Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 103

Jonathan Dach


A reputation management firm has been retained by Jonathan Dach to secure the deletion of his article from WP (see: ). Within minutes of WWB Too posting a request for an uninvolved editor to nom the page for deletion, a freshly minted account - that became active just 30 days ago - immediately chimed in (within 54 minutes) saying they would do so  (note that this article's Talk page has averaged 0.2 daily page views this month - not exactly a hotbed of interaction that would organically attract viewers). It seems clear and obvious to me the shell game this firm is attempting to run. Further discussion is at the BLP Noticeboard. As I just went through this same thing with the people trying to sanitize and whitewash the Frank Gaffney article, I'm pinging those editors involved in that one as well, namely - DMacks and Doug Weller. This is not a canvassing of editors but an alert of persons who have a special background in these types of sensitive situations. (For the record, I'm not entirely convinced this article doesn't merit deletion - it may, I'm undecided - my issue is more with gaming its expungement.)LavaBaron (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not seeing any evidence of "gaming" here - WWB declared their conflict as they're supposed to. And I don't think the fact that MisterRandomized account is about a month old is sufficient reason to jump to the conclusion that theyre colluding with WWB, it's entirely possible they were just responding to the blp posting. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * LavaBaron, your initial response to me on your discussion page—after I gave you a courtesy notification that I was raising questions about this entry—was polite, and I appreciated it. Now I am surprised and dismayed to find that you are accusing me and some poor editor whom I do not otherwise know of colluding behind the scenes. It is a charge that would be block-worthy if true, but is absolutely untrue, you do not have any evidence for it, and I ask that you rescind it immediately. I was up-front with you about my COI connection in my correspondence, as the WMF Terms of Use require, and your subsequent responses distract from important BLP issues that deserve to be evaluated on their merits. Please, let's do that instead. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 23:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, WWB_Too. I'm sorry if you felt I made an accusation against you. I can't rescind what I did not say, but if you want me to unambiguously state I don't think you're socking I'm happy to do that: I don't think you're socking. As for the "poor editor" [sic] - I have also not made accusations against it but simply observed, with diffs, some of their past edit history which is fairly rote. If you'd like me to apologize to the "poor editor" also for some transgression, I'm happy to do that as well, though I'd need to know what it is, probably. LavaBaron (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I probably should have been pinged here. Anyway, everything I have to say on the matter is at WP:BLPN. MisterRandomized (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that I would be perfectly fine with someone filing a sockpuppet investigation to put this to rest. MisterRandomized (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain who that would be, has someone accused you of being a sock? I haven't and, frankly, don't even think you are. LavaBaron (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. MisterRandomized (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. LavaBaron (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

David Gaither (artist)


A single purpose and apparently autobiographical account. I'm on the fence as to whether WP:ARTIST, let alone general notability guidelines, are satisfied. A show in a small museum and a few articles don't appear to constitute significant coverage or significance, though work in several museum collections is helpful. Still, this needs better sourcing and removal of copied text and puffery. I admit, I'm loathe to copy edit an article with any enthusiasm when it's clearly a self-promotional vehicle. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Does not look notable. Lots of wiki-type artist sites list him, but only a couple news sources. (Interestingly, I just did about twenty artist stubs and it seems like you have to be about 55+ in the art world to have accumulated the right accolades, shows, collections, mentions and awards to be truly notable.) This looks like a promotional page that is not based on much. I think PROD or AfD is the right solution.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Dan Price


User has specifically and only edited content for Dan Price and his company Gravity Payments. Most notably commending Dan Price on the company page and removing any negative (and well-cited) information from the person's page. A search of the IP address links it directly to Gravity Payments in Seattle. "GRAVITY PAYMENTS PAET-SEA-GRAVI-1 (NET-40-139-138-240-1) 40.139.138.240 - 40.139.138.247 Windstream Communications Inc WINDSTREAM (NET-40-128-0-0-1) 40.128.0.0 - 40.143.255.255" — Preceding unsigned comment added by InitiatedCall (talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 April 2016‎
 * Hey, . I see that you had trimmed the article previously. I was rechecking a couple of days back and saw that an IP had added a bunch of stuff to it. The IP seems to be linked to Gravity Payments. You may want to have a look at it again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Lemongirl942. I wonder if there is any defense against money!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , I checked the additions by the IP editor. They all appear to be very, very well sourced. It's strange that they are coming from the Gravity payments IP--maybe they have an in-house Wikipedian! In any case it's pretty fawning material, but with good sources. Over and out. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I noticed it was well sourced which is why I hesitated to remove it. I will check it again for any NPOV language and then remove the COI tag. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just read the article properly. The entire article is written from a fan's point of view. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Vicente S. Santos, Jr.


User:Fabyan17 has declared that they are the son of Vicente S. Santos, Jr. in made on Wikimedia Commons. Fabyan17 has been informed a number of times that he is considered to have a conflict of interest (as defined by Wikipedia) at User talk:Fabyan17 as well as in Talk:Vicente S. Santos, Jr., but he insists that he does not. He has also been advised/warned twice here and here that it would be better for him to discuss changes other editors have made to try and improve the article on the article's talk page, instead of engaging in edit warring as he has done here, here and here. Requests for assistance in assessing the article were posted at WT:TAMBAY, WT:MILHIST and WT:BIOG to try and get feedback from other editors. Two who responded, and, and myself have made to good-faith attempts to try and improve the article, but these have been reverted by three times without discussion by Fabyan17. So, perhaps other editors from this noticeboard would be willing to review the edits and assess according to WP:COI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fabyan17 has been notified of this thread here and here, so hopefully he will choose the respond. From this post, it appears that he is trying to argue that the Wikipedia article written about his father is some sort of "authorized biography" based up what is written in the lede of Biography and that as a family member he is "authorized" to edit the article about his father. To me that indicates a misunderstanding of WP:OWN and WP:COI and since I have never heard of any Wikipedia biography to be authorized in such a way. In fact, trying to treat Wikipedia articles as "authorized biographies" seem to be one of the concerns specifically mentioned in WP:COI and WP:LUC. An authorized biography about Santos may possibly be used as a reliable source for the article, but I don't think the Wikipedia article in and of itself is considered to be such a biography. Wikipedia does not even consider its articles to be reliable sources per WP:WPNOTRS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to slightly clarify meaning by replacing "and" with "since" -- 05:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)]
 * Not having watchlisted the article in question I didn't realise the recent changes that myself and others had made in an attempt to tone down the POV issues here had been undone by Fabyan17 until I was advised of this COIN post. I endorse Marchjuly's statement above of the issue. There is a clear COI on the part of Fabyan17 as the subject's son. He has been repeatedly advised of policy, suggestions have been made to improve the article and / or edits made to do so but there seems to be little intention to engage constructively in this process on his part beyond reverting and denying any COI exists on the talkpage. Indeed I made a bunch of fairly minor formatting changes per the MOS / fixed a redlink etc, and another editor also preformed a copyedit  and even these appear to have been reverted which to me indicates that there is also a case of WP:OWN here as well. Given that Fabyan17 is continuing to edit war  this seems to be an ongoing problem to me. Anotherclown (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the article and felt that it crossed the line between biography and hagiography so made some edits to increase the descriptive nature of the article. I fear that while Fabyan17 has demonstrated that an understandable loyalty to his dad, this has led to COIN. Keith-264 (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Obviously, nobody wants to speak harshly to a son determined to celebrate his father, but I'm far from sure Fabyan17 understands what the "warning" and "final warning" he's been given mean in practical terms. I have therefore warned more directly, saying he will be blocked if he continues to edit war. If the article was a BLP, a topic ban or perhaps a page ban (from the article but not the talkpage) would have been the answer IMO, but as it is admins don't have such convenient remedies to hand. Unless somebody would like to propose a community page ban on AN/ANI? Bishonen &#124; talk 09:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC).
 * P.S. Anotherclown, re your addition to my warning: I think it may be confusing to encourage the user to focus on the 24-hour rule. Any further reverting at all by him qualifies as edit warring in my book. Marchjuly already gave him a link to the edit warring warning template (not that I have much of an impression the user clicks on links. He doesn't seem to be interested in anything starting with "Wikipedia:" only in the Biography article, which he misunderstands). Bishonen &#124; talk 11:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC).
 * I think Anotherclown may have posted that based upon our discussion on his user talk page. My suggestion was that if AC undid Fabyan17's last revert that it would probably be a good idea to warn him about 3RR so that he was at least aware that one more revert would be seen as a violation. My post was made before the additional warnings were added to Fabyan17's user talk and AC was probably just trying to follow through and make sure there was no misunderstanding. Anyway, that's all a moot point now for the reasons you gave in your warning. FWIW, I've been looking for better sources and have no problem working with others, including Fabyan17, to try and improve the page. He may actually have information on better sourcing or even non-English sources. My goal is not to get anyone blocked, but he just seems, at least up until now, to be more interested in his preferred version than collaborating with others. Perhaps that will change, now that other more experienced editors have gotten involved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes that was my intention but I can see how it may have confused things. Anotherclown (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Joel Diamond


In March, 2016, User:Joeldiamond made this horn-tooting edit "from actual manager & producer Joel Diamond". Mr. Diamond was cautioned here on his talk page regarding a conflict of interest. Today, Mr. Diamond added himself here as a "notable person" to Calabasas, California. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * More specifically, he added both himself and his wife, Rebecca Holden. I'm on the fence about this edit. Diamond and Holden have Wikipedia articles, and if actually from Calabasas, their addition there would not be a bad one, even if it does leave a bad taste in my mouth for Diamond himself to be adding them. Of course, they're also unsourced.
 * His own Wikipedia article is a long list of unsourced and questionably-sourced self-laurels. TJRC (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Biophony
User:Biophony has contributed extensively to a group of five closely-related articles

all of which have numerous citations of papers by Bernie Krause. He has also contributed to
 * and to
 * about a singing duo.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong here, the articles are all competently written without obvious bias. But there's strong evidence of CoI, and I'd like a more experienced editor to have a look. Maproom (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I left a question/note on their talk page.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Noting that they did not answer a question about their connection to the subjects in 2009. I hope they decide to engage the community. - Brianhe (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The first three articles are neologisms that aren't even included in dictionaries, except where the creator has suggested they be added . I'm tempted to be bold and redirect them to Soundscape ecology. Niche hypothesis doesn't appear to have attracted a great deal of commentary either. SmartSE (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Tuschinski

 * - cinematographer for Tuschinski's films
 * - see next
 * - from aboves institue, quoted as having praised a film by Tuschinski
 * - Tuschinski received an award from them.
 * - Tuschinski received an award from them
 * - flim by Tuschinski
 * - film by Tuschinski
 * - film by Tuschinski
 * - film byTuschinski
 * - Tuschinski received an award from them.
 * - Tuschinski received an award from them.
 * (deleted) - film byTuschinski
 * - Tuschinski received an award from them.
 * - Actor in Tuschinski's films
 * - film by Tuschinski
 * - Tuschinski and others "have attended screenings of their films." Screend a Tuschinski film.
 * - Art!, a film by Tuschinski, premiered here
 * - Art!, a film by Tuschinski, premiered here
 * - Tuschinski "is a friend of Hugo Niebeling and considers him his mentor"
 * - film by Tuschinski
 * - film by Tuschinski
 * - Tuschinski received an award from them. article has quote from and picture of Tuschinski

Creation of a hagiography for Alexander Tuschinski and promotion of his endeavors. ATuschinski shares a name with the centre of this spam. The first 16 articles above are the first 16 articles created by Mike300578. All link back to Tuschinski. The next 4 are by ATuschinski, also linking back to Tuschinski. There is more editing that links back to Tuschinski. This is one big mass of promotion for an individual with questionable notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * wow thanks for all that. We have some work to do. Jytdog (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I met Alexander Tuschinski, and wrote articles about him and his films afterwards by my own initiative. I always use reliable sources and quotes, and write as neutral as possible. Step by step, I added pages when there were "red links" (festivals etc) in articles written by me, as I enjoy expanding wikipedia. I also write about different, unrelated topics, always in the same way and style. If you find any factual errors / bias, I apologize, they wouldn't be intentional and I will gladly correct those issues. Concerning photos: I asked Tuschinski (account name "ATuschinski") to provide pictures after I created a page. I felt this was in line with wikipedia policy.Mike300578 (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I just removed 23 (yes, twenty-three) sources from Alexander Tuschinski that were a combination of Youtube, Blogspot, Facebook and Isssu refs.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I reviewed your edit. Those sources were added to make certain the source of info is always referenced with all statements. Those links are not the articles' main sources, notability is established through press etc. If such sources for minor details violate WP:IRS, I will not include such in future articles.Mike300578 (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, I have to say that your extensive use of Youtbe links, and especially quotes that are referenced by Facebook references is not such a good idea. When I see a quote in an article that is referenced by Facebook, I question the notability of the article. This is because anyone can say almost anything on Facebook. I can go onto FB now and say "X Is great" and then use it as a source in Wikipedia... but it is a patently bad source, for obvious reasons.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ramaz School
Have blocked User:Berkoar. They first added copyrighted content. Than they stated that they work for the school in question. Requested they read WP:COI; however, they have not disclosed and continue to edit. Thought? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever you think of User:Doc James, he can spell, and his postings are coherent. I suspect an imposture. Maproom (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Maproom should really sleep. Worse than usual. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Akash Dahariya
User:Akash Dahariya has been editing extensively within the Bollywood area of interest, despite the fact that it is clear that this person is involved himself, as shown here. In particular, see here and take note of who wrote the Mini Bio. Vicky Kewat, whose article is up for deletion. Akash has been warned twice on his talk page about WP:COI here and here but he appears to have taken no notice whatsoever, extensively editing Dinesh Soi since the warnings (I have just a few moments ago reverted all of them under WP:COI). Strongly recommend a warning from an admin and if that fails a block is recommended. 1.125.48.81 (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * User talk:1.125.48.81 has did't mention why he remove the links.That page is about the casting director,not about a indian film actor.that is the only reason I undo your edit.Akki98 12:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akash Dahariya (talk • contribs)
 * The article is in the realm of Bollywood. Your point is therefore irrelevant. And don't hide your user name when you comment, please. Akash. 1.125.48.81 (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey . You interacted with me previously on my talk page. Could you clarify something? How do you know Dinesh Soi, Ajeet Vishwakarma, Vicky Kewat? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

IDEA Public Schools and De88

 * Way too much WP:COPYVIO
 * Way too much WP:COPYVIO

Appears to be writing WP articles for IDEA Public Schools Other edits also look paid for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * added user De88. Warned for COI on user page. Removed some promotional EL links (Twitter, FB, Youtube stuff). Removed the huge long list of schools in the article as it was redundant, and it cited zero refs. Article is definitely a promotional effort. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am a student at this school who graduated this year. In regards to my edits, I am not in any way or form being paid to edit this article. I have a huge interest in editing this page since most of the edits on here were not revised and/or well-written. Noting the "huge long list of schools", those edits were not mine and did not want to remove them knowing that was not my work. Is it possible to bring the list of schools back with references? I did not create the page, but have started contributing with edits since the page has not had much progress in a while. Also, my edits did seem like they were "promoting" the school but this is due to being new to guidelines and rules here in Wikipedia. However, I do apologize for any wrongdoing and will try to prevent any of this in the future. De88 (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at your first few edits I am not convinced you are a new editor but that is just me. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What I meant to say is that even though I have been contributing to Wikipedia articles for a while, I have not read most of the guidelines and rules on here. My apologies if it came across another way. De88 (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I just nominated this article for speedy deletion - it is terribly promotional. User:De88 being a recent grad you are obviously to the school to write neutrally about it - you have a COI here.  Will you please acknowledge that you have a COI for IDEA Public schools?  You can still work on the topic - there are just some things we will ask you to do.   Please do let me know. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A past graduate of a school has a conflict of interest? That seems highly unlikely--they will not change his grades or revoke his diploma. Such a COI misunderstanding would cast doubt on thousands of articles. Instead the recent grad doubtless knows a lot of info about the school. Rjensen (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that my edits on this article caused a COI on the IDEA Public Schiols page. Before editing this article, I had not known much about the school system until I did a lot of research. Yes, the edits on here are promotional, but keep in mind some edits are not mine. To Jytdog, what are some things that I need to do? I am not trying to cause problems on here, I am taking a lot of backlash from working on this article and would like to know possible solutions so the page does not get deleted. I did add a criticism/controversy section to even out the "promotional" edits even though the page needs clean up on grammar. De88 (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * you've done nothing wrong here, Rjensen is on your side and so am I. I'm impressed with your article, if there is a problem with tone, it will be corrected over time, I didn't see any. Nice work!  there appears to be a few here in COIN who have completely lost their objectivity. It's beginning to look like they want every edit steered through this committee (i.e., creating editors cannot remove a prod, improperly COI tags must be sustained). It's been my experience that when the guidance does not suit the goals of this small cabal, they simply change them without discussion. This is absurd. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 04:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying De88. You don't seem to understand the COI concept so let me explain a bit.   A "conflict of interest" is something that an individual person has, when are part of some organization X, but they also have a relationship with some other organization or person Y.   If some matter relating to Y comes up when the person is doing their work inside X, the person has a conflict - do they do they work for the interests of X or for the interests of Y?   So if a judge owns a bunch of stock in Pfizer, and a case involving Pfizer comes before her, she has a conflict of interest between her responsibilities as a judge to the public and her personal financial interest in seeing Pfizer's stock go up?  That kind of conflict of interest, is not tolerable - it is eliminated by the judge recusing herself.  Other kinds of COI are tolerable, but must be managed.   Somebody coming to WIkipedia to write about their company (or an alum writing about their school) has a conflict of interest between furthering WIkipedia's mission to write neutral articles, and their loyalty to their company or school.  We manage that person's COI two ways.   First, via disclosure, and secondly, by having the person offer suggestions on the Talk page of existing articles that are reviewed by others before they are added to the article (or if they want to create a new article, creating that as a draft and having it reviewed by others before it publishes)
 * So you have a COI with regard to IDEA as you are a recent graduate of one of their schools. The first step is for you to acknowledge that you have a conflict of interest with regard to IDEA in Wikipedia.  Would you please acknowledge that? That is the first step. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wiki has never ruled that a past alum has a conflict of interest. Jytdog made that up just now and is bullying a user [first step is for you to acknowledge] No that is unnecessary. In the article in question Jytdog has been unable to articulate COI problems. Rjensen (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see your Talk page and your email, Rjensen. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do acknowledge that I created a COI with IDEA. However, I do recall mentioning this in one of my earlier messages. If you don't remember, this is what I said: "Yes, I understand that my edits on this article caused a COI on the IDEA Public Schiols page" (Excuse the typo). Also, a whole example on what Conflict of Interest means was completely unnecessary, I know what it means. I did not ask for a definition, I asked about what I could do since you said "there are just some things we will ask you to do." Since the article is placed under speedy deletion, what can I do to keep the article? De88 (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, that will do. I am not sure what is going to happen with deletion.   While it is up in the air, I would say go ahead and edit directly as though it were draft article - that's unsual as we usually ask editors with a COI to offer suggestions on the Talk page instead of editing directly.  But like I said, at least while the AfD is pending we can treat it like a draft.   If it does get deleted you can create a new article as a draft - we can talk about that when the dust settles.  Would you please also post the disclosure of your COI on your userpage, User:De88?  Just something simple like, "I am an alum of IDEA Public Schools and have a conflict of interest on that topic"  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I will not do that. I already admitted a COI with IDEA, what else do you need? You are forcing me to plaster this incident all over my page so people can see me as "untrustworthy" and "suspicious". No thank you. De88 (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One goes with the other. If you have a COI in Wikipedia, that means that you don't edit the topic directly, but instead you submit things for peer review.  For existing articles, that means proposing things on the Talk page, and for new articles, you put them through the [{WP:AFC]] process.  That is how it works here.  There are many, many reasons for this.  The sharpest one for the conflicted editor, is that they tend' to behave badly (edit war, yell at other people, etc) because their COI makes everything over wrought.  The usual result is drama and that in turn generally leads to blocks and then a topic ban for the conflicted editor.   Not editing directly saves you all that drama.  Not to mention the other benefits to the project.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Blatant WP:COPYVIO Commenting on the content of IDEA Frontier. Parts of this article have been blatantly copied from the website. See diff --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's the source URL.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I completely rewrote the main article. The other one needs an AfD or a complete rewrite as well.  I fixed the header of this section too. Jytdog (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Byron good
Recreated here as the copyright issue at Byron Good was deleted.

Discussion here

Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * With over 2600 cites in G-Scholar on his own book, and similar on books he edited, he easily passes wp:academic. The editor may be problematic, although it doesn't jump out at me, but I'm not seeing major issues with content or notability. What am I missing? LaMona (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It was originally a copyright issue from the person's CV Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Template removal
There is a discussion underway concerning guidance for editors on removal of template messages, and specifically whether they should be removed by COI and paid editors. See Coretheapple (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a recent discussion. See Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't notice. The Template Help discussion and proposed text takes a somewhat broader view of the issue. Coretheapple (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Ashley Reed


Hi all, first time doing one of these. I believe this page's article has a significant COI; specifically WP:COISELF and WP:EXTERNALREL. I'm not sure who to email with external evidence as I obviously can't post some of it here owing to WP:OUTING, but nonetheless there's some on the article history. An edit by this user on an was commented with ″If you try to remove the bit about Reed being a delegate to Womens Conference- are you really expecting a source to exist? I was the returning officer. Trust me it happened, she won, end of.″ This user is the creator and significant editor of the page — this comment displays a relationship between the two and its use in justifying an edit. I believe it stands as evidence to this user writing the article with a clear COI, and thus the extent to which it adheres to NPOV is also questionable — plus, of course, external evidence which I'd like to email. Thanks all — like I say, first time process, and I'm not entirely sure on what I'm doing, so more than welcome on feedback etc.

Maragil (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There definitely is a COI here. In addition it seems to me the article subject is a case of BLP1E at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Lemongirl942. Do I need to take any further steps? Maragil (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I nominated the article for deletion as I wasn't convinced the person has enough coverage for independent notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

TechnologyOne




These users, most with an obvious username connection to TechnologyOne, are all single-purpose accounts adding promotional content to the article about the company. Many of their edits have been reverted by established users over the years and warnings have been given, but the pattern is persistent dating back to at least 2009. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I gave it a little trim. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Wwwwhatupprrr
Sockpuppet investigations/Art4em/Archive
 * - currently at AfD
 * Related SPI
 * Related SPI

User:Wwwwhatupprrr has recently created an article Julia Friedman which was nominated for deletion and with a messy AfD. I noticed that Wwwwhatupprrr had created the article and had edit warred to remove the COI tag. I tried to open a discussion on their talk page. Somehow I was met with "uncivil comments". You can read the exchange and see that the editor denied all connections. However, there a lot of inconsistencies in the editor's approach which makes me suspect that the editor is actually linked to PCP Press or Lawrence Williams (The Estate of LG Williams) and that it is the publisher who is trying to create this Wikipedia article. Here are some evidence which I would like others to examine. I want the community to have a look and determine if the evidence is reasonable. I strongly suspect this is a sockpuppet of User:Art4em and what we have is a case of WP:PROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) In December 2014, there was an AfD about "LG Williams". Multiple sockpuppets tried to !vote at the discussion. Check out some of the hatted replies by the sockpuppets - the style is very similar to Wwwwhatupprrr at the current AfD.
 * 2) *Incidentally a post by Julia Friedman in HuffingtonPost was used to show notability for LG Williams.
 * 3) *Check User talk:Luv my range rover (sockpuppet of Art4em). It is interesting that was called a "rogue editor". Wwwwhatupprrr called  a "rogue editor" as well.
 * 4) I looked at the Whois records for these websites: http://juliafriedman.net/, http://pcppress.com/, http://lgwilliams.com/ It is interesting that all 3 of them are owned by "Lawrence Williams" from "The Estate of LG Williams".
 * 5) *PCP Press (which published Julia Friedman's book) doesn't seem to be an independent source. Rather it is linked to her and LG Williams. (Thanks to for their comment which made me look)
 * 6) A tweet was sent out by the twitter account of Women in Red. Wwwwhatupprrr was informed of this and enthusiastically replied "please help spread the tweet". In 3 hours, PCP Press retweeted it. There seems to be some connection between Wwwwhatupprrr and PCP Press/Julia Friedman/LG Williams.
 * 7) During the current AfD, Wwwwhatupprrr referenced a JAVA Magazine (a local magazine). The related post is here. This is probably the most fishy thing I found. They claimed to have discovered the lengthy article on this webpage. Later they said It appears that the JAVA's website has been reconstructed, which is why I did not find it in the first place. So, I have yet to find another digital version at the time of writing.
 * 8) *The date of the original post reads Dec 12, 2012. Yet the file uploaded has a path "/uploads/2016/05/Java.Dec_04_Complete.pdf"? (suggesting that the pdf was uploaded in May 2016)
 * 9) *I checked the google cache. An 11 May 2016 version of the page did NOT have the link to the pdf. Rather the link was only to the original Java magazine website. (Checkout archive.is slash PJ3c7 for the google cache version)
 * 10) *The PDF file was uploaded between 11 May and now, probably to convince editors to keep the article. There is reasonable evidence that some collusion is going on between Wwwwhatupprrr and Julia Friedman/LG Williams/PCP Press.
 * 11) I have tried to clarify with Wwwwhatupprrr, but they have claimed to have never had a Wikipedia account previously and no relation to Julia Friedman/LG Williams/PCP Press.
 * 12) *Update: Check this tweet which says Waiting to see if Wiki will even keep it: uugh!

Response by others
User used the talk page of the Women in the art history field article to promote an issue of Coagula, also similar promo material added to the article on Eric Minh Swenson, one of the subjects being covered in the issue. Coagula is a magazine that is called out in the Julia Freedman article as one that endorsed the subject. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Applied Materials


Hi! I work for a communications firm that represents Applied Materials, and I've been working with on some edit requests to the Applied Materials article, here. (Please refer to my most recent reply, dated 4 May, for the latest in the discussion.) In particular, I've proposed a couple short paragraphs (fully sourced) to flesh out a gap in the article's "History" section, and I've also provided secondary sources for much of the information already in the article (which is flagged as relying too much on primary sources). Altamel asked me to seek a second opinion on these latest requests, which is why I'm here. If anyone can glance over what I've proposed and provide feedback, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Sarah Austin (Internet celebrity)


I have been an active contributor to this article between 2008 and 2012. But I have done contract work with this person in 2009 and 2010. After then, I was became disassociated with the subject for personal reasons. I haven't been sure about my "connected contributor" status and cited WP:IAR as a reason not to disclose, as I have edited the article according to policy. Today, I decided to tag myself as a connected contributor. Does this count as COI? -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 23:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your involvement with the subject would tend to indicate the possibility of a conflict of interest; given that we are where we are, your tagging the article's talk page and raising the issue here is about the best you can do, and I commend you for it. I've checked the article, and don't have a problem with it, so, by & large, no harm done. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Probable COI-editing for Darryl Maximilian Robinson
Starting in April 2016, IP-editor has a clear pattern of SPA editing in theater-related articles, focussing on tangential namedropping for Darryl Maximilian Robinson and the Excaliber Shakespeare Company in as many Wikipedia articles as possible (see Special:Contributions/64.60.211.2). Both topics appear to be non-notable (by Wikipedia's standards). Despite notices and warnings from several editors (see User talk:64.60.211.2) the editor continues to add this content. To be clear, the content is not outright promotional, but overly detailed puffery with completely undue WP:WEIGHT in most of the affected articles. As the editor has ignored talkpage message so far, I'd appreciate another uninvolved look into the user's editing pattern. GermanJoe (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have watchlisted some of the articles, asked for the IP to blocked at AIV, and asked for page protection for some of the articles. Not much else we can do here. Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Paid editors and copy and pasting
Have been doing a fair bit of follow up of the copy and paste bots flagged concerns.

What becomes quickly obvious is a large portion of copyright issues come from "paid editors"

For example I blocked this person User:Authorincharge as they had repeatedly added copyrighted material. They claim that they have permission to do so as the person's editor.

How should this sort of situation be handled? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Appears they have a COI wrt the people they write about (they are paid by them)
 * Anca Verma
 * Abhishek Verma (arms dealer)
 * The twitter account for the person has the same pictures.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am intrigued and have asked him a followup question on his talkpage. Brianhe (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the it seems. So maybe they are simply a new editors with a COI writing articles about this family.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope just changed my mind. Check out this IPs first edit directed at User:Bbb23. And it is a proxy server per   Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is another twitter account with the same image. It also tweeted a link to a "Hindi" Wikipedia article about Shrikant Verma. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

These users wish to return to editing. What restrictions should be placed on them? A few I would consider essential: Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No direction contributions to content about the Verma family
 * Each member of the firm must use their own account
 * They must not edit directly content about their clients
 * That sounds reasonable to me. Maybe, the first point could be made clearer: No direction contributions to content about the Verma family in any article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Doc James I recommend you write something like:
 * In order to be ublocked, please acknowledge that you have read WP:PAID and please demonstrate that by disclosing your employer and clients on your Userpage.
 * We also will need you to promise that:
 * Each user in your office will create and use their own account and will also disclose employer and clients of paid editing on their userpages
 * Each of you will put the template on the Talk pages of articles you intend to work on
 * You will all make suggestions on the Talk page rather than editing directly
 * None of you will violate copyright going forward.
 * something like that Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Was about to unblock Authorincharge when Ultimatebeneficiary appeared. Started a SPI. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just passing by and noticed. What if they are allowed to upload images to WikiCommons since, presumably, they are the image subject giving permission for Commons. Then have someone else add them/inform them of COI rules? If this is a useless idea, apologies lol. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

University of St Andrews


Kioj156 is insistent on adding particular rankings to the lead para, to the point where Banedon (with a much more diverse edit history) has opened a WP:DRN case based on it. literally all of Kioj156's edits have been to articles that pertain in some way to St. Andrew's university, so i suspect undisclosed COI. SubcommandanteLOL (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

DigitGaps
It has come to my attention that there is an off-wiki campaign (prob SEO related, via Peopleperhour) to promote DigitGaps on ENWP and delete articles relating to several named competitors. One probable related account appears to have replied by clumsily blanking the articles. The other has started PRODding. Brianhe (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * prob hired editor(s)
 * - indeffed
 * attempted deletions
 * SIS International Research
 * Rockbridge Associates
 * Medimix International
 * IRI (company)
 * International Data Corporation
 * Decision Analyst (company)
 * Hall & Partners
 * C.A. Walker Research Solutions
 * Burke, Inc.
 * BCC Research
 * RNB Research
 * Majestic MRSS
 * Pell Research
 * IBISWorld
 * Transparency Market Research
 * VoiceFive
 * Aberdeen Group
 * Transparency Market Research
 * VoiceFive
 * Aberdeen Group


 * I'm prepared to assume good faith and find that the two editors are merely trying to flag up to us the crap SEO articles which should be removed from Wikipedia. Clearly their omission of DigitGaps is accidental, and so I've made up for that omission with Articles for deletion/DigitGaps. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * They prodded International Data Corporation (better known as IDC). This is a rather notable company (don't know about the other ones). I'm also not immediately seeing any of the promotional editing claimed in the revision history, other than a few incidental edits by User:Mary Conroy. Brianhe's explanation seems to fit the data better, so they may all need to be deprodded (or at least individually checked). —Ruud 17:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've de-prodded them all. Most stupid prods I've recently seen. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do we things these accounts are trying to get money out of the companies in question and then trying to harass them if they did not pay? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No. They seem to have been a little misguided. Let's hope they've learned a lesson. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Deleting the page is absolutely acceptable if the references are not up-to the mark. What about the blame made by Brianhe that the company has hired experts to delete the pages? Do they have any proof that the competitors pages were marketed for deletion by the same company (digitgaps)? Any official authentic source to trace whether the blame is real or just a way to take the page down the page of upcoming competitors. --Samwiki2001 —Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The page was deleted after a deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/DigitGaps. Participants did not think that the company met wikipedia's general notability guidelines (WP:GNG). The deletion was not predicated on the identity and likely WP:COI of the writer(s). PROD tags were removed from the "competitors" because those companies do meet GNG and so will not be PRODded. Whether the PROD were added by the same person or people who wrote the article is neither here nor there: each problem was resolved on its own merits. This matter now really is closed. If you would like the article back, you need to demonstrate GNG. If you want the competitors PRODded, you'd be much misguided. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Tagishsimon, I understand you very well. Neither I am asking to delete any page nor I am asking to undo the delete. The final judgement made is absolutely correct and i agree to everyone. What I am talking is about the statements made by the editors on this COI. When other contributors said that the company is running "off-wiki campaign (prob SEO related, via Peopleperhour) to promote DigitGaps on ENWP and delete articles relating to several named competitors", did they submit the proof? If yes, then I will like to have a glimpse of it. If not, all irrelevant statements and negative sentiments about any company on this page should be removed. What do you think? --Samwiki2001 —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, Samwiki2001. I think only can help you there. She/He speaks of "an off-wiki campaign (prob SEO related, via Peopleperhour) to promote DigitGaps on ENWP", but does not name DigitGaps as running the campaign, and so your assertion "...other contributors said that the company is running..." is wrong. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And for the record, Samwiki2001 notes in User talk:Samwiki2001 that they are not affiliated with DigitGaps, but merely interested in COI and the burden of proof. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Tagishsimon As i read correctly, it clearly says "prob hired editor(s)" which straight away speaks that the company (digitgaps) hired those editors to make changes/delete pages. I request to submit only valid/official proof to justify his/her comments. Also, "attempted deletions" section and the companies listed (16 companies) below clearly speaks that those page deletion attempts were made by digitgaps. I would again request  to submit only valid/official proof to justify his/her "strong and bold" comments.


 * I'm sure Brianhe will understand your request. Clearly a question is begged: who commissioned or encouraged people to do bad things in Wikipedia, supposing such a commission has been made. But the fact remains that it is you, not Brianhe, who is joining up the dots. And noting your lack of connection with DigitGaps, Brianhe may well not have much interest in satisfying your academic interest in proof of a link which is at best inferred by you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Your comments sounds fishy to me. Brianhe says something and everyone believes, that too without any proof, Big loop hole! I am a good dot connector and I am sure I will find the right person who planned this game. If you are playing with some whatever company's social image, then you should have some sound proof to justify your comments. If not, it clearly says that someone is well paid to create this scenario. Isn't so Tagishsimon?. As you speak on behalf of Brianhe, that he may not have much interest to justify his/her comments clearly means you both have some external connection to this. I request Brianhe to submit proof for his comments, failing which, I will be forced to take necessary steps against this conspiracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwiki2001 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't speak on behalf of Brianhe, I merely state my sure assumption that he or she will understand your request. Your leap to suppose I have a connection with the situation, beyond tidying up the mess and now talking to you, Samwiki2001, is fanciful and wholly lacking a factual basis. I really am fascinated by your statement "I will be forced to take necessary steps against this conspiracy." Why will you be forced to do that, Samwiki2001, given your assurance that you have no connection with DigitGaps? You see, we supposed the conspiricy to originate with DigitGaps, or with some proponent of them, and to involve improper use of PROD and COI editing of the DigitGaps article. You seem to have a different slant on this: that someone has invented this whole escapade to damage the reputation of DigitGaps ... am I right? I must admit that that is possible, though in my experience, vanishingly unlikely. Still. I'm reminded that you are of the school of thought that nothing is "highly unusual" and so I suppose that you may think it is as likely, or more likely, that Brianhe, perhaps in conjunction with me, has concocted this whole thing because we have some desire to damage the reputation of DigitGaps ... than that DigitGaps or a proponent of the company was so crashingly incompetent as to have hired resource at via Peopleperhour to promote DigitGaps on ENWP and delete articles relating to several named competitors. And, of course, I accept your assurance of neutrality in the matter, and so don't suppose you are instead connected with DigitGaps and wishing to remove from the web a chronicle of stupidity which reflects very poorly on the supposed expertise of DigitGaps. Just a, how shall we say, muscular samaritan. Obviously, not being connected, you will have no apprehension that this is a Streisand effect in the making. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I am still surprised to see that my initial attempt was made to get in touch with Brianhe and request him/her to justify his/her comments, however I am not sure why you are so much interested in this topic and answering on behalf of Brianhe. I don't really believe in using long fancy, unreliable, lack of resources sentences; so my question still remains the same: What are the solid evidences on which these negative comments are made? (Evidences which can be validated by all the editors). As you are so keen to answer everything except my single query i.e. evidences and solid proof on negative comments, I have become too keen to know the actual facts. I am not associated with any organization, but your special interest in digitgaps attracts my attention and makes me curious to believe that this is something related to conspiracy. I am not blaming anyone, nor do i have such rights. However, i have complete freedom to ask for evidences. I repeat again, I am not here to talk about PROD, COI editing or page deletion. I do not have any such interest. All I want to know that on what basis, negative sentiments has been spoken for digitgaps. I still wait for proper justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwiki2001 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "I will be forced to take necessary steps against this conspiracy." That's a very keen interest indeed. We both await the coming of Brianhe, to see what he or she will say. Tell me, whilst we wait: why was your first move to blank this section? Would you not agree that that looks more like the action of a person wishing to sweep the matter away than of a person wishing for evidence? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2 answers Samwiki.  First.  Brianhe stated where he found this information in his OP.   Second, you have not made clear your interest in this matter Samwiki2001 - your account is a WP:SPA on this single issue, and if you read that essay you will see that the community's experience is that this is a typical sign of having some actual interest in the matter.  Please disclose your relationship with DIgitgaps and please also disclose if you have edited here under another account. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As a quick comment on this, I had a look in PeopleForHire and was able to find three jobs posted by DigitGaps where WP paid editors were hired, and on job posted to ODesk which was closed without someone being contracted. The jobs on PeopleForHire have tagged as Removed by PPH". - Bilby (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The evidence I followed was provided to me by another editor here and it involved PeoplePerHour postings to wikiwash one or more articles. Brianhe (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Tagishsimon I am new to wikipedia and learning how to utilize my skills. If you can see, I am not even able to write properly as other senior editors are doing. The matter is clear to me now. I said "I will be forced to take necessary steps against this conspiracy" because I can clearly see a straight away conspiracy being played here. When I first created my account, I got a message from Electricburst1996 and he/she explained me by providing proper link on how to participate in the discussion. As I said, I am new to wiki and trying to contribute to some critical scenarios. I am good with debates and this platform sounds interesting to me as i can fight for the right. Do you feel bad that why i am digging the grave? Neither i have any association with anyone, nor i have edited another account. I am sure you can definitely track my activities, or you have already done it.


 * Dear Brianhe, thank you so much for sending over the references. Quick question: I can see that all links are dead link and no evidences are there. My question is that what is the evidence that the reporter who wrote to Brianhe is not the same person who has posted this job? The reporter says "Hello, I'm contacting you because I can see you're among some editors that have made some edits on this page digitGaps. The issue is that, the owner or creator of the page wants other old similar pages believed to be his competitors deleted and he has advertised a project to pay someone to do so. And I believe his own page digitGaps doesn't qualify to be on Wikipedia. He wants other older pages deleted just to allow his alone to be on wikipedia. He has been paying people to add his page digitGaps to  multiple wiki categories.  Here are the evidences:". Have you investigated on this? From my understanding after exploring this people-per-hour platform, one can easily create a profile and post any job he/she wants. What is the assurance that these nasty wicked jobs are posted to create some nuisance with some company's image? Brianhe has not collected the evidence himself/herself but relied one some random reporter? You said: "The evidence I followed was provided to me by another editor". I don't think you have well played a role of senior editor here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwiki2001 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense, Samwiki2001. Brianhe faithfully reported here what was posted elsewhere. The matter was then dealt with on its merits - bad PRODs deleted, crap article deleted. The residue question: did DigitGaps acts stupidly and get caught, or did someone set up DigitGaps to look like fools is interesting, but not relevant to us. Unless you believe that Brianhe is part of your 'conspiracy' you have no basis to criticise him or her; and if you do believe that he or she is part of a conspiracy, you are a fool. Here's what will happen now. Either this thread will be left to be archived, and we can all go about our business. Or else you will continue arguing some point related to DigitGaps, whilst asking us to believe that you really have no connection with them ... and the google trail of a discussion of the high probability of DigitGaps ineptitude will grow and grow. Here is what is not going to happen: that this discussion will be amended or deleted. You say you have come to learn about the handling of COI on wikipedia. I think you have learnt as much as you will from this case, and it is time now to move on and find another COI case to interest yourself in. Here's what you learnt: questions in relation to guilt or motive are of less than secondary importance to us. Evidence of bad actions on wikipedia are of interest. So here, we don't much care if the guilty parties are DigitGaps, or someone seeking to damage DigitGaps. We care about the PRODs and the non-notable article. We have dealt with both of those things. Now, time being limited, we'd like to go and deal with other such things. I trust you will have the courtesy to let us do so. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Jytdog Although I am new to Wikipedia, this doesn't stop me to contribute for the goodwill of all. Does it? My interest is as simple as yours i.e. speaking for the right and justice for all. I believe Wikipedia is open for all to contribute. Let me know if i am wrong. My account is new - that doesn't mean i have no right to speak or contribute against the conspiracy.


 * Bilby You said "I had a look in PeopleForHire and was able to find three jobs posted by DigitGaps where WP paid editors were hired, and on job posted to ODesk which was closed without someone being contracted. The jobs on PeopleForHire have tagged as Removed by PPH". Can you show me the evidence that these jobs were posted by the company only and not by an random freelancer? I explored this site for a while and understood that there are 1000's of freelancers and they work on sub-contract basis, which clearly means the identity of the real job sponsor is not reveled in this platform, unless and until an agency has registered them self. On what basis you say that this job was sponsored by the target company? All illogical, invalid, lack of evidence talks by Bilby, Jytdog, Brianhe, and Tagishsimon makes me feel that you all belong to some company who has been paid and hired to create this drama.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwiki2001 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Tagishsimon Brianhe clearly said these lines "The evidence I followed was provided to me by another editor here". He/she didn't collect the evidences. So logically how can a senior editor rely on someone who has not even edited a single source on wiki (as mentioned by the reporter) and makes a big claim to spoil someones image. I trusted wiki a lot but never thought of it the way judgements are being made without any proper investigation and lack of evidences. I am not here to talk why the pages are getting deleted. That's not my call! I am here to talk on the blame made on someone without evidences. Tagishsimon write only when you have evidences, else your A4 page long sentences does not give me any pleasure nor its worth my time to read. A case not solved means no learning at all for me. I am not worried of anyone's image till the time they are not at fault. Please provide evidences or rectify the statements made on COI (I am not talking either in favor of anyone). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwiki2001 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You mistake our purpose here, which as I have said is not to try to plumb motive or guilt, but to clean up the mess. Brianhe's report was what I would expect someone to do when a) someone reports off-wiki activity and b) there is evidence on-wiki of edits against policy. As I have repeatedly said, Brianhe has not specified that DigitGaps hired the bad actors, just that the DigitGaps article, 16 other articles, and three named editors were involved; and iirc that the three editors were probably paid. You are here repeatedly arguing the toss about whether we have evidence that DigitGaps was the instigator. So, as I have tried to intimate, I think we are at the end of the road with this conversation. You can decide what you do next. If you are going to roll out your "I will be forced to take necessary steps against this conspiracy", then I am ready for that: I have been out to the shops and bought some popcorn, and I'm sitting comfortably. On you go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, in simple words, it's all about the mess. Wikipedia is not a place of "assumption" and any actions should have sound evidences (for COI) or references (for pages). I would have been satisfied if Brianhe would accept and acknowledge his ignorance to properly investigate the issue rather than jumping on the conclusion with blind faith and just assumptions on some lack of evidence post/report. All off-wiki activity/campaigns being reported is absolutely fine, but "actions" should not be taken blindly. After proper investigation only, final decision should be taken. I hope you agree to my point. If Brianhe has not specified anything related to digitgaps bad actors then why does this page even exists? If you don't have any evidence and proof then logically you must delete this COI against digitgaps. This discussion ends only after the mistakes are rectified and the proper actions are taken against those who made mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwiki2001 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Right-ho, Samwiki2001, who has no affiliation with DigitGaps. As I said, I'll (mainly) stand back and watch. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Jewelry for a Cause
It seems that editors are adding promotion to this article, such as User:NJgirl07005. More eyes would be appreciated. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain where there is promotional material? I am simply adding information that can be found online and referencing each fact found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJgirl07005 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Sparkk tv


Vbctv created this article, sourced entirely from the company site. It has all of three employees. The company used to be called VBC TV. Seems pretty clear to me. MSJapan (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * VBCtv is a promotional username as it is the initial name of the company... will report.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Cuppy's Coffee


A user (first edit) deleted content about criminal history of fraudulent sale of franchises,diff the article is on my watchlist from an AfD I voted on.

Here was my logic for keeping:

I would have just reverted, but I'm not really feeling the community spirit right now.009o9Disclosure(Talk) 19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeh Hai India

 * - currently at AfD
 * - currently at AfD

Blatant WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour going on here. The editor has admitted a COI and it attempting to use the page for promotion. They had copied stuff from the movie's website which I had tagged for revdel but my tags were removed multiple times and the editor refuses to understand. Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the latest edit. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll watch the page. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Ben Rider

 * - currently at Articles for deletion/Forever Tomorrow
 * - currently at Articles for deletion/To Love Somebody (2014 British film)
 * - currently at Articles for deletion/Seven Devils (film)
 * - currently at Articles for deletion/Seven Devils (film)

A single purpose account dedicated to promoting Ben Rider and his films.. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Add another newly created SPA. SPI coming. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Happybunny5859/Archive - two socks, both indeffed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Happybunny5859/Archive - two socks, both indeffed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

User: BIG W DDS


has recently made several edits to Big W, at least some of which are (in my opinion) blatantly promotional. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've given the article a light haircut, but frankly, it needs a short back and sides. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Literally the entire article is sourced to the company website. I have removed some claims. Will remove more soon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Alicia Yamin


I'd welcome a bit of external input and comment on this bio. (Sorry, don't usually use this board.) It's a new article about a Harvard academic - created first by an account with the name of the department she heads (which got blocked and invited to change name), then an account with the name of an administrator there, and now from an IP after that account got a COI notice. All these edits (presumably the same editor) have been totally promotional and none of the accounts have done any kind of response to warnings or done anything like disclosure. (Text like that she "has been a leading scholar and activist at the at the intersection of health, human rights and development for over 20 years. She has been a pioneer in the development of the right to health" etc.)

I've tried to explain the problems politely on the user account talk pages (the academic does seem notable), toned down the promotional language in the article (much of it would be true for any high-level academic) and add in external sources, but they just reverted everything without discussion. I'm not that much of an expert on COI problems, so I'd prefer it if someone else took a look since I don't want to seem too like I won't get off their back, but it does seem like ownership behaviour. Blythwood (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * IP edits reverted, and I've warned them on their talk page... HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * academics are really bad with this COI/promo stuff. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * usually it is not the actual academics who are to blame, but the pr staff at their university who are usually even less competent than their counterparts in industry; or, as seems to be the case here, the staff in their department, who are often given the assignment but are utter amateurs at it. Among the common signs of amateurism or incompetence are a neglect to give such details as birth date and place and undergraduate education, and a description of only their present position. The faculty themselves will at least usually cite their publications, unlike here.  I doubt notability of Yamin, and have tagged the article appropriately ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 08:38, 12 June 2016
 * User:DGG yes I meant "academics" broadly, for topics including universities, individual schools within a university, and individuals. Will be interested to see what you think of this person once you dig in a bit more. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As a former university employee I mostly concur with DGG, but there are some really appallingly clueless profs out there. What's more disgusting to me is the situation where an academic employee (clerical, etc.) is pressured or ordered to make edits that are clearly violative of our rules and principles, knowing full well that their job may be on the line. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  19:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Gdean

 * - blanked this section
 * - blanked this section
 * - blanked this section

In this edit, the user blatantly admits: "I was co-founder and First Production Director". User has also attempted to use their own personal website as a source. Electric Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 23:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add the WHOIS info for that personal website - it is registered to a Glenn Daniels, apparently the original founder of the channel. Rockypedia (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This section blanked by the above IP just now. One way to put a spotlight on it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think an indef block/ban would be needed at this point. Electric  Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 21:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Kevin Healey



 * (the top 6 are connected through postcodes)
 * (EE Mobile, his mobile network judging from his screencap on social media and is known to make frequent trips to London)
 * (EE Mobile)
 * (the top 6 are connected through postcodes)
 * (EE Mobile, his mobile network judging from his screencap on social media and is known to make frequent trips to London)
 * (EE Mobile)
 * (the top 6 are connected through postcodes)
 * (EE Mobile, his mobile network judging from his screencap on social media and is known to make frequent trips to London)
 * (EE Mobile)

(moved from User:KatrinaMcCaffery & User:Kittymccaffery, above)

On further investigation, I discovered this second account which lead to Kevin Healey (autism activist), (as recently discovered) he asked her to raise his profile which led to this Tumblr page and RMcD's and then when I nominated it for AfD, this led to him getting angry because of it, a number of abuse I received by him and his social media friends as well as they abusing Wikipedia, also as a result of me placing this nomination to WP:DSD, he found an open space for his soapbox and encouraged his followers to troll me. (You can see the rest of the harassment I received by him and his friends.) Since the AfD, he now treats his Wikipedia page like if it's his social media page (OWN) he feels entitled to. After all this, I still question the notability as none of these source say how is he notable, all they say is that he is "leading activist" because that's what he proclaims himself. Talking of editor retention Wikipedia likes to talk about, I say to them good luck with that because this has hastened my "retirement plan" further soon as hopefully week. They don't simply know how to protect their editors from this type of harassment and I simply lost faith in Wikipedia totally. I just don't know what is the next step? TBH, Donnie Park (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That all looks very ugly, Donnie Park. Kevin Healey is way out of line; shameful behaviour predicated on ignorance and prejudice, and exactly the sort of bullying which I understand he elsewhere campaigns against. Wikipedia can, within limits, police what happens on wikipedia, by way of blocks and bans and by control of articles. There's little that wikipedia can do to protect an editor under a barrage of twitter attacks, and pretty much nothing that it can do in the off-wiki space. The article has suffered from OWN, but the AfD (and fwiw my view) is that the subject passes GNG, and so I would advise you to drop that element of the issue. I have and I trust others on this page will watchlist the article to share the load. Admins may, for all I know, entertain a block on Kevin Healey accounts, though I doubt that this would help matters much. Finally, though I concede the 2014 link, I think the Healey OWN issue is separate from the McCaffery COI issue, and if you're okay with it, I'll split this thread into two? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy with that but then in the coming months or so because of work on his vanity film project based on his self-published "autobiography", so do expect some editing from him on the coming future from IP addresses. Donnie Park (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yup, I noticed the film project. I've also engaged him on Twitter . I hope I don't come to regret doing that ... if I understand correctly, you put his article to AfD, and he 1) launched a thousand tweets calling you a troll 2) encouraged his followers to harrass you 3) started a change.org to get you banned 4) petitioned Jimbo to get you banned and 5) reported you to the police. That's probably straying slightly into overreaction territory. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually the order is 2) 1) 4) then 3) after he tried to tweet Jimbo to get me banned as well as contacting the media about me "victimising" him but was ignored by them all. He thought I wanted attention so he started a petition, which less than a 100 signed. Other than that, he has bullied people and make empty lawsuit threats to intimidate people and accuse them of slander when they disagree with his opinions and play the victim all the time. He even managed to fool the media in doing so, going as far as reusing old screencaps to pass off as recent tweets to make it appear if these are recent ones. Thanks for the tweet, I appreciate it but then what he'll do next is brand you a troll like he did a lot (he calls anybody a troll who disagree with him) and do let me know if he has blocked you like he always do and denounce you a troll. At the end of the day, his main goal is to raise his profile than to help people. Donnie Park (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What you need to bare in mind is his tendency to use IP address (or not logged onto his own account) and can afford to use mobile internet a lot as one of his YT video shows, he can afford an iPhone 6 (for somebody with disability benefits, what I've been informed) - so I recommend any IP address to be blocked and edits reverted. Donnie Park (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Honestbee

 * - indeffed as socks
 * - indeffed as socks
 * - indeffed as socks
 * - indeffed as socks


 * Part of the text is written as an advertisement.
 * The authors have removed speedy delete templates without any explanation.Xx236 (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The authors may be acting inappropriately, but I have easily found good sources about this company - perhaps enough to pass notability. I have added some, and will try to get the time to add more. LaMona (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks LaMona & Xx236. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

JonathanGodwin


User:JonathanGodwin created a page for National Center for Victims of Crime in March 2016. This is the user's first and only Wikipedia edit in the last four years. Article only has primary sources cited, absolutely no secondary sources. Article reads like an advertisement. Possible financial conflict of interest. Questionable notability for the organization. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Quacks Like a Duck. I've left a note on the user's talk page - it seems reasonable to invite him to this discussion. The organisation seems notable enough to me (google news). It has been though an AfD which was closed as no consensus.


 * The article does read as if it might be an 'About us' website page, and could do with some pruning & de-peacocking, but its basic structure and content appears reasonable. Lack of secondary sources is problematic, but use of primary sources may be justified ... for the detail of some subjects there are just too few or nil secondary sources. WP:PRIMARY


 * I'm not sure where the WP:FCOI assertion comes from (and find the assertion problematic from a WP:NPA & basic evidence perspective). COI is clearly possible, but not clearly established in my mind, any more than that the same user had COI with his 2012 Glossery of rowing terms edits.


 * I'm inclined to think this is a situation in which we might remind JG of WP:COI, ask about affiliations, and invite him to comment here should he wish (done); and do some copy-editing of the article (not done - not in the mood right now). And, if enthusiastic, find some secondary sources. I'm disinclined, without more pointers, to tag the article with Connected contributor ... this is not quite a WP:SPA, and whilst SPA can signal COI, it can also be a false positive. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Saket Suman


Looking over the edit history of this user, it seems like their only interest is Suman and his productions. Both articles listed above are rather spammy, I think, and the references are flimsy (most are stuff published by Suman himself). I am not too familiar with what is needed for a journalist to be considered notable, but Suman does not seem to meet WP:JOURNALIST. However, before doing anything, I'd rather have some other opinions of some of the regulars here. Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, ugh. Speedy-nominated both articles and left a message for Rhoods. Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll leave the honors to another admin, but will keep an eye on this. --Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I second speedy deletion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That didn't take long. Now we just have to see how the discuss with Rhoods goes. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have cited valid references and sources are ranging from credible newspapers like The Statesman and The Dawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johny Rhoods (talk • contribs) 09:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Johny Rhoods this thread is about your relationship with Saket Suman. Would you please disclose your relationship with Suman?  Thanks Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo


I recently reverted the edits of this user on the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) article, because the source he cited comes from his own works. I'm not sure if the sources fit the reliable sources policy, but since he is the author of the source and because this is a controversial article, I wanted to make sure that I'm going through the correct channels first. He isn't a representative (upper level administration) of INC but the author of a book which is critical of it, so I would like to ask if this is COI, and how he approach the article. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 19:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * [I'm hoping I'm doing this properly since this is my first time editing an entry in Wikipedia. If I violate any protocols, please accept my apology and show me the proper way. Thanks!]


 * The subject in question is concerning the membership numbers and ethnic composition of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. My source for the data is the 1990, 2000, and 2010 Philippine national census, with the data mentioned in the footnote I produced (per 1990 Philippine National Census of Population and Housing. Table 5. Household Population by Religious Affiliation, Sex and Region 1990. p.22; The Philippines in Figures 2014 p. 27 (https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2014%20PIF.pdf). [Retrieved Nov 2, 2015]). The 2010 data was extrapolated using an averaged 1.9% natural growth rate per Philippine NSO data (http://www.popcom.gov.ph/population-statistics. 2000-2010 = 1.90%;). The 2.4% INC membership figures is identical to the latest 2010 Philippine census for the 10.5 million overseas Filipinos, with an identical conversion growth rate derived from the difference of actual INC membership compared to where they would be if the numbers would solely be by natural growth (delta of +0.3% or an averaged 5015 converts/year between 1990-2010 - total delta: +100,293 from 1990 to 2010).
 * Note: I used the Philippines' averaged natural growth rate of 1.90% for 2000-2010, despite it is decelerating compared to historical performance (1990-2000 = 2.34%; 1980-1990 = 2.35%; 1970-1980 = 2.71%; 1960-1970 = 3.08%). A more accurate assumption would be a harmonized lower growth figures of 1.90-1.60, but I cited historical instead of projected data.


 * Despite my book is critical of the INC's theology and practices, the data I provided is accurate, given the parameters of +/- 5%. Please keep my changes. The INC has a habit of exaggerating its size (they've been telling me since the 1980s that they were anywhere from 7-10 million despite the 1990 census showed they only had 1.4 million adherents - this means the prior information cited by Catholic Answers is incorrect). EdwardKWatson (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Edward Watson
 * Note, this was withdrawn and closed by User:WikiLeon in this dif with the closing note: As I can tell from the conversation between the user and, this isn't a COI problem, my apologies. But this became a complex issue that may need the attention of the original research noticeboard or invocation of Ignore all rules.
 * In this edit I am re-opening. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:EdwardKWatson thanks for replying here. I have reviewed the article and done some editing to it.  this dif by you in an obvious product of conflicted editing.  And almost all of your edits cite your own book.   Your book is self-published and in Wikipedia that is an WP:SPS and not a reliable source.  It is not something we would use normally.   It is clear why you are using it.  Do you see how your work on this article is under a conflict of interest?  thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, and since this is my first attempt at editing in Wikipedia, chalk it up to ignorance on my part. I'm more than happy to change how I word and reference the information, but the analysis of the latest membership figures can only be found in my book and nowhere else. How then would I provide the most accurate membership size without referencing the only work that cites it? It seems to me that if someone who purchased my book were to do so, you wouldn't have a problem, but the problem occurs only if I self-reference. EdwardKWatson (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)EdwardKWatson


 * Once I was able to get to a computer to edit the article, I was planning on taking the information he posted above and replacing his citations to the SPS. (which is why I put the better source instead of reverting it. But doing so would likely be original synthesis depending on whether or not census data is considered statistics. Because you are financially invested in what Iglesia ni Cristo does, when it comes to selling your book, you cannot use your own sources. I seriously think you need to begin reading a number of policies, starting with everything you need to know, so you can build this encyclopedia without looking like you're dishonestly trying to sell your book. This is what makes this a conflict of interest issue. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 01:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I just need to know the correct process. EdwardKWatson (talk)EdwardKWatson


 * User:EdwardKWatson the issue here is your editing in which you mention yourself in the content, and your editing in which you cite your own book. Both of these activities constitute conflicted editing here in Wikipedia.  Would you please acknowledge this?  (Note: it is not a bad thing to have a COI - you just need to a) acknowledge and disclose it, and b) follow the peer review processes here, which means offering proposals on the Talk page rather than editing directly, and putting new articles through WP:AFC.)  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, newbie mea culpa. What verbiage should I then use given the analysis can only be found in my book? I want to follow the proper procedure and if a peer-review process first needs to be done then I'm more than willing to do so. EdwardKWatson (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)EdwardKWatson
 * Please post your proposed content on the Talk page for other editors to discuss. Please do not add it to Wikipedia directly yourself.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

User:KatrinaMcCaffery & User:Kittymccaffery

 * ✅ checked, slightly subbed, and talk page tagged with cc. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ checked and talk page tagged with cc --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ checked and talk page tagged with cc --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * (AfD)
 * (AfD)
 * (AfD)
 * ✅ - rejected at AfC, cc tagged.
 * Draft:Stephen Hart (singer born 1995) ✅ deleted --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - rejected at AfC, cc tagged.
 * Draft:Stephen Hart (singer born 1995) ✅ deleted --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Krista runs a blog called Veggie Boom Boom with her long time friend Katrina McCaffery...
 * ✅ checked, slightly subbed, and talk page tagged with cc. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

According to the talk page of, these appeared to be her clients according to her client list and one of those she created because she claims to admire. Donnie Park (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Per this diff on her talk page, Ms. McCaffery gave an undertaking on 29 March not to work anymore on articles of clients, and she has kept her word. She has since that date edited a draft article which she has submitted and had knocked back through AfC; I'm unsure if this is or is not a client, but I'm happy, at least, that it was taken through AfC. I'll tag & check the articles Ms. McC has had involvement with (if that's not been done already). Beyond that, I think there's little to be done beyond thanking Donnie Park for this notification, and Ms. McC for working with rather than against Wikipedia by complying with WP:COI. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * has not edited since 2013. She specified her identity on her userpage. I get the impression Krista Allen has been heavily edited since her last edit diff and that though some of her inputs persist, she has well and truly lost control of the page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

TheLiberal.ie

 * (and various anon IPs)
 * (and various anon IPs)
 * (and various anon IPs)
 * (and various anon IPs)
 * (and various anon IPs)
 * (and various anon IPs)

The article TheLiberal.ie was created on 27 October 2015 by, their only ever edit. I have serious concerns that all of the above are single-purpose accounts with an obvious conflict of interes, namely an agenda of promoting TheLiberal.ie and presenting it in the best possible light: On the face of it, there definitely seems to be COI at play:
 * Following creation, subsequent edits were made by (who has made three edits, total - two to the article, one an appeal against a decision at Articles for Creation to not create an article on TheLiberal.ie).
 * has since made approximately 50 mainspace/talkpage edits. All of them have been to TheLiberal.ie, its Talk page, or its current AfD.  Prior to those edits, it appears this user had made at least five attempts to have the article created at AfC.
 * has made 20 edits to date; 19 of them have been to TheLiberal.ie, its Talk page, or its current AfD
 * Other editors, including myself, noticed what we perceived to be hyperbole on the article. Whenever we edit in accordance with policies such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc., we are reverted. 3RR has been ignored, when Imthenumberonefan finally engaged on the talk page, it was to breach WP:NPA, and s/he seems unwilling to listen to the consensus.  The founder of the site covered in the article can't just be a named person, they must be described as an "entrepreneur".  The Liberal can't be mentioned as being one of 43 organisations to be nominated for a (minor) award, it must be presented if it was the only organisation nominated.  Accusations of plagiarism (reliably sourced) were first erased, and now have daft phrases added such as "Without any conviction" (plagiarism isn't a crime).
 * Single-purpose accounts;
 * Insertion of information not generally in the public domain:
 * Claim by Keepfightingeveryday that TheLiberal.ie launched/will launch theliberaldirectory.ie (site doesn't yet exist).
 * Claim by Imthenumberonefan that TheLiberal.ie will launch pretty.ie (site doesn't yet exist).
 * Claims made on AFD suggest Imthenumberonefan is privy to data analytics you would presumably need to have a specific business account login to access (i.e., NewsWhip won't tell me how Website Company A is doing if my account is for Website Company B).
 * Content of TheLiberal.ie website changed to include ownership by the LockSher Grop, following discussion on article's talk page. See Talk:TheLiberal.ie and this page changing the day after my comment in that section on 15 June to this version on 16 June.
 * Actually, those links also show that the staff names had been edited in to the website following earlier removal from the article, as poorly sourced.

Ultimately I think it's fairly obvious we're dealing with a series of sockpuppet account with a serious COI. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had my eye on this situation for a while. Please see the SPI I've opened. GABgab 21:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

NB: Article has now been deleted; the SPI is ongoing. Would still like a resolution to the COI of issue. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

College and university rankings


Probably a new account - COI editing - above user is author of a French language book he/she is trying to insert as a reference into the College and university rankings article (diff here: ). It appears they have changed text in this article to reflect book content as the source - which I will roll back shortly (diff here:). They have also edited the other two listed articles in such a way as to somehow add the College and university rankings article into the text or as a part of a reference. I have been rolling back their edits in these other articles. I will have to double check to see if I got all of it. I wonder if this person is doing the same to the French and Swiss Wikipedia since French and Swiss seem to be their focus at the moment, as can be seen by their edits. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am very surprised of your reaction. I am not the author of the book. I just happened to have read it and thought that some information could be useful references here. I agree that a book in French is not the best reference for the article on university rankings; the reason that I cited it was only because there were no other source given for the criteria used in rankings methodologies. What is more, I do not understand why adding a link to the page College and university rankings other relevant articles would be a problem. Zopital Vegh (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC).
 * You r The first name of your user name seems to be a close match the last name of the author of this French book. Also, editing "College and university rankings" according to this book's contents, and changing the content of other articles to point to this article, where the book is a supposed source, seems to closely correlate to having some sort of agenda. So far, the editing I have seen only relates to this book, or pointing to this book as a source from another article. Additionally, there is no way to determine this book's content on an English Wikipedia, unless a one is literate in French ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, for anyone just joining this conversation, when I first opened a COI entry in this thread, User:Zopital Vegh was a red-linked account, which has since been edited . So now, it is no longer a red-linked account. The point is - this seems to be a new account. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

User:JGHSMC

 * seems intent on spamming the name of their client (their words not mine), JG Hertzler, into every article possible e.g. Dead Space (2008 video game) even though many of these articles do not contain cast lists. 86.159.69.162 (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly JGHSMC seems unconcerned, having continued to add his client's name after an 18 June warning. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Editor is now also at the 3RR limit for Dead Space (2008 video game); I have warned the user about 3RR. —C.Fred (talk)
 * JGHSMC has apologised for the edit war and set out his/her position well at Talk:Dead Space (2008 video game) following C.Fred's advice - thanks to both. I'll go through all edits and provide what help I can in the next couple of days, unless others get there first. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * We've now got bigger issues with the account. The user is now holding himself out as J. G. Hertzler (diffs: ) and showing OWNership-type behaviours to the article, including adding lots of material that lacks reliable sources. @Tagishsimon: You'll definitely need to go through the article now, as well as any other sets of eyes that want to look at it. —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yup, I saw that. Disappointing. As far as I can see the first user of the account has passed the PC over to JGH, who has had a good go at his own article. That's not good policy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've even informed him about what sources to use (no IMDb) but it was ignored. I've tagged those entries for citations needed. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks - excellent work on J. G. Hertzler. There has also been a wee bit of page blanking going on. I've now read the riot act at User talk:JGHSMC, who seems to be courting a block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon  (talk • contribs) 23:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Does someone who operates an advocacy website have a conflict of interest?
If an editor operates a website devoted exclusively to advocating for a particular person, does that editor have a conflict of interest with respect to editing that person's WP article? 32.218.46.78 (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * They would certainly give the appearance of having COI, and would be best advised not to edit the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If they want to cite their website that is an issue with WP:SELFCITE (and probably [{WP:SPS]]). Otherwise if they have no actual relationship with the object of their fandom then there is no COI but there would be probably be an advocacy and I would point them to WP:ADVOCACY which is a very useful essay, and ask them to mindful of that when they log in to Wikipedia.  If their account is a SPA, then I would also ask them to read WP:SPA. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Written by Alyson on August Burns Red


It seems that the August Burns Red's management don't like the reliable sources that state the band is "Christian" band. The band has attempted to distance themselves from the moniker, but RSes disagree. With that said, the user's comment while making the revert, "As a label representative speaking on behalf of the band", seems to be that the account was created for one purpose: to push a specific PoV. I usually like insiders editing, but I can't stand censorship. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I added the standard COI template to User talk:Writtenbyalyson since that gives more information about COI in general. We'll see if they respond. LaMona (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They made just the one edit so far... Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The Cutting Room (film)

 * - AfD

COI. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I see no notability, hence Articles for deletion/The Cutting Room (film) --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Both accounts are stale, but I've blocked both since the usernames are obviously problematic and both have made edits that could be seen as potentially promotional. In the case of BoxcleverMedia, they tried marking their article as mid importance - something that would require far more coverage and notability to get to that level. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

EMO the Musical

 * - Articles for deletion/EMO the Musical

This appears to be a single use account that was created to promote Matthewswood Productions, its films, and employees. A notice about COI, promotion, and username policies was placed on their talk page after the first page (EMO the Musical) was created, and they have continued to create pages without notice. JamesG5 (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the user since they've had fair warning that the username was problematic. Offhand their edits don't seem over the top promotional, although there's an obvious and clear COI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Since their edits were really only to edit about this film, I've made it a spam user block. Offhand this doesn't really look to be a notable film, so this could probably be taken to AfD. I'm not bringing up much offhand, although there are some false positives for an American musical with the same name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I've worked on the article. It looks like this releases in August so I'd recommend just sitting on this for now. The coverage is light but slightly enough to where it could pass WP:NFF if we wanted to be especially charitable. If it releases in August and gains no coverage then I'd suggest maybe nominating it or at the very least changing it to refer to the short film rather than the feature film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah. Has already been taken to AfD. Articles for deletion/EMO the Musical. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Jayne Joso

 * Currently at AfD
 * SPA which created the article
 * SPA which created the article

Dictionarylady has a conflict of interest regarding this article (see discussion at User talk:Cordless Larry and the edit summary here), which is an unsourced BLP but too old to qualify for proposed deletion on those grounds alone. I could do with some help working out what to do with the article content. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * doesn't seem to accept the need to declare their COI. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Bless. We frequently see members of the 'rules don't apply to me' brigade here. The article needs to be cut down to a stub, with all uncited content removed - presuming the subject does indeed pass WP:GNG. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm less than convinced, and so have sent the article to AfD to see what the hivemind thinks. Articles for deletion/Jayne Joso --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is clear COI editing going on here; that too for a long time. I find the request not to disclose it troubling. Btw, the article subject has questionable notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. I see no problem here, except for possibly on the part of editors lining up against this one.  Editor Dictionarylady disclosed they got "approval" from the writer Jayne Joso about wording of one version.  And they disclosed they are a "close associate", or maybe that edit summary means they got wording from, or reviewed by, someone who is a close associate.  Dictionarylady may be a fan (in fact obviously must be one) who chose to develop the article and could have asked the writer (or a close associate of the writer) to ask them to review what was written for accuracy, perhaps along with asking for materials to use in the article.  I did that myself in a few BLP articles, where I admired the subjects perhaps from seeing them speak or perform at public events, and I had met them in person and felt comfortable they would know who I was if I contacted them.  It would be okay also to do this for a peer artist or professional.  That doesn't mean they or I have a COI that needs to be enshrined into a formal, permanent notice system.  I certainly don't want to be unduly associated with the subjects I have had passing interest in, by being required to post some permanent notice about having conflicts of interest, when the fact of the matter is I believe I write objectively and that I do not have a COI.  Dictionarylady stated clearly that they do not have a financial interest.  Dictionarylady did disclose some association.  You can post link to that at the article's Talk page.  What more do you want?  Is it just that you want the disclosure to be in some particular way, like in some template, and you feel they are lying in effect by not saying it in exactly that way?  The editors here concluding that Dictionarylady has falsely "declined" to disclose COI is not appropriate.  Assume good faith.  And sending the article to AFD, after this and Dictionarylady working to add references, seems like piling on. -- do  ncr  am  17:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * COI is not a reason for AfD. Lack of notability is. Sending the article to AfD was done because the subject does not seem notable. The majority of those who have joined the AfD to date have voted delete. You might want to start assuming good faith yourself, . --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * COI was not the reason for sending it to AfD here. We don't send every single article with COI/Paid editing to AfD. In this particular case however, we have a subject whose notability is questionable at best. AfD is a good way to get community feedback on whether the subject is notable and in this case the subject isn't. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't follow this noticeboard and I am glad to be informed a bit more how it works here. And I may be incorrect about the editor.  And I don't think anyone here was deliberately malicious.  But the opening of this COI proceeding was energized by a misunderstanding, by a belief that the article is brand new (see diff at AFD), which would justify being irate about the article.  E.g. about carelessness and disregard of Wikipedia policies for sourcing being left unclear.  But in fact the article dates from 2009.  And being angry/irate does prejudice this proceeding.  Of course we are affected in how we interpret the situation, by the tone established here and by the tone of related interactions.  Human beings cannot escape that.  There is a vast literature on psychological biases. Given that the article was not just written, it is not practical for the main editor to immediately meet demands that sourcing by external links be replaced by inline citations.  Likewise no potential COI has ever been raised before, and I think it unreasonable to force immediate resolution on that.  The editor has been challenged too much all at once, with some of those challenges simply being invalid.  And they were responding with discussion and edits to the article, only for everything to be deleted.  They can simply be forced to give up, to assume nothing they do will be accepted, and then not say whatever magic words are the right ones to alleviate some concerns.  And they might need time to learn more about disclosures, about what they look like in practice, and to see how it works when various disclosures are made.  Will abuse be heaped upon them?  And it looks to me like they did make disclosures, yet are being harassed, in effect, about not making them in some proper way.  And they have to think about any impact on their life, and to decide what to disclose or whether to walk away or whether to request revdel of everything, say.  This COI proceeding is one place where it seems to me there is too much impatience, and "ganging up" has happened. (I'm not saying it is feasible to avoid bias and crowd-psychology effects though.)
 * And like I said at the AFD, it is proper to tag about your concerns in an article, but not to eliminate everything wholesale, before or during an AFD. That prevents the challenged editor from being able to delete stuff themselves once they understand more, and it prevents them and other AFD participants from addressing problems and nurturing along stuff that should be saved. (So, really, don't do that.  If that is practice with the articles that do go to AFD from here, I don't like that.)  -- do  ncr  am  03:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Your whole argument seems to me to be one great big WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Here's how I see it. We have an editor who specifies "Written by close associate of author, who has verified the information", which would seem to give reasonable grounds for suspicion of a COI. When asked, the editor responds (I paraphrase) "Meh, all sorts of people have COI, go away". It's not that we want to know who the editor is or what the nature of her association is - the COI process makes very clear that Outing is a more serious crime than COI and that COI should not demand Outing. What we want is for her to understand that COI editing is problematic, and that policy says if you have COI, do not edit the article. She was having none of that.
 * Go back and have a good read of the text that was removed. Three main features: 1) very much promotional 2) includes contentious material (e.g. truanting) and unsourced anecdote about her school days 3) rammed with uncited quotes. All of these are attributes that call for the removal of the text.
 * Go and look at the full article history. Dictionarylady added all of the text which she later found so hard to provide citations for. It's not as if she was being asked to provide citations for stuff which other had added.
 * AfD does not require us to leave promotional & uncited text in an article. AfD requires that the subject be presented to the community, which decide whether the subject (not the flowery prose of the article) is notable.
 * It's always a little unfortunate when someone who (AGF) was not aware that wikipedia is not a repository for subject-approved hagiographies of non-notable individuals, finds out that wikipedia is indeed not such a repository when wikignomes take actions prescribed by policy against such an article.
 * Still. Good of you to defend the COI promotional editor and attack the wikignomes. That way lies Wikia, not an impartial NPOV encyclopedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to correct a misunderstanding,, you say that my opening of this discussion was motivated by the belief that the article was brand new. I did mistakenly believe the article was brand new to start with, but had already realised that it wasn't before I opened this discussion. Indeed, it was partly because I realised that the article couldn't be PRODded as an unsourced BLP that I brought the issue here. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize that I was in fact incorrect in my understanding of the sequence of events, and that I extrapolated from that to suggest that this COI proceeding was biased. However, as I also note at the AFD, I think the tone was set wrong, at least by the presence of incorrect "unsourced" tag on the article which participants here were going to see. -- do  ncr  am  22:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Cordless Larry thanks for clarifying that. Tagishsimon, please don't act this way on this board.  I do understand the frustration, but please stay cool.  Doncram, there is a valid concern about COI that was raised in this thread. Generally the people who work here deal on two levels;  one is trying to work with the person and have them engage with the COI management process (to address behavior),  and the second is to address the content.    On the behavior side there are really just two things that we look for: disclosing and submitting content for peer review rather than editing directly.   The peer review step is standard in academia; it is a bit odd here in WP since it is so easy to edit directly but once it is explained to people they ususally get it and follow the process.  Content wise, when independent editors review content created by conflicted editors, what we often find is unsourced, promotional content.  Yes, the same kind of content that fans write (COI is just a subset of advocacy).  That peer review process often ends up with an AfD especially when notability is marginal.   Whether the community agrees to delete is of course up to the community but even if the article is kept it will now be stronger for having undergone the peer review that an AfD provides.  Nothing untoward has gone on here.  Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I did and do experience a big dose of feeling IDONTLIKEIT when I consider how all this (this proceeding, the COI, Talk page complaints, edit summaries) is going to look to a new/inexperienced editor.  There needs to be a limit to what is going to be addressed in any depth (either the COI, or tagging for inline citations on the quotes in the article, say).
 * It is a problem that too many negative interactions, like jabs, came to the new editor from just one editor. There needs to be some limit on number of interactions (like, say, two negative interactions of any kind) before they should simply step away or turn over responsibility to someone else.  Have someone else advise the editor about signing their postings, instead of having them experience that as another chiding.  In real life, no one of us would accept 5 or 10 negative comments in a row, from one person. -- do  ncr  am  22:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Zadara Storage


This article seems to be heavily edited by the above three SPAs, and Nnahum was given a COI template back in 2012, with no apparent further action. The last username, who is an active user, should definitely be blocked for promo, and the other two are stale by now, but I will bet there's some sockpuppetry going on. MSJapan (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have simply added the Zadara technology products and awards, no different than many other software companies. It isn't clear to me why listing products and awards is "fluff" or "marketing jargon." I am the only person who uses this account, so the previous notice about multiple users on one account is unwarranted. Please describe why the content continuously removed is considered fluff or promotional. How else can I further describe Zadara as a volunteer editor? Why is it acceptable to delete an entire page? Can you, or others, as editors remove the content that is in violation, rather than stripping the page of all content and references? I am at a loss. Summer.zadara (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have a conflict of interest, which is safe to assume given your username, then there is nothing simple about your editing of the article. Please review WP:FCOI and WP:DCOI. Given your username, you almost certainly have a coi, so please either disclose or explain your situation. --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with that the material removed was overly promotional and poorly sourced, violating WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

S. Georgiev
adding references to S. Georgiev to multiple articles, including fringe references. Also abusing multiple accounts:. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Why has the editor not been notified?TeeVeeed (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Untangle
makes edits to the Untangle page, in some cases removing critical comments and performing ongoing unsourced updates to the page.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Untangle#Conflict%20of%20interest? No response] to my talk page comment, I believe this user is being a naughty boy and should be censured appropriately. Deku-shrub (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)