ] around "smena". Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ymblanter, I submitted my Article to you seeking the editor's and grammar help, but instead you put my article to conflict section, and someone deleted almost everything. I don't teach wiki what to do, but it looks someone needs to have more experience in art, since in the artists articles, you don't have the references in museums, since they don't have an official web to list all the artists in their collection. So, museums references, as I see in another artists articles, don't have the references, and should not be deleted. I value your opinion to stop working on improvement my article. Thank you.Toreeva (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Lemongirl942, I understand that everyone is busy, but what is the next step? Does someone working to improve the article, or can I make the input for the references I mentioned above? Waiting for your response. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Hi, Lemongirl942, would you answer, if you or someone else is looking into websites I submitted on my Talk page to you to improve the Article? What is my next step if you will not answer about the progress? Can you suggest if you don't have time to look into it, what to do? Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Account possibly connected to digital PR firm FP1 Strategies

 * editors
 * editors
 * editors
 * editors
 * editors
 * editors
 * editors
 * editors
 * editors
 * editors
 * editors
 * editors
 * editors
 * editors
 * editors

An account named User:Lesbianadvocate has been POV-pushing, edit-warring, and adding copyrighted material to an article named American Council for Capital Formation. After consulting with User:1990'sguy, who had a similar run in with her on another article, I started investigating why she's writing so many hit pieces, and it looks like all of her articles for the past few years correspond with clients of the digital PR firm FP1 Strategies. (Her edit history can be seen here).


 * This year, John Shimkus employed a firm called FP1 Strategies to “build his digital presence”. At around the same time, LA suddenly got interested in posting positive information about him, and negative info about his challenger, Kyle McCarter.


 * FP1 Strategies was employed by Quico Canseco in his 2012 congressional race.[ https://www.facebook.com/FP1Strategies/] At the same time, LA suddenly became interested in writing negative information about his challenger, Pete Gallego.


 * Also in 2012, FP1 Strategies handled public relations for Rodney L. Davis . At the same time, LA suddenly got interested in rewriting the page of his challenger, David M. Gill. (which is now merged into another article.)


 * One of FP1’s long-term clients is Fox Entertainment. LA recently spent two months intensely interested in Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC, including posting reams of negative information about Dish Network and its CEO, Charlie Ergen.


 * FP1’s Vice President, Ryan Williams, blasted ACCF’s ethanol position on Twitter the exact same day LA created her article attacking the group, using the exact same language. (“$1.6 million from ExxonMobil alone” )

In short, all of LA’s major article projects for the past four years seem to be FP1 clients or their opponents, taken on exactly when FP1 takes on the clients. It would be mind-boggling if this was coincidence, right? Can any action be taken? More details about her problematic editing, including some examples of her copyright violations can be seen here if necessary. I'd be hugely grateful for any help or assistance you could offer. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The combination of Positive writing on FP1's clients, negative writing on their client's opponents, as well as the specific timing involved (when FP1 took them on etc) quack loudly to me. This combination of pro/negative editing was pointed out in 2012 by an editor who subsequently was banned for socking. However it does show that the editing pattern is a long-term issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm in the process of opening a thread at this user's talk page (and toned down the header here a bit and added userlinks above). Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Another key connection to FP1 is this - an image of a person who had joined F1 as a partner shortly before the image was uploaded by LA. (shortening the user name); the documentation for the image says it is owned by F1 and has an accompanying OTRS tag giving permission from the owner releasing the image. We see this kind of coordinating between conflicted editors and their object of their outside interest quite often.  LA never directly edited the article about the partner.   At the time that person joined F1, the article about him was edited a lot by a User:Intermittentgardener (negative information removed) and then further by User:Iliketoeatpotatoesalot, which added the image in that series of edits.  Which brings those two accounts under this same cloud.
 * Here are the relevant edits at Kyle McCarter mentioned in the first bullet, which are very negative. Not mentioned,  the edit-warring to retain them here then here then here; no talk page discussion.
 * this set of edits to the Pete Gallego article are not so blatantly POV, but see this immediately next edit by LA, removing information that LA had just added with edit note "On reflection this is not appropriate". The first edit didn't add strongly negative information (although depending on your politics it might be upsetting, e.g abortion bill) but did remove a bunch of unsourced positive content.  Overall did make the person less attractive to people in the other party.
 * A connection with FP1 seems very, very likely to me. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Would other COIN denizens please review the evidence here and comment. This is a pretty significant case in my view.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding this does anyone know what timezone Twitter uses? Was that Twitter post made before or after this edit ? And what was the outside impetus for this--something that Paul Ryan said? Geogene (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I also will add that I find this dialogue interesting: . I'm seeing some overlapping personality traits that may be grounds for a SPI here. Geogene (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, Jytdog, for looking into this. It's such a relief to finally get this into the open.
 * I agree that IntermittentGardener sounds a lot like the enraged, policy-scolding tone I've gotten very familiar with from LA; I don't know if that means it's the same person, or just FP1's official policy to try to bully and shout down users who question their edits. Just at a glance I can see that IG and LA have edited several of the same obscure articles: Vocativ, Airlines for America, Robert S Rivkin, and Lenovo. IG and Iliketoeatpotatoesalot also overlap on both PJ Media and Terry Nelson. It would be extraordinary if this was coincidence. Is there a way to check if these accounts are all logging in from the same place? What are the next steps here? Thanks everybody. EllenMcGill (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Added Terry Nelson (political consultant) to case. Back to back favorable editing by eds Intermittentgardener & Iliketoeatpotatoesalot . Nelson happens to be "a partner at FP1 Strategies".
 * Note similar language in edit summaries here (LA: org. "is only a reliable source for its own opinions") and here (IG: org. is "Not a reliable source for anything but iown opinions"). Brianhe (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Another pair of edit summaries with identical language "The article is about Nelson" here (ILP) and here (IG). It seems increasingly likely given various similarities in apparent motive, argument style and writing habits, that the three accounts named here may be operated by a single person. - Brianhe (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Re twitter times see this - the time displayed depends on your user settings, but that tweet was posted after the edit was made.
 * "Is there a way to check if these accounts are all logging in from the same place?" WP:SPI is the place to find that out but checkusers will only be able to compare User:Lesbianadvocate and User:Intermittentgardener because User:Iliketoeatpotatoesalot hasn't edited in almost a year and there isn't a great deal of cross over between those two: . SmartSE (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * More correspondences noted. There is clear (and unattributed) collaboration going on between editors if not outright socking.
 * Correspondence #1. This edit to Alan Sears (IG, 13 July) corresponds to this revision of ILP's sandbox which was blanked over a month before the mainspace edit.
 * Correspondence #2. LA's sandbox (28 October 2014) contains a draft of an article on a thing called Copy data. The redlinked term is used in exactly one article on Wikipedia, Actifio. The term was introduced in this edit (1 December 2014) by Intermittentgardener. - Brianhe (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Opened Sockpuppet investigations/Lesbianadvocate. -- Brianhe (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC) great. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I may need to add to the SPI case, but I can't see deleted pages; could you or another admin check if User:Lesbianadvocate/sandbox is a recreation of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Copy Data whose original author appears to be ? Thanks. Brianhe (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're pinging the wrong me again ;) I've had a look and no, there's no similarity between them. SmartSE (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Darn it, I have to get out of the habit of c&p your signature. Anyway, thanks for checking. Brianhe (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence from Commons
I've nominated File:TerryNelson.jpg for deletion on Commons because I see no indication in the file page or in the related OTRS ticket that permission has been granted by the copyright owner shown in the EXIF data, Michael Temchine. The file was uploaded by and FP1 Strategies is listed as source and as author. I note that a licence was added to the page by ; I'm very curious to know how that user – who was not the uploader and (I believe) is not an OTRS agent – was able to determine what licence to add. Neither Lesbianadvocate nor Iliketoeatpotatoesalot has edited any other Commons page.

Taken with the other evidence presented above, this is enough to convince me beyond doubt that there has been collusion (at the very least) between these two editors and that there is every likelihood of a connection to the company. I'm going to add the paragraph above to the SPI too in case that helps. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Further evidence at PJ Media
I just noticed that and  have both been editing the article PJ Media. I looked up online and found this link at the official website of PJ Media, which clearly states For Media Inquiries please contact:FP1 Strategies. I'm adding it to the list of pages above. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * An IP address that's been rewriting the PJ Media article, User:219.77.82.45, also just attempted to disrupt the sock puppet investigation as well . It seems extremely likely that this IP address is connected with this ring. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Results of SPI
The SPI has concluded that the following editors are socks of User:Lesbianadvocate and at least some of their edits fit the modus operandi of PR:


 * contrib survey
 * contrib survey
 * contrib survey
 * contrib survey

This is an earlier SPA Lenovo editor from 2011-2012 with hundreds of edits by they've been trying to own articles since 2008

There are quite a few articles affected but the main ones to check are related to these:


 * - parent company of Lenovo
 * - all Lenovo products
 * - also owned by Legend Holdings
 * - spinoff of Alliant Techsystems
 * ??? needs examination
 * - also owned by Legend Holdings
 * - spinoff of Alliant Techsystems
 * ??? needs examination
 * - also owned by Legend Holdings
 * - spinoff of Alliant Techsystems
 * ??? needs examination
 * - spinoff of Alliant Techsystems
 * ??? needs examination
 * ??? needs examination
 * ??? needs examination
 * ??? needs examination

SmartSE (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspected the Lenovo connection through . It's curious to have a mix of commercial and purely political editing. I wonder if FP1 was outsourcing Wikipedia editing to another entity. - Brianhe (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm thinking, a sockfarm for hire working on contract. Keaigougou8080's edits don't look politically compatible with Lesbianadvocate at all. Geogene (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I very much doubt we'll ever know, but that did cross my mind - writing laptops is hardly "winning messaging and professional execution for political and issue-based campaigns" and as you can see above the Lenovo history goes way back. As of Sep 2015 Vista Outdoor's agency was Backbone Media. SmartSE (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * are you sure it's backbonemedia.com not backbonemedia.net? – Brianhe (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. Thanks for pointing that out! SmartSE (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Can somebody help me connect the dots here? How do a Rocky Mountain sporting goods marketing company, a California new media oitfit, and a D.C. political PR firm and a Singaporean who also edits from a Hong Kong IP converge? I don't get it. And by the way, I think we all missed this: it looks like Singaporebobby once disclosed his affiliation with Alliant, but deleted it in December 2015. Brianhe (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am finding it hard to understand the connection as well. It is possible that jobs are being outsourced to another PR firm (possibly located in Hong Kong/Singapore). Considering that Lenovo is a Chinese company, it is plausible that the PR firm is Hong Kong/Singapore, cities which use Mandarin as an official language. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Renewed activity (9 May 2016)
I spotted a new account whose editing patterns indicate that they are not new to Wikipedia. The edits (at least the edit summary descriptions) are similar to. Pinging ,,. Let me know what you think. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The only edits I can see related to this case are these which look fine to me. Their edits to Medopad (see below) removed a lot of promotional content and I don't see how editing Eckert–Mauchly Computer Corporation which has been defunct for > 60 years would fit in with COI. It seems to me that they are with us SmartSE (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Medopad

 * redacted now
 * redacted now

Significant contributors to the Medopad article include, whose only other edit appear to have involved adding mentions of the company to articles such as Google Glass and Vodafone, and two IPs have host names that include "medopad". Cordless Larry (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on off-wiki evidence, I'm convinced that had a COI in 2014 but it most likely no longer exists. The anon editors are a different story. - Brianhe (talk) 08:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that redacted changed username to today. SmartSE (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Added who I see Larry had already found. SmartSE (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done some clean up on the main article and removed the content in Google Glass and Vodafone that Larry mentioned as it was undue and given the pattern of editing, obviously promotional. SmartSE (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Emily Carmichael (filmmaker)
Possible COI in article about filmmaker Emily Carmichael. The article has primarily been written by one editor, and this editor has edited only on Emily Carmichael's page, and on Joel Carmichael's page (Emily's grandfather). The article contains an excessive amount of detail and promotional material added by this editor that, while sourced, is certainly suspicious. It at least seems excessive given the relative noteworthiness of the subject. Seems like something worth taking a look at. Tomtomglove (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It isn't true that I've only edited on two pages. I spent a lot of time editing Filmmaker's page updating many years of their 25 New Faces List and linking those names with existing wiki pages. I've edited on Viscera Film Festival, Shannon Lark, and James Morgart. It's true I'm a fan of this filmmaker and don't spend a lot of time on wikipedia but I always made sure I was careful about citing reputable sources. I'm not sure what amount of detail is "excessive" there. Only the short films that won awards and played at significant festivals are included. In the one other case there is a short film that was created as an outgrowth of a script that won an award and featured two significant actors and also played a significant festival. There was also the web series which premiered on a major website Penny Arcade. As to noteworthiness, I checked the pageview stats today and her page seems pretty well trafficked to me. There's a couple of +1,000 pageview days earlier in the month. As of today on her IMDb page she's a Top 5000 searched person in their star rankings. Again "noteworthiness" is relative but those seem like objective measures of a certain degree of noteworthiness. And while I've certainly made a lot of edits there are over a half dozen other editors who've weighed in. It's by no means some solo project. I would never claim to be an active or wide-ranging wikipedia user but I tried to do a careful job of citing sources, engaged in a lot of other work besides the Carmichael page (Filmmaker took A LOT of time), included details that I found significant for the reasons stated above, and believe that the subject has some objective pretense to be a notable. FilmCriticAlpha (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC) FilmCriticAlpha
 * Thanks for replying here User:FilmCriticAlpha. Please do have a look at WP:SPA which may help you understand why this concern was raisded.   In any case, would you please tell us if you have any connection with the Carmichaels?  You don't have to disclose your identity (that is protected by WP:OUTING but would you please disclose if there is some relationship? Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Jytdog. I don't have any relationship with the filmmaker or anyone associated with her including her family. I was a fan of The Adventures of Ledo and while googling the director saw the other work she had done that I thought warranted a wikipedia page which inspired me to make one. When I found she was related to someone else with a wikipedia page I did add her to that and also made some other edits. As I recall Joel Carmichael was born with another name which hadn't been included. But as I said before it simply isn't true that those were the only pages I edited. I think for sheer time catching up Filmmaker's 25 New Faces list was by far the most effort I spent. It hadn't been updated in a long time and it was a lot of work. FilmCriticAlpha (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC) FilmCriticAlpha


 * And thank you for the link. One of the disadvantages of not spending more time as an editor here is that there's a culture and set of standards that I'm not as up on as I should be. I certainly understand the concern and the necessity of making sure that fans of individual artists without a deeper connection to Wikipedia's culture don't run amok so to speak. FilmCriticAlpha (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC) FilmCriticAlpha
 * Everybody starts somewhere. Your editing is pretty well sourced and careful; i don't see overt promotionalism, despite you being a big fan.  You have said you have no connection so no COI; you have acknowledged that you are a fan.  Please do keep the WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV policies in mind, and you might want to have a look at the WP:ADVOCACY essay, OK?  Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog. I certainly will. Thanks for walking me through the policies. I appreciate the help. FilmCriticAlpha (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC) FilmCriticAlpha