Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 105

Sweat Cosmetics

 * - at AfD

This is an undisclosed paid editing case. A non-notable company is being promoted on Wikipedia. The article was accepted at AfC where the accepting reviewer doesn't seem to have noticed the Conflict of Interest. Now, considering the recent block due to concerns about OUTING I'm wondering how to go about it. Advice welcome. Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Article is currently at AfD btw, Articles for deletion/Sweat Cosmetics. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Pinging, , , , , Advice needed on how to proceed! (Btw, please do not reveal any off-wiki information or links here. I don't want any of you to be blocked). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see there's a COI notice/question on the creator's page, and an AfD started on the article. That's all that can be done at this point, most likely. If the editor/account doesn't just disappear, and continues making promotional articles, bring it up again at COIN and I think it's still OK to notify an admin privately with your off-wiki evidence. - Brianhe (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Lemongirl942 I added the COI template with a comment "The COI tag shouldn't be used as a badge of shame, but also WP:OUTING prevents us disclosing - see WP:COIN#Sweat Cosmetics" which may help give other editors a heads up to be extra careful about sources for deciding at the AfD. The tag may be contested correctly if the content isn't POV. Why not add the connected to the talk page (where the evidence doesn't need to be listed), and not sure if can use a tag at the AfD but something could be put on the AfD surely? My suggestion at the Signpost to take a suspected undisclosed paid editing article and push it back to AfC for the deeper analysis would be a bold move but would prevent the race condition of both sides in WP:BOGOF at AfD allowing longer to scrutinise sources. Widefox ; talk 08:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Though there is an option for the "connected" tag to be used when not declared, I've never seen it used that way. It is an invitation to drama. I'd suggest that something be added to the COI guideline page indicating that even when not declared, under certain narrowly defined WP:DUCK circumstance it's allowable to add both the connected and COI tag. At one point there was a "COI Ducks" essay but it was broadly worded, as I recall, and was deleted. Coretheapple (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This issue was just brought to my attention. This appears to be a promotion-only account, but there is no disclosure. I'd suggest bringing this before ANI and requesting a topic ban if the promotion activities continue. Coretheapple (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There won't be any disclosure - this person's sole purpose was to take 15 minutes out of their day and try to make a buck, with no editing before or since. I do think that notifying an admin privately might make sense, because it may or may not continue to be a problem, but I'm not sure what will be accomplished as a result that we aren't already doing, and I'd rather have a paid editor I can track than block the account and not be able to make the connection. MSJapan (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is that COIN isn't really for this kind of situation. This is a job for ANI. Coretheapple (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ANI shouldn't be the right place, but it's a fallback due to COI work being difficult (and the focus being on the editor not the edits so at odds with core principles) and COIN being fairly benign, more so now due to the chilling effect of blocking a COIN editor. Widefox ; talk 07:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding COI tag to article in absence of disclosure
I have a question about the COI tag. The behavior and edit history suggests that it is a throwaway sock account and appears to be a WP:DUCK COI/paid editing situation. I've only added COI tags when COI is disclosed. What is our practice in clear-cut, not denied, DUCK situations when COI is not disclosed? Coretheapple (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I do add the connected tags and let others challenge them. I consider it a convenience for DUCKS to save them doing what the TOU requires for paid editors, and also for just COI. COI is all about disclosure not about them not being able to edit. Widefox ; talk 17:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In so far as the template has a parameter UX-declared, which takes yes/no values indicating whether or not the user has declared their connection/financial interest in Wikipedia, it is clearly designed to be used even in the absence of a COI declaration from the supposed-COI user. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume this is a question of "inappropriate templating." In this case, I don't see an issue -  if it is to all intents and purposes a duck, and that assumption is being made in good faith (e.g., with supporting evidence), then it's a duck until unequivocally disproven by the user. MSJapan (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that I would agree that in clearcut, WP:DUCK situations, when as in this case it is a throwaway sock account, an SPA, a COI tag is justified. Might not be a bad idea to put this practice in writing. I can see how such tagging might be abused. In this case it clearly is not. Coretheapple (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it's earth-shattering enough to require an RFC, so I will WP:BOLD in the appropriate area and see what happens. MSJapan (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, and I would suggest that the addition cover both connected contributor and article tags. Coretheapple (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To aid others to check my reasoning for adding a connected template, I put comments next to each tag. AFAIR, the connected template should be used via COIN consensus. Bold not reckless applies, and one wrong false positive may be BITE / AGF. Widefox ; talk 08:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Camp Mack's River Resort


Obvious username/article conflict. The user created the article, and their main user page is about the campground as well. The article is sourced, but still seems questionable as promotional. ‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General  ‖ 18:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I left information on the user's talk page about COI and usernames. Some new users don't understand the difference between a username and an article name, so I always give them the option of changing their username as early on as possible. LaMona (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

George Ranalli


This article has previously been edited by an individual who identifies as the wife of the subject (User:Annevalentino). It has recently come under an increasing amount of attention from the individuals named above which while not leading to egregious spam seem to have introduced some questionable practices, including altering quotes so that they were no longer accurate. (I fixed two today: - which required a bit further clarification, and ). An IP from New York also removed critical content from the article as "irrelevant." (I believe the source in that case is usable for reasons I explain at Talk:George Ranalli.)

The reason why I strongly suspect COI here - beyond fluffing up the article with positive language and altering quotes so that they seem more strongly positive of the subject than they are (they aren't at all bad as they are) and beyond seeming to attempt to restore the article more to the condition it was in after the subject's wife greatly expanded it is that an individual identifying as the subject uploaded images to Commons on July 10th. Less than an hour after somebody claiming to be Renalli uploaded a portrait of Renalli, Ddperks added it to the article. At 23:58, Ddperks added three more images - all of which had just been uploaded by the person claiming to be Renalli, one only 8 minutes prior.

At this writing, all of Gurulupina's edits are to this article or to articles that seem related. Ddperks, who has been here a few months longer, has more diversity but does focus heavily on a few favorite areas. I note that the top # of edits are to the article on Lisa Staiano-Coico - whose connection to Ranalli is attested here. Another major article of interest is Gregory H. Williams, the predecessor of Staiano-Coico. And Yolanda T. Moses - another predecessor of Staiano-Coico.

I don't have time to keep an eye on this one, but the history and the types of alterations do lead me to some concern that we have connected and possibly even undisclosed paid editing going on here. :/ I bring it here in case any of you have time to look into it more closely, for instance to make sure that new content is neutral and that other material hasn't been altered to be incorrect. This article has previously been through BLPN and ANI, which has led to it being examined by several people, including User:Justlettersandnumbers and User:Drmies.

I will, of course, notify the contributors. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm finding some resume inflation. See Talk:George_Ranalli. The list of architectural works listed in the article includes at least one unbuilt project. Also, most of the links in the article are to the main site of a publication, not a specific article, making it hard to fact check. The Fashion Center job was just a lobby remodel.. He did do a very nice community center in Brooklyn. But for a major architect, his portfolio is weak. He passes notability as an academic, not an architect. John Nagle (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Then there's this: Talk:George_Ranalli. Sigh. John Nagle (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * While not explicitly mentioned in the article, that suit was referenced in one of the sources - the one the IP earlier deleted. Gurulupina has now, just as the IP did, erased all hint of it from the article - with the highly questionable edit summary "spamming article": . This looks strongly like an attempt to whitewash and for me at least seals the COI. This person's interest is inflating the subject, not building a neutral article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the only major building he ever designed that was actually built was the community center in Brooklyn. Everything else was an interior, a remodel, an unbuilt design, or a model of some other architect's work.  Is that right?  John Nagle (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Still trying to find more real world significant buildings designed by this architect. I've been going through his site, looking at his "projects". Many are just sketches, or unbuilt designs. His site shows an "Amtrak Tower", with pictures, across from Madison Square Garden in NYC. But that's apparently a photorealistic render; here's the location in Google StreetView, and the building isn't there.. I did find a lap pool building he designed for a private home, and he's done some houses.  But for a supposedly big-name NYC architect who's been active for 40 years, one would expect more major completed projects. If it weren't for his academic affiliations, this would be an AfD candidate. John Nagle (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Problems with removing any attempt to distinguish architect's actual built projects from non-built, conceptual, and renovation jobs. See . John Nagle (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sent to AN/I: WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. John Nagle (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Susman / Sommacal

 * and redirects such as
 * (see also file uploads such as File:Scatter My Ashes cover.jpg)
 * (see also file uploads such as File:Scatter My Ashes cover.jpg)
 * (see also file uploads such as File:Scatter My Ashes cover.jpg)
 * (see also file uploads such as File:Scatter My Ashes cover.jpg)
 * (see also file uploads such as File:Scatter My Ashes cover.jpg)
 * (see also file uploads such as File:Scatter My Ashes cover.jpg)
 * (see also file uploads such as File:Scatter My Ashes cover.jpg)
 * (see also file uploads such as File:Scatter My Ashes cover.jpg)
 * (see also file uploads such as File:Scatter My Ashes cover.jpg)
 * (see also file uploads such as File:Scatter My Ashes cover.jpg)
 * (see also file uploads such as File:Scatter My Ashes cover.jpg)
 * (see also file uploads such as File:Scatter My Ashes cover.jpg)
 * (see also file uploads such as File:Scatter My Ashes cover.jpg)

Per comments that came up at Articles for deletion/Erika Tazawa: some undisclosed COI seems to be going around here, would like to see that sorted ASAP, while it may influence the results of the AfD. Francis Schonken (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I noticed this too and was about to comment. The image uploads seem to show that there is indeed some connection. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Considering Foothill created Susman, it's pretty obvious. I'll go deal with the soundtrack albums for now, as well, and while I didn't vote on Tazawa, there are sources, but the ones in there now are poor. MSJapan (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of this is coatracked to death without actually saying anything of substance, especially Piccola Academia. Apparently the writer thought spamming a lot of stuff in would pass GNG, but a lot of it is tangential.  There's also excessive links where single one-off radio shows are used as sources, works, and indications of notability.  There's a lot of false "blue-link" (superficial) notability as well going on.  I've also SPI'ed the group of users, as one contested the prod of another and claimed to be a co-writer with only one registered edit on the article, but it looks like a lot of it may be stale.  AfD should sort the rest, I hope. MSJapan (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

5.120.252.218
is repeatedly adding links to an unreviewed abstract to the article Navier-Stokes equations. Also, abusing multiple accounts:. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Disruption continues. I guess no one at this noticeboard really cares.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems to be the wrong venue. I would try WP:AIV or WP:AN3. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The page has now been protected from editing by IP users. Seems like a closed matter now. --Drm310 (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think the IP is abusing multiple accounts then I think trying WP:Sockpuppet investigations is best Steve Quinn (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

China Construction America


SPA has created an article that consists almost entirely of a list of non-notable projects undertaken by this company and a list of awards, almost all unsourced. I tried to fix it but got reverted. Other than that I have no direct evidence of COI. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I tagged the article and asked if they are a paid or COI editor on their talk page. Have another shot at making some edits to the article and I'll back you up. It's rabidly promotional. Definitely notable though-- I see many sources. The long lists do not belong though.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I gave it a trim from 10,500 to 2,500K.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you HappyValleyEditor! The article seems much better now. The editor in questions hasn't replied to the queries though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor is doing this as a school project, so I've dropped some policy links on his talkpage and pointed him to WP:ENB. MSJapan (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The editor is also working on what is looking like a much better version in his sandbox. I think we can close this out. MSJapan (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

School of Economic Science
Editor User:Skyring who says he is a member of the School of Economic Science has been restoring material on that page which two other editors User:Roberthall7 and User:Fiddlersmouth argue is primarily promotional. The same editor is removing criticism. Accusations and counter accusations are being made. The following timeline may be helpful:
 * 1) Editor User:Roberthall7 commences adding sourced criticism of the society in June 2008   and becomes the most regular editor of the article with few edits elsewhere
 * 2) Editor User:Skyring commences removing criticism of the School in June 2013, saying it is not sourced although a source is included   and generating confusion on the talk page . He goes on to be the second most frequent editor of the article.
 * 3) Editor User:Roberthall7 was criticised by User:Skyring for being a single purpose account on 6 August 2015., who did provide an answer that the article "has at times read like Public Relations."
 * 4) Editor User:Skyring responds in point 3 of  he is a member of the School of Practical Philosophy, but has no financial interest or official position and so is not bound by conflict of interest.
 * 5) Editor User:Roberthall7 claims that sources connecting the school with child abuse are being removed and adjusted, justifying his watch over the article. []
 * 6) The recent dispute started on 7 July 2016, with User:Roberthall7 removing material that in parts appears promotional and sourced from the school website, and then User:Skyring restoring them several times.
 * 7) An edit war occurs with User:Fiddlersmouth and User:Skyring on July 11 & 12 over the same material.
 * 8) Recent talk page is primarily about the accusations between editors
 * 9) User:Skyring says he is a member of the school as of 10 July 2016

As a member of the School of Economic Science, User:Skyring an external relationship and therefore a conflict of interest. He self-assessed it was not necessary to declare it when he began to edit. The apparent COI lead to the discovery of the membership. The matter has been discussed on the talk page, but has lead to counter-accusations and disruptive editing.

User:Skyring claims that his COI is as weak as "scout leaders hav[ing] an input into the Boy Scouts material, servicemen writ[ing] on military topics", however according to the website of the organisation, members are selected by the Board of Trustees who "progressed satisfactorily in the courses of instruction offered by the School, who have implemented them in practice, and who have acted in furtherance of the goals and activities of the School. There are presently 74 Members in the School." These members elect the Board of Trustees. The comparison to scouting is misleading.

The editor's identity is not mentioned in any way on the school website and is not disclosed though this posting to the COI noticeboard. Editors mentioned above have been informed on their talk page.

The failure to declare COI; the apparent COI; the misleading description of the extent of COI; the accusations against other editors; the edit warring; the presence and defence of alleged promotional material in the edit history, and the inability to resolve differences in the talk pages, all form part of the basis for bringing this matter to the attention of this board. Travelmite (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an initial response to say that I welcome User:Travelmite's objective and highly professional intervention here. It brings a sense of relief that improves one's faith in Wikipedia. I look forward to full scrutiny (of myself included) and sincerely hope that User:Travelmite gets effective peer cooperation. I happen to be busy with work at the moment and intend to make a more detailed statement here within a week. -Roberthall7 (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Notice of this posting for User:Skyring was reverted and now restored. Travelmite (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI user-talkpage notices are allowed to be removed by the user. If a user removes the notice, it is confirmation they have seen and acknowledged it, and no further action is needed. So do not replace removed notices a user's talkpage. There are very few exceptions to this rule (the main one being removing block appeals while blocked). The relevant page is WP:BLANKING. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for drawing attention to this rule Travelmite (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's okay. "Travelmite" has a history of that sort of thing. Roberthall7 has brought this up before, and this looks like more of the same. I think "Travelmite" could be wearing his helmet a little too tight if he thinks that as an Australian member of a worldwide philosophy school I'm also a Member of the New York branch, as per his link given above.. For the record, I'm not. I'm just a student of the Canberra branch, holding no office or financial interest. My personal interest is limited to an interest in dead philosophers and their practical advice for living a useful and stress-free life. "Travelmite" could gain some benefit from this, and I suspect that Roberthall7, whose edits on Wikipedia touch no other subject, already has, though will not admit any involvement. I invite her to do so here. --Pete (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If poor old Pete could learn that defending his own position is substantially undermined by attacking other editors, we could get along fine. But he's the victim, apparently, of anti SES hate-crime. There are real issues here that he could help with, mainly the post Maclaren changes in the organisation. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If User:Travelmite's intention with the notices was to alert as many interested parties as possible to chime in here, in keeping with Wikipedia values, then the place where a notice of this discussion would be really useful is the School of Economic Science page, where there isn't one. -Roberthall7 (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, that can be done. Travelmite (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No person has written that Pete/Skyring is a member of the New York Branch. The matter of taking information from New York Branch, or the Canberra branch is not relevant. The website provides information about the constitution of the organisation, the number, method of selection and duties of members in a branch organisation. Information about the Canberra branch may be found here, but has no details about membership. Furthermore, this notice has nothing to do with the the school itself. The most highly reputable organisations will respect the CoI requirements. Although Pete/Skyring says his interest in the school is limited, a strong apparent CoI (see policy page for definition) led to the discussion where Pete/Skyring said that he was a member. He also now says that he is "just a student". Pete/Skyring says that he holds no office or financial interest, however the test is whether the duty to the organisation is overriding the duty to Wikipedia. We should note that this is not a content dispute, but there are accusations, edit-warring and disruption over several years. Travelmite (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any grounds for COI here. Being a fan, member or supporter of a living person, group or religion does not preclude someone from editing an article. If an editor is not following WPs behavioral or editing guidelines then WP:AI is the proper venue. WP:COI is not a stick with which to beat someone who you are in a content dispute with. It's also not appropriate to accuse someone of COI on the article talk page. Furthermore, having been away from the article in question for several months I am saddened to see it descending into a biased attack against the organization.- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 14:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Keithbob, thanks for chiming in. I'm refreshing myself with WP:COI and find the opening paragraphs pertinent: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. (The word interest refers here to something in which a person has a stake.)[n 1] Conflict of interest is not about actual bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict.[4] That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity. COI editing is strongly discouraged. It undermines public confidence in Wikipedia, and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals being promoted. If it causes disruption, accounts may be blocked.


 * You've raised the point that if an editor is not following WPs behavioral or editing guidelines then WP:AI is the proper venue. Do you mean WP:ANI? So indeed it may turn out that Travelmite should re-post their notice there. Before we rush into that, I'd like to respectfully check whether you are entirely up to speed again on this article. One thing is that the original poster (Travelmite) is not working on the article so they are not in fact in a content dispute there. The other thing is that over two years ago you asked me to remind you to come back to the discussion after notifying me that "Skyring/Pete should not be deleting sourced content". That behavior which you identified two years ago has not changed and has become disruptive, which Travelmite's diffs make a start of showing. In fact the behavior has extended further into not following other editing guidelines too, including biased misrepresentation of The New York Times as a source seemingly in order to give the organization a better public image. In light of the editor's self-identification with the organization, the behavior does appear to have a biased, public relations agenda. At times that agenda appears to perceive other editors' use of sourced material which is deemed challenging towards the organization as a biased attack on the organization from perceived outsiders. This could be what's motivated this COI notice from Travelmite. With respect, please take another look through the diffs over the last few weeks, please comment here more and please join in the work on the article. In the meantime, I'll go and read up about WP:AI and WP:ANI, on your advice. Much thanks again, -Roberthall7 (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I hope it can be resolved without WP:ANI. Indeed, there is no content dispute, nor is this an attack against the organisation. It is the opposite. Turning a wikipedia page into a adversarial contest with insults flying is the worst result for both that organisation, and for Wikipedia. Nor is it about edit bans. Any member with a duty to a small organisation should disclose as per the COI policy. They should be making uncontroversial edits, or edits in co-operation with other editors. Common-sense should apply. If the other editors are behaving poorly, then that would be the biased advocacy and nothing could be said against the member acting openly. Anyway, this is the information from the Sydney website:
 * "The School of Philosophy in NSW / ACT has been operating in this way since it opened in Sydney in 1967. It has since opened branches in Newcastle, Wagga and Canberra and is affiliated with Schools in Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide in Australia and in many other countries around the world. All work in the School is performed by students in a spirit of service and philosophical practice. Except for a small, administrative staff, the work is undertaken on an unpaid, voluntary basis. All tutors are senior members of the School who have studied Philosophy at the School for many years and still keep their learning fresh in the company of their own Group on a weekly basis. No tutors are paid." . No mention of members, but it does seem that "students" do undertake duties for the school. Travelmite (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

A point about confusing terminology and jargon. In the same way that it is more accurate to describe the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as a university rather than an institute, and the United Kingdom as a democracy rather than a kingdom, it is more accurate to describe the School of Economic Science (a.k.a. The School of Philosophy a.k.a. The School of Practical Philosophy) as an 'organization' rather than a 'school'. Aside from a 'school' it has also been referred by sources as a 'church', a 'cult' and a 'new religious movement'; consensus on our article page has found that organization is the most non-pejorative, accurate and universally acceptable term. We should use it here. To differentiate, bare in mind that the generally understood institution of a school normally has a formal graduation procedure and provides qualifications and encourages attendees to eventually leave: apparently this organization does not, and one can be a member of it for life. By extension, the use of 'tutor' and 'student' here is also misleading. They are all participants in the organization, commonly referred to as 'members'. There may be a higher echelon of 'registered members', which I have not read about, and there is a highest echelon around the 'leader' (not a chancellor as in a university or headteacher as in a school). Members of the organization can be both tutors and students at the same time, depending on whether they are leading a meeting or attending a meeting, respectively. If you're member of one branch, you're a member of the worldwide organization, as our article says - the different territorial branch titles are misleading, but the organization itself states on its website that they are all part of the same organization. All this also helps to differentiate from the organization's primary and secondary schools for children, which are schools in the conventional sense of the word - with graduation, formal qualifications and departure. This is all in the sources we've used on the article, if one has the time or interest to look them up. I hope that helps. -Roberthall7 (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you know a lot about the organisation, Roberthall7! So, to clarify, if an editor identifies as just a student member, and rules out being a chosen higher-level "Member" of the New York branch (as falsely stated by the OP), and holds no executive office, is there any evident conflict of interest? Or is it in the same class as (say) a Wikipedia editor editing the Wikipedia article? --Pete (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You have disclosed that you are a member of the Canberra branch, where previously it was unknown. Your location is not required. You've said only that you are not on the executive and not paid. You've compared yourself to a scout leader or military. Based on the organisation's various websites, it is much smaller that and very different from scouting, with members electing the executive, and having some duty to the organisation. In response to this COI notice, you now say you're "just a student", however the school offers only short courses and your membership has existed for several years. Please keep in mind, you are only being asked to declare your association and avoid making controversial edits by yourself, so let's keep to this please. Travelmite (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This COI issue continues. Based on new topic, regarding WP:AGF Pete Skyring says that Roberthall7 is trying to depict the SES as wacky, when nothing of the sort could be implied. Other editors are engaging with Pete/Skyring responsibly. Despite having a range of sources, Pete/Skyring decides the issue based on his personal experience as a member, and reverts what he doesn't like on the page . Travelmite (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Nick B. Nicholaou


User NNicholaou created the article Nick B. Nicholaou, he has admitted to being the same person. In addition he has admitted that he is canvassing off wiki for help with editing with these two edits [|1] [|2]. He has been told about COI policies and continues to edit his own page. VViking Talk Edits 20:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've communicated with him in no uncertain terms, because the conduct is wholly inappropriate. It might be a bit harsh, but he doesn't get the AGF here. Given what's going on in the AfD, his talk, and the article talk, he's clearly not listening to nicely-worded statements, he's not even remotely reading policy, I don't think he's here to do anything else but self-promote, and I really don't know how "you can't write an article about yourself" is unclear to anyone capable of reading. MSJapan (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Slew of articles from a prolific sock farm
This prolific farm, discovered today are not only the same person but clearly a paid shill, usual MO—fully formed articles (mostly for start-ups and products) with multiple perfectly formatted "references", infobox, logo, image, etc. as the first edit. Below are the articles they have created which all need to be checked. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do it myself:


 * Lance Coleman
 * Toast Ale brew,
 * Clipchamp,
 * Eko Devices,
 * Slaask
 * Olio (app)
 * Lamia Oy
 * Clarence Wooten
 * GoodCall
 * Waverly Labs
 * Bidsketch
 * MT Educare
 * Rome Aloise
 * Apollo Soft
 * Webgility
 * Rai Institute
 * Oombrella
 * Dr. Moopen's Academy
 * Fluidware
 * Bugcrowd
 * The Virtual Reality Company
 * Knocki
 * PageCloud
 * Highfive (company)
 * Airbar
 * Ossic
 * Intellect (software company).
 * Alex Becker

Voceditenore (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing discussion regarding these articles and possible WP:TNT at WP:ANI. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Shark Shield could use a look as well. One of the reported socks added significant content, and the whole article is full of promotional editing by several SPA-accounts in the past. According to the article the product is 100% perfect, and never had any kind of notable problems or criticism. GermanJoe (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a unanimous consensus building to have these articles nuked. Administratively I will handle the deletions pending the final outcome of the ANI discussion. However, I think looking into some of the other edits (not just new article creations) is worth investigating from a COI perspective. Mkdw talk 18:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The ANI thread has closed with an overwhelming consensus to delete 'em all. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The thread was re-opened because the close was not by an admin and so non-official. However, there is indeed overwhelming consensus to delete them all. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I batch-deleted these per the ANI but there are still some contributions left to root out. BethNaught (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I couldn't get d-batch to show on Monobook I couldn't get to it fast enough, but here's a list of all that I collated from the SPI. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and salted the articles as well. Autoconfirmed is still a low threshold and there are other avenues available such as AFC and WP:RPP to have the protection removed. Mkdw talk 17:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Genie - A Terex Brand


Article could use some work to comply with wp standards. Maybe w/o bashing the COI editor over there and be nice for a change? Just a thought :) --TMCk (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I consider it a G11, and have tagged it accordingly.  DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That works.--TMCk (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Solid acid fuel cell


I am a freelance science writer. I was hired to write a Wikipedia page about solid acid fuel cells by a company that produces solid acid fuel cells. While I am not writing directly about the company, I want to make sure that this potential conflict of interest is as transparent as possible.

I would like to add a section to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Types_of_fuel_cells.3B_design as well as create a separate page explaining what solid acid fuel cells are.

Should I post what I have written (including all references, which are mostly published journal articles) ? Ldajose (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks . It would be helpful if you posted what you have. One venue for the new article would be Articles for creation, but you could as easily use your sandbox - please let us know where to find it. And perhaps use talk:Fuel cell to discuss the changes you want to make to that article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, my sandbox is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ldajose/sandbox . My apologies.. I am somewhat new to using wikipedia so please let me know if this is the wrong place for this discussion. Thanks! --Ldajose 22:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't the first step here be to make the required full disclosure? - Paid-contribution_disclosure. That policy says: "Users must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contribution to Wikipedia." There isn't a way to know if the article uses an neutral point of view without having the information that is required by that policy. LaMona (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, that seems to have been declared here now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor is using that company's web site as a reference and links to an award the company was given, in a way that I think is unwarranted. It's a wp:COATRACK. Since it is a sandbox, I'll not edit, but it should not be allowed in main space. LaMona (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I completely see what you're saying about the Coatrack. If I remove the references to the company, then the piece should be truly about the technology, only citing peer-reviewed journal articles and third-party articles (like Discover, etc). What do you think? Ldajose (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the real question is: is this a balanced review of the topic? Since I know zero about fuel cells, I can't answer that. I do note that 5 of the references share a lot of names, and that one of those names is the same as the CEO of the company. Would most people working in fuel cell technology see those five articles as the best references on the topic? Is there anyone else developing it as a technology other than the sponsors of this article? Is there a reason to cite more than one the articles by Chisholm, e.g. are the others writing in this area that should be cited instead? (see this which seems to show that there are others writing on the topic that are more highly cited.) The fact of basing so much of the article on the work of the company's CEO does not sit right with me. It does not appear to be a balanced review of the topic. LaMona (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a look today and I'm not convinced that we should do the changes. Lots of research happens everyday, but we don't immediately add them to Wikipedia. Wikipedia tends to "lag behind" the world and add stuff only when it has been reviewed multiple times in secondary sources - that is, it has become popular. The research papers are all connected to the chief scientist. I appreciate the work but at this moment, I don't think I would like to add this information to Wikipedia. This is similar for health related topics where we don't immediately add any research. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

User:27century
Has disclosed paid edits to the Daniel Amen article (and from their contribution history has likely made many other paid contributions) but claims they cannot make a declaration per WP:PAID beyond stating their employer is "Rachel Grand". Would appreciate it if somebody better versed in this area could look at this. Alexbrn (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The article subject has been trying to WP:OWN the article for years now. While the disclosure is important, the fact that they are adding promotional content and discredit well-sourced negative information is far more worrying. You've been right to revert and I would encourage User:27century to not edit the article directly, but instead suggest changes on the talk page, as advised WP:COI. SmartSE (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that this affects most of the articles the user has edited. I've given them a final warning as they are failing to disclose and adding promotional content. SmartSE (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The editor doesn't seem to be complying. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Factor analysis of information risk (FAIR)


More eyes on this would be welcome. It appears to be a methodology promoted by a single organization. The article has structural problems: 1) sections titled "The FAIR Book" etc. 2) three of four references are to the same org 3) excessive list of see-alsos 4) SPA editor contributions are of concern. - Brianhe (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've flat-out reverted the edits. The article itself is not new, and with only two edits, there's no immediate proof of COI.  However, the tone (and some of the focus) of the article changed substantially, and that's a problem.  If the editor wants to make the edits, the editor can discuss them on the talk page.  I believe the editor has knowledge, and things have changed in the topic, but the history of the topic should be preserved, not overwritten.  The editor is likely is not maliciously adding info for any particular reason yet that I can see.  MSJapan (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Fashion Net


Would anyone care to take a look? IP editor has asked for a review of my possible conflict of interest (which of course I don't have). I'm travelling, no time to respond in detail. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, Justlettersandnumbers, and while I was at it, I gave the IP an earful :). Voceditenore (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems to have come up earlier btw. See Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_68. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

SravaniChalla

 * (Matthew Knowles (actor) previously spammed by User talk:Lyndasim)
 * (Matthew Knowles (actor) previously spammed by User talk:Lyndasim)
 * (Matthew Knowles (actor) previously spammed by User talk:Lyndasim)
 * (Matthew Knowles (actor) previously spammed by User talk:Lyndasim)
 * (Matthew Knowles (actor) previously spammed by User talk:Lyndasim)

SravaniChalla is an undeclared shill. Creating promotional articles for non notable entities. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The Jason Snyder was grossly promotional and misleading. I've slashed it down to some more bare essentials; it could do with a more thoroughgoing edit, but I'm uninclined to waste any more time on such an unappealing character. Freddy Fusion, who sounds like he should have an article merely based on his excellent name, is at AfD where I hope he'll disappear without trace. Edy Sulistyo looks a more benign sort of an article and, notably, not something that SravaniChalla appears to have touched. Not sure why the article is on the list. All the rest are red or a redirect. We're probably done here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * SravaniChalla created an earlier and now deleted version of Edy Sulistyo. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * SravaniChalla has now been blocked as a sock of a spammer. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Pell Research


An old stale one. Jb3141 is a single purpose account dedicated to promoting Pell Research. Outside of creatin that article all contributions are to refspam Pell's research. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * added another spammer. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty stale as you say (2014), I'm not sure much can be done in this instance? They're unlikely to get blocked -- samtar talk or stalk 13:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not trying to get anyone blocked. Merely documenting. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Robert Morrow


Morrow, or someone connected with his campaign or office, appears to be editing his Wikipedia article. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Per WP:REALNAME, it would appear that this username is representing itself as the article subject, perhaps proof of identity should be required? Also, this account seems to be a WP:SPA, only editing the Morrow article, which also indicates a WP:COI. Shearonink (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Ubiquiti Networks


From the name, this user works for Ubiquiti: http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Jamie-Higley/2058314275

They have only edited Ubiquiti-related articles, and have blanked the "Security" section, presumably because it contains negative information about the company. Orthogonal1 (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * They also haven't edited in two months, and then not for three years before that. I don't expect a response. MSJapan (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Walled garden? Meessen De Clercq


Editor Special:Contributions/Anthropocene2015 appears to be the main contributor on the above article about a gallery. The editor is also editing the articles listed in the section of the artists:


 * Artists

Exhibited artists include:
 * Ignasi Aballì
 * Susan Collis
 * Jordi Colomer
 * Hreinn Friðfinnsson
 * Filip Gilissen
 * Ellen Harvey
 * Adam Henry, etc.

Some of them may be genuinely notable, but some appear to be not notable. I'm concerned about the appearance of link spam or potential promotional nature of this editing. The editor started editing soon after the account affiliated with the gallery was blocked due to its promotional nature; pls see User_talk:Meessen_De_Clercq.

The editor has been notified here. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Problem is that the sources aren't in English or online, and the big issue with art books is that it's very hard to tell if they're notable unless one already knows. I think this needs to be looked at by somebody in one of the Art WPs, because it might just be that the material overlaps because of the nature of the sources being used - I'm seeing a lot of the same magazines/journals being used across the articles, and there appear to be full profiles available.  On the basis of volume, all of the artists with articles meet GNG, and they've all had multiple exhibits.  Therefore, it really requires an expert to know if any of the exhibits are really more than just local NN stuff.  Other than that, if it's a blocked user, file an SPI. MSJapan (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, but the walled garden concerns are valid here. This looks like a gallery promoting the artists. I usually favour moving these to draft, letting the COI editor work on them (after declaring) and then move it to mainspace after accepting it at AFC. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The Speedy deletion for the Meessen De Clercq article was declined by the apparently notorious editor Foutte (diff twice), who said they would be working on the "artocle" (sic). This reminds me of the two users that just got banned at ANI. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Welsh (Walled Garden)

 * - at AfD
 * - deleted at AfD. Moved into mainspace 2 days later after deletion and then again forced to draft.
 * - deleted at AfD. Moved into mainspace 2 days later after deletion and then again forced to draft.

I'm not sure what to make of this. I have had a few run ins with this topic and I am unable to figure out the notability. Certain edits like this make me wonder if this is some kind of promotional campaign. Would appreciate others who can have a look. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I tagged James Conwell Welsh (created by for A7 (diff). 5 minutes later   removed the speedy (diff)saying "speedy declined, article asserts signifigance and notability". I'm noting that there seems to be a similar WP:TAGTEAM behaviour previously seen at Draft:Suzanne S. Welsh which was moved into mainspace within 3 days of an AfD concluding that the subject is not notable. I had tried to speedy that and it was similarly removed by Maybeparaphrased, . --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging who was involved in rewriting one of the articles as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In addition to Draft:Suzanne S. Welsh and Frank S. Welsh, I also found this related article problematic: Historic paint analysis (the topic that Frank S. Welsh specialises in). All three are being edited by the same editor Zpeopleheart; the latter two could be perceived as being on non-notable subjects and somewhat promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It appears that James Conwell Welsh is the ex-husband of Draft:Suzanne S. Welsh, and Frank S. Welsh is one of their sons. There's more to the garden, e.g. Frank E. Sagendorph, 2nd and L. Lewis Sagendorph who are the father and grandfather respectively of Suzanne S. Welsh. From the look of it, I think this may well be creating articles about her family members, some of whom are clearly prominent, others less so. For example I doubt James Conwell Welsh (created by another editor named above) meets the criteria for inclusion and probably should be brought to AfD. Frank S. Welsh is marginal but probably does meet the criteria. The two elder Sagendorph's do meet the criteria. I don't think this is a paid editor at all, simply someone with a mild COI which they should declare, but is not required. Judging by their additions,  is probably also a family member as are a couple of other red-linked SPAs who have briefly edited Draft:Suzanne S. Welsh but are not named above. As for the other two editors listed ( and ), I think their participation was probably sparked by the kerfuffle they had with Lemongirl942 stemming from a discussion at WikiProject Women in Red and with another editor stemming from a discussion at ANI, followed by a bit of "following around" and "tag teaming" with one article leading to another, as often happens. Not good, but I don't think they have a COI in these articles. Voceditenore (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the editors in question (Zpeopleheart) often removes article improvements templates added by others: Historic paint analysis; Frank S. Welsh.
 * I'm surprised that an editor with this editing behaviour frequently accepts articles for creation; see for example Daniel Lightwing; Ashante_P.T._Stokes.. Not sure if this falls under the purview of this board, but I thought it's worth pointing out. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I share that surprise. LaMona (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, there's a current ANI re two of the editors who have edited within the "walled garden". K.e.coffman (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see what the ANI result is and then see if there's still an issue after that. That being said, can someone please run a cross-ref for coatracking?  There's no way a bio entry with seven lines translates to seven citations for Sagendorph II, for example. MSJapan (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Zpeopleheart and Maybeparaphrased indeffed at ANI.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Send to AfD - Articles for deletion/James Conwell Welsh --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Tjebn

 * have left a note on this users page, I suspect they are COI/SPA. They did not respond to my note and have continued to edit articleSpecial:Contributions/Tjebn, could an administrator look into this, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * additionally Special:Contributions/194.74.145.68 made similar edits at more or less the same time today? (sock)?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * usually I would take COI to Jytdog however)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * usually I would take COI to Jytdog however)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, and the editor has stopped editing. What exactly is the conflict of interest here? Simply the addition of the clinical trial link? I've copyedited the article, so some of the material may have been removed as a matter of course. MSJapan (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * if you look at:


 * 1) Special:Contributions/Tjebn all edits are direct at same article SPA Single-purpose_account
 * 2)  I deleted links here to
 * 3)  was readded by Special:Contributions/194.74.145.68 then reverted by a bot here ...(sock?)
 * 4) this link as indicated above was deleted by me, and then a bot.... it was originally added here  by Special:Contributions/Stemcc82 (SPA as well)
 * thank you

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW (besides the 4 points above) another SPA is now editingSpecial:Contributions/Stemcc82..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Except you haven't explained why this is a conflict of interest instead of a content dispute or an edit war. I see a link being readded repeatedly, and that's about it, which does not indicate to me that there's a conflict of interest.  The last user removed some tags and is an SPA, which I've pointed out to them. Other than that, you need to resolve content issues on the talk page of the article. MSJapan (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you for this edit (a Sockpuppet_investigations might very well show Special:Contributions/Stemcc82 and Special:Contributions/Tjebn and Special:Contributions/194.74.145.68 to be the same person,IMO... thank you again)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Barracuda Web Server


User focus is articles on Barracuda products (there's another in User:Sorisen/sandbox) and uploaded as explicitly licensed to the creators of the product. The live article has been nommed for CSD, but the sandbox article clearly shows it's a larger problem. MSJapan (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There are two articles which relate to the Barracuda technology. Wikipedia has distinguished (correctly) the topics in isolation of Application Server, vs. an HTTP Embedded Server. Given it was my first experience for creating material for Wikipedia and that I spent time researching the background of a particular technical tangent implementation "of course" the subject matter would appear in isolation and the COI acquisition is unfounded. Your reaction to submit everything for CSD and apply a COI acquisition is in haste, clearly evidenced by the reference to the  sandbox which is merely the draft area used for the Barracuda Web Server page, therefore it's not "more of",... material, but the basis staging for the content itself.  The image has a CC permission and I will add it. (Error that it was unintentionally left out.)  Further to the point I have started a new draft on Lua Server Pages located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lua_Server_Pages, which demonstrates that the material I work on is relative subject matter related to server technology rather than any particular product or use scenario.  These technologies are (new) to common knowledge or laymen awareness, time, use in industry, etc. The Internet of Things movement will help to establish a wider audience and the background information such as the areas where I'm focusing will be appreciated by a broader scope of readers that hope to learn and understand how these types of technologies are applied and historically evolved.  Personally, as a new contributor I find that receiving this kind of notice with no examples, or guidance for improvement extremely discouraging. It would be useful to understand how the material that I created could be improved relative and in comparison to the same type of material which was already established i.e. Comparison of application servers, where similar technologies are discussed. Sorisen (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Considering you pushed both articles live, my reference to the sandbox is irrelevant, and I've added the other article above. You started Draft:Lua Server Pages months ago, and haven't touched it since it was declined after about two weeks. So that's entirely irrelevant, other than the fact that you used a Barracuda/Real Time Logic LLC reference there as well.  You've had months to learn about policies and ask questions, and you have done nothing to educate yourself about what is acceptable and what is not.  Moreover, if you do not have a COI, why are you writing about a particular set of products by a particular company (instead of a technology), uploading intellectual property of that company that you somehow "know" is CC-BY-SA, and referencing well more than half of the sources on the products to articles written by employees of that company?  Our policies are very clear on this, and yet you have done it twice, as well as on Lua Server.  You're relying too heavily on one company's material for it to be accidental. MSJapan (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, as far as license for the file is concerned, the user was somehow able to go find this document on the company servers, which is not accessible from either the public downloads page or the directory immediately above the file. So how did Sorisen find it if he wasn't told where to go to get it by someone at the company?  I think it's because he created it himself at work, which explains why it's legally incorrect. I think is the most likely explanation, as he has not yet denied an affiliation with the company.  It's the lying here that's the real problem, frankly, because I think Sorisen is well aware that the product is not notable, and therefore, he's either being paid to write the article or he works for the company, and he knows that if he admits it, the articles lose all merit. MSJapan (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Also not a new issue: Talk regarding SharkSSL in March 2016. This editor only writes about Real Time Logic products, period.  The style of license provided by the user has also been used before, and I don't see why we are finding it acceptable.  It was clearly not from an acceptable source available to an uninvolved editor. Every Commons upload he has made is sourced to Real Time Logic. WP:DUCK. MSJapan (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Apologies if I am lacking in Wikipedia educate. This is not a full time job for me and given I use Wikipedia regularly to learn about technology attributes I thought it would be nice and kind of neat to make a contribution. I'm neither an employee nor paid writer for these articles. In explanation, I became interested in the server technology behind IoT Internet of Things as used in embedded devices. I have a personal work history in working with embedded operating systems which is a different but related topic all considered within the realm of 'Embedded Programming'. IoT is new evolving and I'm learning as I go along... After reviewing many server implementations on Wikipedia, I didn't understand why no one added the comparison of Barracuda. It is easy to find information about this implementation via google search and in my opinion made a good compatible with unique attributes for its construction vs. the other implementations sited. I looked at the other webserver and application server articles to get ideas for how the material should be shown and then created one for Barracuda. At first, I had complaints that it read too much like a brochure/marketing material and I had help from another experienced editor to fix it. Here I learned (after the fact) that just because other 'like' material exists on Wikipedia doesn't mean those particular articles used correct form.  The reason there are separate articles for Barracuda Application Server, Barracuda Web Server, and SharkSSL is because the underlying technologies are interrelated to the whole, but needed clarification explanation in isolation. (Again I am looking at comparable within the same technology realm and how they were shown on Wikipedia.) example: Comparison of application servers, Comparison of web servers, Comparison of TLS implementations


 * The Lua Server Pages (draft), article shows that I did start to continue into a new topic with similar subject matter but nothing which is owned or controlled by the people that designed Barracuda. The first draft was not approved, but I intend to finish it if my continued participation is allowed.  This entire experience is new for me and I would appreciate help to fix the areas where I have made mistakes. In full disclosure regarding my interaction with Real Time Logic, I found the images on google and asked them to release them under a creative common license that would allow use on Wikipedia. I also requested that they review my articles for accuracy to make sure that I had captured the capacity of the technology correctly. Many of the references used for this article do have either Real Time Logic participation as material that editors pulled from for their publications, however we could add more sources and eliminate anything, which is not credible.  Additional guidance and help for areas to make corrections would be appreciated. Sorisen (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * To answer your first question, nobody added Barracuda because Barracuda doesn't meet our notability guidelines. The type of material you have found is pretty much indicative of that.  I've added a reading list of policies and information to the end of my reply.


 * Much more importantly, if you are having the company review your article for accuracy, then there are two problems. If you cannot write about a topic without help from others, there's a real possibility that you don't know what you're talking about; why that is a problem should be obvious.  Secondly, by allowing editorial oversight by the company about the company's product article, you're essentially functioning as an unpaid public relations employee of the company.  You are basically giving them free advertising.  Companies do not have the right to vet their Wikipedia entries.  The fact that you are in contact with them is also problematic.


 * For the time being, I would suggest you read the following policies: general notability, reliable sources, promotional articles, existence is not notability, and neutral point of view. I would also suggest you read the essays on independent sources and third-party sources.  It might explain a lot of things of which you do not seem to be aware at present. MSJapan (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * And the editor has neither responded nor edited in over a week. This thread can probably be closed. MSJapan (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I would rather keep this open. It seems the author has not clarified their conflict of interest. Let's wait for a reply. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Articles deleted. MSJapan (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Reverting the close - SharkSSL is still active, and I have discovered that User:Sorisen left a barnstar for User:Wilfrednilsen, another editor who was apparently pretty much associated with Real Time Logic through his edits and hadn't edited in almost a year at the point where the barnstar was placed. So how did Wilfrednilsen "review the article", and how did Sorisen know who he was?An explanation is required, and if an explanation is not forthcoming, I will be requesting that the user be banned for clear sockpuppetry. MSJapan (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have already explained above that a) I'm new, b) This was my first time trying an article on wikipedia, C) I've hidden nothing and you can read above that already disclosed that I asked RealTimeLogic to license some images I found on google for creative commons and also to review my article to make sure I captured things technically accurate. As far as I know there were no edits made and I give Wilfrednilsen a barnstar for taking the time to review my first article.  I didn't review his page nor know there was issues with MrOllie as I recall I just clicked the thing that allowed me to give a barnstar.  I just got an email notice that said he reviewed it.. that's it. Sorisen (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just making sure that you would reiterate the conflict of interest. Now how did you, apparently unknown to the company, not just get access to people at the company who would take the time to review your article, but someone ostensibly representing Wilfred Nilsen, the CEO?  How did you get access to the server to download that license?  It's not publically accessible outside of that direct link.  Do you see why I don't particularly believe anything you have to say? MSJapan (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I went to their website contact page and sent an email to info@realtimelogic.com asking for permission to use pictures I found on google to be used for Commons/Wikipedia. The instruction at the CC site said if you are not the original owner you must contact the copyright holder to obtain permissions... so i did.  They responded with a public link that provided a license permission for the pictures I requested.  How else would you obtain permissions for copyright pictures?  I was just following the instructions and rules. From day one you have been accusing me all kinds of crazy stuff and I have done nothing but been open and honest, however that isn't good enough for you. Sorisen (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No it isn't, and it's because you can't be that naive, nor can the company. First of all, you claim an interest in the "technology", but you're only writing about a particular company's products, not the "technology."  You haven't made a single edit to an article here that didn't have something to do with Real Time Logic or its products. That's like me "being interested in" jet turbine engine technology and then only writing articles on Pratt & Whitney engines.  So yes, I believe you are being very disingenuous about the reasons why you are here.


 * Second, you wrote an article on a product, cited articles written by Wilfred Nilsen about that product where his company affiliation is stated, and then had absolutely no hint of an idea that a user named "Wilfridnilsen", reviewing that article, might be the same person? I understand that people can have the same names, but the same name in the same limited subject area?  Sorry, not buying that.  If you really didn't know who he was, you didn't read your sources carefully enough, even though you had to type his name several times to create your references.


 * Third, you expect Wikipedia as a whole to believe that a company is going to leave an unsigned, undated, publically accessible document that says "whoever has this image of ours can do whatever they want with it?" No one is that careless with their intellectual property, most especially a company with a multi-national presence simply isn't that dumb.  Moreover, I searched for that Barracude block image.  It's not "on Google" except for here, which is embeddedtools.de  - the other site is a 404.  So I don't think this is a coincidence, either.


 * Last is your overall editing conduct. You don't seem to understand why it is not appropriate for you to ask the company whose products you are writing about to provide "technical review" on an article here. You're also very happy to praise people when they agree with what you're doing, but you don't do anything about criticism other than talk a lot about how you're "new" and you need to "learn", and yet you're not doing that.  When this COI was opened, you didn't edit for a month until another AfD came up.


 * So no, your explanations are not good enough, unless you really think I'm as stupid as you're pretending to be. MSJapan (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Given the lack of an actual response here to address the editing behavior, the obvious SPA and focus on the aforementioned articles, the failed canvassing at Acroterion's talk page, plus this retaliatory vandalism to a page I created (and then claiming in the edit summary that the removal was because an AllMusic review listing is a copyright violation), I think the user is WP:NOTHERE and needs to be indef-blocked. MSJapan (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

University of California, Berkeley


There is a paid editor that has been promoting UC Berkeley since 2012. This seems like a major conflict of interest. Mikeditka231 (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The wikipedia article itself is not neutral in tone. What should be done about this? He seems like a well intentioned user. The article overall reads like a UC Berkeley promotion.

"Hired by UCB Public Affairs! Hey all!

I'm checking in to say that I have been hired by the UC Berkeley Office of Public Affairs as an independent contractor to work on the UCB Wikipedia article. Story of how this happens follows. Skip to next paragraph if more interested in the ethics of paid editorship. While doing the above edits I found my underemployed self thinking "hah! They should HIRE me to do this!" Then I thought "well, maybe they COULD hire me to do this". Long story short, a job proposal and interview later the PA Office hired me to do a little editing. I'm doing an initial 10 hours as they test me out and see how many hours they should allot me. I had an ethical crisis while considering pursuing a job proposal, and decided it would be wise to consult a couple friends of mine who are regular editors and who have volunteered with Wikimedia outside of their editing. A recommendation I heard from all, and which I am taking in writing this talk item to y'all, is to be transparent with you about my position as a contractor for UCB and with my intentions. I want you to know that while my edits on this page will now be edits I do as a contractor, my heart lies with the free knowledge movement, and my intention is not to promote UC Berkeley from a marketing standpoint, but to promote the expansion of knowledge on the university. Also, for your information, I am editing from my regular (and only) account, which I've had since 2010. This all said, if you find any biases in my editing that favor the university, or information that requires an expert verification, please point these out to me. My first edit will be an expansion of information on student financial aid and scholarships. Most of my information will come from information found through the Office of Financial Aid and Scholarships, and the UC Controller's Office. I appreciate any constructive criticism and any knowledge resources you think would help me to create a non-biased view and a rich and full article. I am not an expert in these issues, and would warmly appreciate the contribution of editors who are.

Thanks! Please follow me and my edits! Eekiv (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)"


 * I find no recent edits (2013+) under this username, with hundreds of edits by others, so it doesn't appear that this self-disclosed account has had an influence on the article. If you think the article needs editing for NPOV you might either make the edits, or begin a discussion on the talk page. (It's a very long article and I did not read through it.) LaMona (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I took out a bit of puffery in the environmental section, but overall, the article seems mostly factual. There's not much negative; it's almost all happy talk, which is a common problem with too much COI editing. John Nagle (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Form 1120


It is difficult to keep track of all this. User:Majesticfish is being paid by User:Vipul to create articles. The articles edited by User:Majesticfish so far are (the U.S. Tax Forms) Form 1120, which this person created as has been editing and Form 1040 , ,.


 * Next I have noticed that -- User Vipul states on his/her User page: "'For more on my Wikipedia editing, see my site page about Wikipedia, my site page about sponsored Wikipedia editing, and the list of all pages I have created, with pageviews across the years'." I wish to point out the above link within this blurb about this editior's link to the description of this person's self-disclosed Wikipedia sponsored editing, which is located at an off Wiki site - for clarity I will place it here . The page discusses detailed paid editing and analysis of its impact via page views:

I am quoting a small blurb here:
 * 2015

"In April 2015, as part of an Experimental Content Creation Grant (ECCG) to (a person), I included reimbursement for Wikipedia page creation. The scheme was as follows: for the period from April 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015, I’d pay (a person):

$1 for every 1000 pageviews of pages he had created before 2015. $1 for every 500 pageviews of pages he created in 2015. If the pages he created were specific ones that I had requested him to create or approved the creation of, and the page as created by him met my standard for quality and completeness, then I’d add a one-time payment for each such page. The one-time payment would be determined per page, but the standard would be $25. (There is some fine print that caps the total amount I need to pay (a person), but that’s not relevant here since Wikipedia pageviews don’t contribute enough to the overall ECCG to trigger that fine print). (A person) is User:Simfish on Wikipedia. You can also access his contribution history" (link provided on off wiki web page). There is more on this page that should be read. This also continues into 2016...
 * 2016

I renewed my content creation grant for 2016 with (a person), with some changes to the rules surrounding payments. I would pay (a person):

$1 for every 2000 pageviews of pages he had created before 2015, or $0.50 per 1000 pageviews. $1 for every 800 pageviews of pages he created in 2015, or $1.25 per 1000 pageviews. $1 for every 500 pageviews of pages he created in 2016, or $2 per 1000 pageviews. My goal was that, while (a person) could still make money of pageviews of pages he created of his own accord, the focus of his work should shift more in the direction of creating pages I wanted him to create, with a fixed pay from me..." There is more under "2016" that should be read. Personally, I am taken aback....

However, all this may pale in significance to the page linked from the above quoted page. This page outlines the whole of User Vipul's paid editing operation for (or aimed at) Wikipedia: List of contributors, Money spent this month, Impact (of efforts I suppose) based on Page veiws and anecdotal evidence. The section on "Total Money Spent This Month" is particularly amazing. (Someone else) is a recruiter (recruits paid editors for Wikipedia, apparently from high schools and colleges). (A person), mentioned in the first sentence in "2015" is the paymaster. And most of the others do "piece work".

Sorry for the wall of text - in this instance I felt it was needed for clarity. Hopefully this is so. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to be entirely altruistic, although it may violate some policies (e.g. sock/meat puppets, COI, paid editing) I found this quote on one of those pages you link to above: "I am interested in funding similar pages on the timelines of malaria, cholera, and influenza, and might consider expanding to things like AIDS, particular cancers, senescence research, smallpox, and other diseases."HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks HappyValleyEditor ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That page is a little outdated :). The more up-to-date location is this, linked by Steve. Also, since I wrote the earlier page, I have had success with having many of these other timelines made, as you can see: timeline of global health, timeline of cholera, timeline of malaria, timeline of influenza. It's been great working with a number of enthusiastic Wikipedia writers to create content of lasting value accessible to a global audience. Vipul (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Steve, really appreciate the free publicity! As you can see, none of the information you uncovered is particularly secret, and in fact I pride myself (and the people I work with, Issa and Ethan) on an extremely open process for content creation, along with full disclosure of real-world identity and amounts of money exchanged. Let me know if you find anybody else you think would be a good recruit for Wikipedia editing! Cheers. Vipul (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * While I commend you for being transparent about paying people to edit articles, I am having difficulty identifying the other users under your employ. Are they all using your own account to do their edits? --Drm310 (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You can access the full list here. If you click through to the pages about them you will see links to their Wikipedia user pages and contributions. Vipul (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've redirected form 1040 - you're really close to committing a federal offense by disseminating tax advice without a disclaimer. Moreover, changes in the tax forms are not encyclopedic.  What's your rationale for having these created in the first place? MSJapan (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The tax form redirects are being undone without discussion by User:Riceissa, another one of Vipul paid editors. I have informed him that said articles are very close to dispensing tax advice, and he seems to be disinterested in listening. MSJapan (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've since taken the liberty of informing WMF legal, because IANAL, but I do know enough about accounting to be concerned about handing out anything that looks like tax advice when one is not qualified to do so. However, that does not address the paid editing farm. MSJapan (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And apparently tax isn't their bag, either. MSJapan (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

George Ranalli (round 2)

 * Previously on COIN at.
 * Previously on AN/I at.
 * Previously on COIN at.
 * Previously on AN/I at.
 * Previously on COIN at.
 * Previously on AN/I at.

The George Ranalli article has a new editor, who, on their first day of editing, undid about 12K worth of deletions by several regular editors. No edits to any other articles. Usual COI warnings given. John Nagle (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you considered the possibility that there's socking going on there, ? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think at this point this is no longer simply a COI issue, but as JLaN is alluding to, this is probably a matter for SPI; COI hasn't fixed it, and ANI hasn't fixed it. MSJapan (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Another uninvolved editor went in and deleted most of the WP:SPA edits. Let's see what happens next.  The possibility of socking exists, of course. But it may be the article subject's supporters/students/employees, for which SPI can't help. Each new SPA seems to make different edits.  John Nagle (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * SPI covers meatpuppetry as well. It's the underlying technical data that is key, not the content of edits. MSJapan (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Today we have a new IP editor, reverting some article trimming. A whack-a-mole pattern is appearing; as soon as one SPA is given a warning, they disappear and a new one pops up. Yes, please ask for a sock check. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

RJ Tolson

 * More SPAs at Articles for deletion/RJ Tolson (2nd nomination)
 * More SPAs at Articles for deletion/RJ Tolson (2nd nomination)
 * More SPAs at Articles for deletion/RJ Tolson (2nd nomination)
 * More SPAs at Articles for deletion/RJ Tolson (2nd nomination)

I need more eyes on this. The article is about a non-notable author and there seems to be some sort of offline canvassing going on (possibly paid jobs for !voting). SPAs have constantly used this article for promoting the subject and are now swarming on the second AfD. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * File an SPI after the vote closes, as well. MSJapan (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Note, the guy I listed right above here is one of the people who out of the blue voted "keep" for this article but never gave an actual reason based on the guidelines and rules.  MPJ  -DK 23:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that the editor in question !voted "keep" in their first and only AfD and on a totally obscure self-published American teen-age author, a subject area in which they have never edited. I will be away but someone should definitely file an SPI when the AfD closes. Voceditenore (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleted. MSJapan (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Frederick Achom


So in the interest of full disclosure, I do occasional work on Fiverr to help people with Wikipedia, trying to help them create content that's withing Wikipedia guidelines. So as part of that work I some times get asked to do something that I have to turn down as it's not within guidelines. This is why I am here, in regards to article Frederick Achom and edits done by - The wording of a lot of the edits on the article and talk page of the article are so similar or identical to the request I received that it cannot be a coincidence - so either Awais Azad is paid for it, or they are the same person who approached me on Fiverr - Note: I will not divulge the Fiverr user name to avoid any issues in that regard. So listed below are various edits I was asked to make and then the diffs showing Awais Azad's edits to illustrate the overlap. I have not seen a declaration of COI from the user, I have also notified them that I am aware of the nature of the edits - user still made more edits afterwards to the Achom article without disclosing anything.

So I will present my case and leave it in your hands to decide, I make no judgement on anyone else involved in this, I just cannot sit by when I suspect undisclosed paid editing


 * Fiverr request
 * Change “Wine Fraud Scam” to “Controversy”
 * Mention that the reason for changing the heading is because reference 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 does not connect Frederick Achom was involved in the wine scam.
 * Article edit
 * First edit on article (Changed "Wine Fraud Scam" to "Wine Fraud Controversy") - Edit Summary "Sravani Challa aim is to brand Freddi Achom’s has a wine fraudster and diminishing Mr. Achom’s credibility. reason for changing the heading is because reference 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 does not connect Frederick Achom was involved in the wine scam.)"
 * change to "Wine Controversy"
 * changing header to simply "Controversy" gives edit summary "The reason for changing the heading is because reference 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 does not connect Frederick Achom was involved in the wine scam."


 * Fiverr request
 * Replace the two paragraph underneath Wine Fraud Scam (Controversy) with the below:
 * "In 2000, prior to his involvement in the investment sector Achom and several others fell foul of the UK’s department of trade and industry and a conviction was secured against him and four other defendants at Southwark crown court in 2000. Subsequently, he was disqualified from holding UK directorships for eleven years."


 * Article edit
 * changing Controversy section to "n 2000, prior to his involvement in the investment sector Achom and several others fell foul of the UK’s department of trade and industry and a conviction was secured against him and four other defendants at Southwark crown court in 2000. Subsequently, he was disqualified from holding UK directorships for eleven years."


 * Note in Fiverr request
 * Sravani Challa and Nihartou Jason are the vandals aimed to sabotage Frederick Achom’s reputation (I believe they are the same people operating theses accounts)
 * Claim in Edit Summary "(Sravani Challa and Nihartou Jason are the vandals aimed to sabotage Frederick Achom’s reputation (I believe they are the same people operating these accounts). On June 2016 Sravani Challa deleted 2,485 words)"


 * Revert to version that the buyer requested "save it from further controversy"
 * added in the "fell foul" verbiage added above


 * I can also show similarities on talk page edits, but I think by now the case has been made.  MPJ  -DK 20:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference to Context Addition of Information about Fredrick Achom, and the Conflict between Editors


I studied the whole case, and I found that the heading of the section about the fraud scam was not right and some of the editors were trying to intermix intentionally or unintentionally. So I corrected the information after studying the references. Then I made more changes to add information about His childhood and business, it was all because of principles to spread right information. Now I am being blamed to make those edits and I am watching the page is being under attack by editors to make it biased and use it against Mr. Achom. I believe being Wikipedian we should be very careful in addition of wrong information as it can cost a lot to someone. It can destroy careers and lives. So we should stick to our policies of being neutral not biased or payed. Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Awais Azad (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Legitimate changes or not, if you are paid you must disclose. I made only one judgement here, that I would not change the wording that you are because the "run afoul" comments were an attempt of downplay the conviction. If you are okay with the making the identical change is between you and your consciene, but the paid nature must be disclosed.  MPJ  -DK 10:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion with User:Awais Azad
Hi. Before commenting on the content issues, I would like to clarify the COI and paid editing issue. Paid editing is not forbidden on Wikipedia, but editors need to comply with our Terms of use and provide a Paid-contribution disclosure. The first step is a disclosure notice. As a step forward, would you please disclose if you have been paid to edit any article? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Confession on Paid Editing
Greetings! First of all, at first level I am really really thankful to you, because I was not aware of all these conflicts that you brought to my notice. I confess what I have done wrong. I was asked on fiverr to make some specific changes, about the Legal issues of Mr. Fredrick Achom, I was not aware of the conflict at that time and I took the project just for 40$, I had to change the heading and some data in that category. I researched, and found that my client has some legitimate claims, so I made the edit. But later, I got interested in the page, as it is my nature I get interested in things I do, (like you can see my contributions, I have made edits to a single article many times to make it better) and I was not even paid for that. I added the information after studying the references. It was just because of my curious nature, I was not paid a single penny after the first change. But I was not aware of the severity of controversial case. Second I also accept that, I have voted to keep the RJ Tolson page, because I was paid 5$ and I did it after studying the case, I thought he is a renowned personality so there is no harm to vote to keep, and I gave my point of view on that. These are two edits I was paid for, I was not paid before and not after these two. But You can see my contributions and you would know that I love Wikipedia as it has been my source of knowledge and I love to spread knowledge. I apologies for my immature behavior, as I was not aware of such policies and conflicts, I request you to forgive my mistakes. I was trying to make some living out of my skills but I think I still have to learn many things, So I request to forgive these mistake because I love Wikipedia and I love knowledge and spread of Knowledge and I think I would be a valuable contribution to Wikipedia? and I promise I would never ever do anything like that again.So be kind and ignore my these two mistake you would never see such immature behavior from me again. Awais Azad (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from other editors
This article has a clouded history as having been created by now-indeffed sockmaster and visited by at least one of his socks. I did some cleanup of most obvious WP:PROMO in June 2015 starting with this, but left it as more or less hopeless yet not worth more attention. - Brianhe (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well he was banned as a sock, I guess this is resolved.  MPJ  -DK 14:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Bey Logan


Hi, I am in an edit war with the subject of this article who is using different ips who insists on adding unrefenced material, I've explained coi and warned him but he takes no notice.Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the additions in this edit where they claim to be the subject. If they continue to edit war, I think a report to WP:AN3 may be needed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've also warned him about edit warring. It might be worth it to ask for page protection to stop the IP edits temporarily.
 * The sourcing in this article is abysmal (broken, don't verify, WP:SELFPUB). It needs improvement or it will be at risk for deletion. --Drm310 (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting his edits and warning him, if he continues will ask for page protection then if that does not work AN3 Atlantic306 (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * AfDed - I'm tired of giving people rope when they've clearly already gone past the end of it. I don't know why we assume good faith when people don't want to follow the rules and guidelines we put right in front of them. MSJapan (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

RBKsharad


this user has been creating an article about himself again and again and every time he uses a slightly different name like RBK Sharad, rbksharad, Rbksharad, RBKsharad, RBKSharad etc. He has been warned and the page been deleted at least 5times as per his talk page. The page is currently also existing under some heading. I'll clarify in a minute. Someone ought to block him. I am gonna seek salting also as suggested by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Thanks.  Varun FEB2003   I am Online 13:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think it is worth keeping this open for a while. I'm pretty sure they will return with a new account. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User was indef'd by Randykitty. If he restarts his antics under a different account, then it's off to WP:SPI. --Drm310 (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Share Our Strength


User appears to be a corporate account, possibly shared by multiple employees. User has only edited their organization page. Multiple warnings have been given; all were ignored. The edits they have made are not necessarily bad (I haven't checked), but an independent editor would need to make these changes, not an employee of the organization itself. Username has also been reported to Usernames_for_administrator_attention. &mdash; Eric Herboso 03:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources are rather weak, and there's not much news about this organization other than an interview with the CEO and some mentions by chefs involved. I checked the IRS Form 990 filing, and it looks legit. See Talk:Share Our Strength. A bit too much happy talk, at worst. Didn't find any negative articles. John Nagle (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The reporter also works for the NPO, if the logo upload is any indication. So we need to address what's going on here overall, because it sure looks like one editor with a COI is reverting another editor with a COI., could you clarify exactly what is going on here? MSJapan (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As can be seen in the warnings I gave on User_talk:Sharestrength's talk page, I have been a supporter of Share Our Strength in the past. I worked for their organization seven years ago, and have their page on my watchlist. This is how I noticed that an employee was editing the content there. In early 2009 I was a new editor and made edits to the Share Our Strength page inappropriately. I then learned about the COI policy and never edited the page again -- at least until a few days ago when I reverted edits by User:Sharestrength. I have not had any contact with anyone at that organization for seven years, and don't feel that I have a COI any longer, but I've nevertheless made it a point to not edit the org page in the last seven years -- except to revert this user's edits in the past week. &mdash; Eric Herboso 03:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Then you might wish to remove your email from the license for the logo; that looked like a giant red flag to me, and very likely it is no longer a valid contact point. MSJapan (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I modified the contact info. Thanks for bringing to my attention. &mdash; Eric Herboso 04:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I added as well. Seems to be another employee or the same one who has come back. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Fred Lynn


User has self-identified in his edits ( & ) as being the representative of Fred Lynn and is actively changing his page. When I reverted his changes, he left multiple messages on my talk page ( & ). Even stating that if needed he would sign up for multiple accounts to make sure his edits stuck. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Clear conflict of interest. I've sent the user a message asking him to clarify who created the image he's added to the article and who pays him, per the paid-editor disclosure requirements. —C.Fred (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This actually should be part of a much broader report  Varun FEB2003   I am Offline 14:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Amazingandlively

 * - New, unreviewed article
 * - PRODded; new, unreviewed article
 * - at AfD

A number of articles with suspected undisclosed paid editing by creator. Creator said he has done "a few" articles for hire but (so far) has declined to specify which and he/she does not appear to be in compliance with ToS disclosure at all. Brianhe (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the author's articles aren't in compliance with policy, either. The AfDs should elicit a response, but if they do not respond here within the next few days, we've got more than sufficient grounds to indef-block for non-disclosure. MSJapan (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit suspicious at the activity in these 2 AfDs Articles for deletion/Amagi Media Labs and Articles for deletion/Your Kids 'R' Our Kids (YKROK). For the time being I will AGF and let it go. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Siddrth.reddy


SPA on the above articles, was blocked for socking in 2014 regarding the Deccan article, and has suddenly shown up (after two years with no editing) to SPA on a company in New Jersey that was already CSDed once. Editor is clearly from India, where we have been having extensive paid article and sock issues. MSJapan (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Uploaded File:Advanced Process Technology Logo.jpg as their "own work". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * APT is a copyvio and I listed it for speedy accordingly. Deccan... is borderline notable. I did some cleanup.  DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I dug down on it, and the refs given are namedrop refs only. One of the books given wasn't published by them, and for some reason all four books were pasted in twice into the citations, though they weren't used. I also cleaned up the prose, and I'm still left with a sense of NN.  They were part of a team on the dig, and the other article is more about the director, who is described as an "independent researcher".  I'll look for more sources next, but as it stands, it's pretty poor. MSJapan (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Isobar (company)


A Google search shows that a person named "Andrew Luckie" works for Isobar. User:AndrewLuckie is an WP:SPA keen to add empty marketing speak to the Isobar article, such as how the company "drives digital transformation" and can "transform businesses and brands by creatively solving clients’ business challenges in the digital age". They've ignored two talk page warnings to follow WP:COI and are continuing to edit the article directly. McGeddon (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we will see if the AfD perks them up a bit. MSJapan (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like he has a buddy. I'll post a COIN notice after I finish the SPI. MSJapan (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * claims to be a bona fide editor, see his talk p.  PamD and I have given him advice on the polite assumption that he is. If anyone feels the need to check, see my talk p. about the possibility of a SPI.  DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Donald1659 has apparently left Isobar alone and has created a new article, Diane Patterson. I'm having trouble believing that this is not paid work at this point, because these are basically random topics.  The SPI showed nothing. MSJapan (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Diane Patterson is on the WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Polar_women list -- we've been getting quite a few of these "Polar women" articles at AfC. I haven't heard that there are COI/Paid editing issues with them. If this is a person doing student assignments, the Women in Red links are a good source of new articles to work on. LaMona (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a good solution would be to simply ask Donald1659 about the university name and module name. If this is an education assignment, it helps to be transparent. That would help a lot. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The flip side is that that's identifying information, which is why we've asked to have the professor handle it directly. That hasn't happened, but that's still the request.  However, the longer this goes unresolved, the less inclined I am to AGF.  I'm more concerned about how a new user is finding all this stuff that I had no idea existed when I was new, or even now, in some cases. MSJapan (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I may have to follow this up later elsewhere, so I'd appreciate it if someone would ask for CU.     DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done. The link is here. MSJapan (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Rich Riley


This article had a number of COI/SPA editors majorly contribute to it by the time I first discovered it. My main actions were to remove the overly promotional stance and neutralise it a little. I also added BLP sources tag, CN tags and COI. Following that, an interested and determined new editor Rampage45 showed up to the party. They haven't been particularly interested in any other part of the wiki project, but have taken genuine interest in this article. (62 edits, all on this article or its talk page, their talk page, and 3 on educational institutions linked to subject making edits regarding the subject) Since I first started editing/watching this article, I have added COI tags 5 times and each time they've been removed by this person. I have posted on article talk page and user's talk page to check COI policy, to not remove tags without justification. Reviewing my comments, I may have not specifically stated that removal should be a consensus including arm's length editors, but I think this was implied. Anyway, this issue is going round in ever decreasing circles. I do not believe this user should be editing this article at all because to me there is a clear COI issue, and I don't think they're going to be very co-operative with anything they disagree with (such as COI tags) Rayman60 (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks like an agency to me. It wasn't suspicious that  "We" did this and "We" got permission from Bloomberg?  Not to sound too facetious, but "one does not simply ask Bloomberg for permission" (especially when I have no idea what they would have needed it for).  They've been notified again of what to do, and I have also trimmed the article and requested that ti not be edited by the user further until the issues have been addressed. MSJapan (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a BLP1E anyway. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry Lemongirl942, appears you are a vandal for your edit. I reverted, but perhaps someone can explain why on user's talk page - as everything I'd think of saying seems to have been said recently. Rayman60 (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Julius Dein


So not sure how to go about this, but I figured if this is not the place someone can tell me. I was hired by Julius Dein to address some problems in the article on him - it made false claims and had an overly negative representation of what were people's opinions. I stepped in, brought the article in line with guidelines but made sure I did not just clean out anything negative if it was supported by reliable sources. And yes I declared my paid status etc. Well he kept insisting I take out the last bit of negative information, I explained it to him 2-3 times but kept insisting as it was "hurting his reputation". At that point I gave him a refund on the gig and decided to separate myself from this as he was asking for something that was not NPOV in my mind. Considering how insistent he was over this having to go I would not be surprised if he hired someone else to remove the negative comments under the "Reception" section. So I guess this is a potential Conflict of Interest - especially if he hires someone who does not declare it. Not sure what to do, is there perhaps someone who could watch the page or something?  MPJ  -DK 02:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Watched. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This situation is not uncommon. At least one of our long-term declared paid editors privately told me they are thinking of leaving the business because there are too few requests for which he can offer an honest service that will at the same time satisfy the client.  DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed a bit of promotional language. Watching. John Nagle (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

StreetRunner


This editor has been very active on this article. SPA. I wasn't a fan of its content so I edited it to make it more suitable. My efforts are constantly resisted. The name indicates a link to subject and when I highlighted this, this statement was posted on an edit summary I'm Management for STREETRUNNER and I personally update STREETRUNNER's wikipedia page. I have reached out on their talk page with links to the COI policy. I then went to great lengths to advise how to proceed, including requesting not to revery my edits as per 3RR. Within a matter of minutes (100 to be precise), this was ignored and overruled with no valid explanation. Rayman60 (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is clearly problematic editing (COI, OWN, 3R). However, the COI notice and this discussion were both initiated on the same day. I usually like to give COI information to someone and then wait a few days to see if they react. Often, people aren't aware of COI policies, and this seems to be one of those cases since the person is up front about their relationship. Meanwhile, most of this article is an un-referenced CV (well, referenced to Discogs article, which was probably created by the same management). Once COI is worked out, the article should be looked at for simple notability. It may fail that measure. LaMona (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest is the next stage? A nudge back towards the original notice? I feel the COI notice has been intentionally overlooked & ignored. Taking no action would possibly imply their actions are acceptable, however I do believe giving them another opportunity to abide by it is fair. I must disagree on considering this 'upfront' about their relationship - they've been SPAing this article for 5 years and have revealed this info only upon a challenge, seemingly believing that this gives them ultimate authority to control the article (as per your WP:OWN observation) rather than realising the consequences of admitting a COI relationship. Would a talk page message from a third party be preferable to me posting COI guidance again? Rayman60 (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I can tell you that the producer doesn't win a single one of those awards that the article claims he's won. They go to the recording artist only.  Therefore, there's nothing there that makes him notable.  He co-produced all of one track on each of those albums.  AfDed regardless of what goes on here.  In other news, this has been going on for five years off and on, so I think perhaps we need to be aware of that. MSJapan (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that this is true. I posted on the AfD page a statement by StreetRunner that he receives a certificate for Grammy wins naming him as a winning member of the extended "crew" on a recording. So it does appear that the Grammy organization considers producers, etc. as among the winners. However, those "minor winners" do not appear on the Grammy site. (I searched also under his real name, "Nicholas Warwar" and got zero hits.) I'm still unclear on who can claim to have won an award. LaMona (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Motion for block of Srthetruth: as the editor appears to be here only to promote StreetRunner. Toddst1 (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Streetrunner (note the rename) is currently up for deletion. I have also advised Srthetruth on WP:PAID editing disclosure. Let's give him one more opportunity to redeem himself without the looming threat of a block. If the article is deleted and he recreates it, or if he continues to introduce problematic edits without discussion on the talk page first, then I'd support a block. --Drm310 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I placed paid on User:Srthetruth's userpage and informed him of it. He indicated his acceptance  of this action. --Drm310 (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The article subject doesn't come up in the Grammy database. Voted Delete at the AfD. John Nagle (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding evidence posed here
What can we share and how? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Cleaning up after User:Zpeopleheart


The above are a few of the recent draft articles that were accepted by Zpeopleheart, and generally I find them to be lacking. I have done some editing on the Ashante P.T. Stokes article, but the actions of the editor, User:Hamilton ford (see User talk:Hamilton ford) could be interpreted as indicating COI, and a COI notice was given but never answered. I suspect that Zpeopleheart has left behind a long tail of articles needing attention. I hope it isn't a breach of etiquette for me to bring them here - I didn't know of a better forum. LaMona (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Follow-up on Ashante P.T. Stokes - User:Hamilton ford has declared COI and PAID as they work for what appears to be the agency for Stokes. I believe the user has ceased direct editing of the article. They have another article in draft (Draft:Salvation RMX (PT the Gospel Spitter music mini-film and song)) which doesn't look like it will meet notability criteria. LaMona (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the others, but Surbana International Consultants Pte Ltd was summarily and very inappropriately taken to AfD, where I have !voted an obvious "keep". I hope people will slow down and not simply rush to nominate the other articles for deletion without performing due diligence. Voceditenore (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Replied here for the above. This particular article is an interesting WP:BOGOF situation and I'm wondering if we can find a sustainable way of handling without losing information while also not diverting volunteer effort. Pinging and  to have a look. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If I've understood correctly (and I haven't looked at the articles), if this is an undisclosed paid editor, both views - preserving notable topics or just CSD/PROD/AfDing them all is acceptable in my book as the burden should be on the creator and we shouldn't incentivise with a BOGOF offer for the customer(s). Pushing them all back to AfC may be a good compromise which may encourage disclosure so everyone is happy? Widefox ; talk 10:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Christopher Holcroft


The vast majority of this user's surviving edits are to Christopher Holcroft, which was recently been deleted via Articles for deletion/Christopher Holcroft as non-notable, but has been userfied at User:7Lawrence/Christopher Holcroft. The only purpose of this page appears to be promotional. The user has also previous created articles and drafts about Holcroft's individual self-published books (see their talk page). The user signs their edits "Christopher". Previous requests to declare their COI have been ignored. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Given the sheer amount of deletion notices and warnings (as well as the blatant ignoring of such for approximately five years), I see no need to play with kid gloves here.  The user has been very bluntly requested to knock it off.  If he doesn't, I see no reason why WP:NOTHERE would not apply. MSJapan (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The user came to the Teahouse a while back, where he was warned of the article's notability there as well. The question was something about Google and book covers, I think, and it is in the archive I've linked above.  Feel free, of course, to search for other questions they've asked in the Teahouse archives.  The search box for the archives is at WP:THQ.  I've been following the user's talk page since I helped with that question. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've opened an AfD for the M. H. Holcroft article, as the article doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. I thought I should let you know since this discussion involves that article. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm of the view that M. H. Holcroft might be notable, but Christopher Holcroft isn't, and no amount of editing is going to make him so. Should User:7Lawrence/Christopher Holcroft be taken to Miscellany for deletion? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * IIRC, you can't do that immediately after userfication. Otherwise, why userfy it?   If it isn't worked on, however, we do not keep that stuff indefinitely. MSJapan (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. I disagreed with the userfication, but we are where we are. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael J Palumbo


Following some early spam edits promoting his own book, editor has been a WP:SPA on this article he created, on which they have a COI (let me know who I should email evidence to.) Editor has been been using promotional info referenced to subject's and subject's companies' websites, and has been inserting into the intro and elsewhere subject's recent, unnotable self-published book with an Amazon sales link as reference. Following being COI templated on his talk page, user continued to reinsert the book into the page, and to reinsert boastful claims sourced to subject's companies. Editor has never involved himself on the article Talk page, despite my having started multiple (intended) conversations over several years. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, they have now posted quite a lot of text (some of it in CAPS) on the talk page. Pretty sure there is a COI, but oh well "thou must not violate WP:OUTING" holds. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As for sending private information, this might be relevant. Only oversighters, checkusers and Arbcom members are the ones we can send to. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have posted this at ANI Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

John Duignan


My impression is that Michael has been taking great care to follow the rules, but given the appearance of identical last names, the COI question needs to be addressed.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  08:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Have I jumped the gun? I should wait for the editor to respond to the warning on their talk page before bringing the issue here. Sorry.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  08:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)