Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 121

Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas


The purpose of these account appears to be to "puff up" the notability of Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas.

User:Austin-geo has made 228 total edits, nearly all to Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas. User:2605:6000:E94A:AA00:6554:1E46:79C4:3305 has made 21 edits, all to Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas.

With reference specifically to User:Austin-geo, their edits rely heavily on real estate sites as sources, and text added is often trivial in detail (eg. the price of toll roads), or promotional in tone (eg. the price of homes and number of neighborhood amenities). An attempt has also been made to show the boundaries of Northwest Hills as being much larger than they are.

Northwest Hills has no GNIS entry, and appears to be a small, affluent housing complex in northwest Austin, Texas. Google Maps specifically outlines the boundaries of Northwest Hills.

Attempts to trim excessive content, or remove content with only a slight connection to Northwest Hills, have been met with reverts, and hostile talk page comments and edit summaries.

Examples:
 * Here, User:John from Idegon told Austin-geo to "limit demographic data to the census bureau". Here, User:Magnolia677 told Austin-geo "The US Census should be the primary source of demographic data, per WP:USCITIES; this has been agreed to by consensus; stop edit warring".  This edit was reverted here with the edit summary "This WikiProject advice page is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community ... editors are advised to come to a consensus that works best for the city in question."
 * Several edits were made to restructure the layout of the article, and remove trivial information about highway tolls, bus routes, and directory-style listings (by User:Mduvekot). These were all reverted by Austin-geo with one sweeping edit here (though Austin-geo did later remove the directory-style listing).
 * At Talk:Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas, Magnolia677 proposed that information about bus routes be trimmed. This was in response to Austin-geo reverting this edit, which trimmed excessive and trivial detail about bus routes.  Austin-geo argued that their edits were within policy, and twice accused Magnolia677 of being WP:RECKLESS.
 * At Talk:Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas, User:Mduvekot commented that many of Austin-geo's edits were sourced by real estate websites, and proposed that these edits "should either be rewritten and properly sourced or removed". Austin-geo responded "Please explain why. Don't just tell, show. And please don't cite a Wikipedia essay...".  As well, Austin-geo responded here, stating that the removal of their edits was due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
 * At Talk:Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas, User:Mduvekot suggested removing--as the official website--a neighborhood association. Austin-geo opposed this, and suggested the neighborhood association website instead be added to the infobox.
 * Most troubling, this user appears to have cherry picked an unreliable source which identified the boundaries of this small neighborhood as being much larger than they are. Here the IP editor selected this real estate site to define the boundaries of Northwest Hills.  Austin-geo confirmed here that they used this real estate website to locate the boundaries of Northwest Hills.  Following that, Austin-geo began puffing up the article by adding a plethora of locations (schools, buildings, parks and so forth) located within those large and unreliably boundaries.  A more accurate definition of Northwest Hills' boundaries is found using Google Maps, which shows the boundaries to be much smaller.  As a result, many of the sites located outside the boundaries were deleted.  This led Austin-geo to protest here, beginning "What the fuck just happened. Nice job deleting portions of the article without exercising some WP:COMMONSENSE".  This is troubling, because Austin-geo in fact used Google Maps here, and was therefore well aware of Northwest Hills' much small boundaries.

Austin-geo stated here that they do not have a conflict of interest, writing "You could have just asked (and not posted that warning on my talkpage), or read the DYK nomination. You did not assume good faith. If I were affiliated to a real estate agent, I would have probably just used one agency, don't you think? If I were involved with the NWACA, I would have favored their opinions in the Austin Oaks PUD debate."

This account has the hallmarks of a single-purpose account attempting to puff up the notability of an affluent neighborhood by making it read like a real estate listing, and make it eligible for this DYK nomination. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Bullet 1 – John reverted my updates because I used a City-Data source to make claims about population. I'm perfectly fine with his revert, as I do agree government sources are probably better for population counts. You were WP:RECKLESS and I reverted your updates in the Demographics section, because you did not look for consensus in the article's talkpage. WP:USCITIES is not a Wikipedia policy and says consensus should be gathered on a case by case too.


 * Bullet 2 – Restructure or delete? I only saw you delete chunks of the article without consensus or assuming good faith.


 * Bullet 3 – You've yet to show me how edits were violating Wikipedia policy per WP:NOTTRAVEL. You can try again.


 * Bullet 4 – Yup, explain what needs to be written and why. Per WP:RS, questionable sources (i.e. promotional ones) can be used with caution as long as the information cited is not contentious. It also reads: "Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available." Which means that the real estate sources, though not the "best" when compared to other reliable sources, are allowed if I'm careful. Per WP:PROMOTIONAL, "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." I've asked you to be specific to the instances where you think I was promotional. You've yet to meet the burden of proof.


 * Bullet 5 – That's not what I was trying to say. I was responding directly to the "propose that the nwaca is not the subject of the article ...", because in no way was the NWACA intended to be the subject of the article. I made the mistake of adding the URL in the infobox, and you guys are now accusing me of promoting on behalf of a business. I told him/her to remove the URL if they thought it was the best move.


 * Bullet 6 – I just found this new source from Austin Monthly that gives the same boundaries as the other source. Is this source better/enough?


 * If you are kind enough, please show me a list of GAs and FAs about city neighborhoods, that way I can get a better understanding of what you mean by "reads like a real estate listing". Again, you gotta show me what you like and don't like, not just tell me. I created this account because I'm interested in Northwest Hills, and I want to work on more Austin-related articles. My next article was probably going to be Pennybacker Bridge, since I really want to visit the site. But I wasn't even given the chance to do so because I was still working on NW Hills prior to its appearance on the main page. So unless you can prove I'm a single-purpose account that is only trying to puff NW Hills, then you have nothing on me. Like I mentioned in the article's talkpage, I'm open to have Wikipedia reach out to me directly and find out who I am. But I'm not disclosing it here. I'm in no way a single-purpose account. I want to write about Austin; I started with Northwest Hills because that's what I wanted/was most familiar with. Austin-geo (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Austin-geo has made 228 total edits, nearly all to Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas. User:2605:6000:E94A:AA00:6554:1E46:79C4:3305 has made 21 edits, all to Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas. - The IP address was me. Not sure if I had to disclose it, but I am now. I figured it was easier to write the article by creating an account (i.e. Watchlist, not having to put that passcode for every edit, better treatment (allegedly), access to email, etc.) Austin-geo (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * can be blocked for disruptive editing right now. He is a new SPA, spouting Wikipedia rules in a very aggressive way.  Includes promotional sources into an article about a subject he is clearly promoting.  He has all the hallmarks of an undisclosed paid editor.  Somebody might want to check whether he is related to the Austin upe firm that has been banned.  On top of it all he just sent me this inexplicable notice   Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You came off aggressively by accusing me of being a paid editor, and now you're threatening me with a block. You could have checked the article's talkpage and how I'm willing to disclose my profession to Wikipedia (not to you directly), and that I'm no paid editor. And yes, reach out to CheckUser if you want about that Austin firm. I'm not associated with them. The message I left on your talkpage was because you didn't assume good faith with me. Hopefully we can be civil now. Austin-geo (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like others have noticed a possible paid editing bias in the way you are editing and you are not listening to the very good advice you've been given, e.g. don't use real estate adverts as if they are reliable sources.
 * As far as you placing a notice on my talk page welcoming me as a new editor and saying that I need to assume good faith: I've been editing on Wikipedia for 11 years. In that time I've seen many paid editors and you match the general pattern - biased edits, unreliable sources, new SPA attacking editors who question their edits, spouting Wikipedia rules almost at random, general disruptive editing. I've got a notice on the top of my talk page saying that paid editors should not edit on my talk page.  I'm just tired of all attacks and all the BS they spout.  You are not welcome to edit on my talk page.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your years of experience are a red herring. I've asked those editors to show me exactly where in WP:RS does it say I cannot use real estate sources, but none of them have been able to. They just say "it's not reliable, read WP:RS", but don't say which clause in specific. The page reads, "Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available." The page then reads, "Questionable sources (i.e. promotional) are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims", which I don't believe I ever did. WP:PROMOTIONAL reads, "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view". Please show me where I was violating these rules in the article's talkpage, but be specific. And as far as the "paid editing" goes, I have nothing to say but deny those claims. There's not much I can do now because you already made up your mind. I'm citing the policies because I believe I did everything right. Just as you, I want the best for this project and I'm excited of the possibility of being involved in more articles, though I'm worried about the hostile environment to "non-seasoned" editors. Address my points about the policies so we can move forward with this. Austin-geo (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's all please try to make sure this doesn't end in tears. I became interested in the article because it showed an unusual (compared to good or featured articles about neighbourhoods) bias toward a certain type of source (real estatate agents) that made it a good dataset to test a piece of software I'm writing for my own use to aid in new page patrol. I have no personal or commercial interest in the subject. I have very little no sympathy for undisclosed paid editors. But this topic is notable, and the article can be written neutrally, based on reliable, independent sources. Let's fix the article in the collegial spirit that the fourth pillar calls for. Austin-geo, you need to stop wikilawyering; you've only been here 9 days and have a lot to learn. Ask for clarification if something doesn't make sense, do not make accusations, and do not template the regulars. Everybody else, give a new editor a break, please. Here is the list of good or featured articles that I referred to earlier and that Austin-geo asked about: Point Loma, San Diego, Old Louisville, Washington Park, Chicago (community area), East End of London, Gulfton, Houston, University of Dayton Ghetto, Near South Side, Chicago, Magnificent Mile, San Marco (Jacksonville), Streeterville, Washington Park Court District, Washington Park Subdivision, Downtown Triangle (Jerusalem), River Oaks, Houston, Riverside and Avondale, Lakeshore East. I'm off to facilitate an edit-a-thon, so please don't send me any embarrassing notifications while I'm presenting in front of an audience. Have fun, Mduvekot (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this. I'll take a look at the articles once I come back from a walk outside. In all kindness, if you help me address the points above regarding the real estate sources, I'll gladly appreciate it. Austin-geo (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Austin-geo seems to have misinterpreted the intent of Identifying reliable sources, or simply cherry picked the part they feel supports their edits. The website of a real estate office is an "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services".  It is not like iTunes, where editors sometime source track listings.  A real estate website is a primary source with no reliability for fact checking.  It exists to puff up its listings with over-the-top euphemisms and biased descriptions. This has been addressed briefly at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 19.  What's troubling is that Austin-geo actually had the poor judgement to add these biased websites to a Wikipedia article.  This real estate website wrote: "Its copious floor-to-ceiling windows offer sweeping Hill Country country views that include the Pennybacker Bridge, and glass doors and cantilevered outdoor living areas create a seamless transition between inside and out."  From that, Austin-geo wrote here: "Some of the houses on the top of the mountain have views towards Texas Hill Country that include Pennybacker Bridge."  Did Austin-geo tone it down?  Sure.  Should they have used this (forgive me, I never swear) "bull**** source" in the first place?  That's not for me to decide, but by the number of times Austin-geo has insulted others, telling them to use "common sense", Austin-geo seems to have failed the common sense test as well.  I would otherwise say, "meh, just a new editor trying to do their best", but Austin-geo isn't.  This editor knows Wikipedia policy in depth, is skilled at editing, and plays rope-a-dope with great skill while they insult others.  I completely agree with the well-respected User:Smallbones: Austin-geo has "all the hallmarks of an undisclosed paid editor".  Magnolia677 (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh… yes, they do share some of the behaviors of paid editors and sockpuppets. In my experience, most paid editors have better manners, because they have very little incentive to antagonize other editors until they get caught. Mduvekot (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining this to me. Now that we have decided that real estate sources are "primary" in nature, I'll take that as a guideline moving forward. I kept asking from the start to explain what clause within WP:RS I was violating, but it took us about a day to come to that conclusion. I didn't appreciate the mass deletions without at least a message in the article's talkpage before. You saw I was editing the article recently. It could have taken you a few seconds to ping me in the talkpage and let me know that real estate sources were problematic for a number of reasons. Instead, you deleted my work and expected me to do all the homework. If you all want to block me for suspected paid editing, go for it. I'm open to have Wikipedia administrators or CheckUsers reach out to me so I can provide them with documentation on my profession and show them I'm not involved in paid editing. If I get blocked, I'll be back as soon as it is over (if it ever is) to get involved with Austin articles. I have access to the University of Texas at Austin library and can use a lot of sources there to improve Austin-related articles (as I did with some of the books in the Bibliography section). The FA and GAs linked above are a good guideline for me to use too, so thanks for posting. Moving forward, I will no longer use real estate sources. I also expect for editors to reach out in the article's talkpage before doing massive changes/deletions to an article, especially if the editor in question was active recently. I hope we can all exercise good faith moving forward (and simply just being civil/respect about other peoples' contributions). Best regards, Austin-geo (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment--I have drastically edited the article and has removed a chunk of data along with numerous un-reliable/non-needed sources.Austingeo, please remember that we are not a travel guide and as mentioned above, real-estate sources are definitely not reliable. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 17:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Jared Paul


This is an SPA undisclosed paid editor working in a PR firm. They have ignored the warning I added on their talk page and are continuing to edit promotionally, with a determination to see their draft accepted into main space. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I took a shot at fixing the article. I found a couple of decent refs but ultimately he is not really notable. As such that article will never be accepted, so does the SPA matter?96.127.242.251 (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Reference spamming
It looks like someone is spamming links to an article they published, "Survey data on Vietnamese propensity to attend periodic general health examinations". These two IPs are doing nothing but force-fitting this one reference into every article they can:


 * That's so random it's bonkers! I'm not an admin but I can roll back edits. I'll roll back any that are not in a section about health or medicine in Asia. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's probably at a scale where it would be accepted at ANI or AIV ☆ Bri (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed all but one of their additions of the refspam and given both IPs an Only Warning so they can be given the bum's rush next time they pop up. I also did a quick search to see if those article names turned up elsewhere and I don't think that they do. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Singer 2018

 * Template:Hunan Television I Am a Singer Contestants
 * Template:Hunan Television I Am a Singer Contestants
 * Template:Hunan Television I Am a Singer Contestants
 * Template:Hunan Television I Am a Singer Contestants
 * Template:Hunan Television I Am a Singer Contestants
 * Template:Hunan Television I Am a Singer Contestants
 * Template:Hunan Television I Am a Singer Contestants

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. The Banner talk 16:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

For quite some time user 特克斯特 is editing the "I am a singer" series of articles (and related articles). These articles are often poorly sourced or sourced with related sources. I am not entirely sure if this is a case of Conflict of Interest or that 特克斯特 just has no clue what he is doing here.
 * No conflict of interest on me.特克斯特 (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Especially this edit where he claims to know the results of the competition without it being broadcast or sourced, gives me the idea that he is operating on inside information.
 * The results are from Weibo. You can use Weibo to see it.特克斯特 (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I have multiple times requested him to explain if, and if so, how he is related to the show. No answer at all. An earlier block and discussion (I had asked administrator Drmies for advice), did not help at all.

I do not know how to proceed from here. The Banner talk 16:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is just amazing, the amount of color-coded trivia produced for these articles. COI or NOCLUE--I do not think this editor is a positive. So there is this kind of stuff, and reinstatement of the MOS:FLAG-violating flag porn (not to mention the kindergarten colors of the articles, which may well fall foul of WP:COLOR. So we have a lack of competency in English, continued edit warring (now over the course of two months), unsourced edits, MOS violations, flag porn, excessive table porn, WP:V violations... Drmies (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean this kind of nonsense. The editor is in complete denial. Sorry Banner, I'm really writing this up like it's ANI, where maybe this would fit just as well or better. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for making me realize that maize is no longer a Crayola color ☆ Bri (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Questioning a COI looked the more friendly option compared with AN/I. The Banner talk 20:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "Competence"-- look at this edit, and then look at the first sentence of the article. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Can I upgrade this case to AN/I as User:特克斯特 continues with his edits. The Banner talk 08:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What is AN/I? And you seems don’t know what is happening with this program.特克斯特 (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I continue edit have the reason and you haven’t tell your reason to me clearly, so I revert your edit.特克斯特 (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The sheer fact that your English is too bad to understand the discussion here op Wikipedia and this page in particular, makes a move to AN/I necessary. Sorry. The Banner talk 10:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Fanklandore socks



 * G5 speedy requested & at AfD
 * G5 speedy
 * G5 speedy

There's no SPI for this but the last two users are already blocked and the first is an obvious DUCK. SmartSE (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Amazingly fast learner. Started editing at 18:52 and by 19:00 had created this. Of course I am being facetious; plainly Falklandore is not a new editor. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Josebrayo (talk) has probably been paid by Leesa Sleep, as he edited Leesa to include the name of Leesa Sleep, which has a history of employing paid editors.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Westbrook University is not recognized but is issuing certificate s and doctorates to everybody who pays money


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 49.207.232.141 (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. They appear to have been using Wikipedia to advertise. Have clarified the article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Truedson Demitz‎
Articles:
 * - now at AFD here
 * - Note that Demitz is linked here and in many of the articles below, via redirect @ Lars Jacob (his stage name).

Involved Users (Active): Involved Users (Inactive):

This user has been editing a large number of articles that are linked to the above person. I have asked a number of times to make a disclosure of his COI which he refuses to do. On commons he refers to this individual's interests and company by saying "we" He has added dozens of references to this person and his family and interests over 9 years by adding photos links and taking over the editing of another user that carries the name of a person closely linked to Demitz User:EmilEikS Emil Eikner. EmilEiks asked to be blocked and a few months later SergeWoodzing popped up to take over his editing. This editor has been blocked indefinitely on Swedish WP for COI editing on these subjects here. There has been speculation on the Swedish WP as to the real identity of this user but as per WP:OUTING I have not repeated these allegations I have however asked him several times to disclose his COI here and here and   here amongst other. He replied "pass" here with an edit summary of "go away please". So I think that I have no choice but to open a case here.

Here are a very small selection of his COI edits         where he has inserted or wedged photos that he has uploaded to commons with references to Demitz or another of his group and with a spammy text on the photo that says:

"Assistant for CabarEng. - This image comes from the Southerly Clubs of Stockholm, Sweden, a non-profit society which owns image publication rights to the archives of Lars Jacob Prod, Mimical Productions, F.U.S.I.A., Swenglistic Underground (formerly CabarEng), Ristesson Ent and FamSAC. Southerly Clubs donated this picture to the Public Domain. Deputy Chairman Emil Eikner for the Board of Directors, Hallowe'en 2008. This work is freeand may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page. Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2010092510008875. If you have questions about the archived correspondence, please use the OTRS noticeboard. Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2010092510008875"

The Swedish article for Demitz was deleted a number of times as not being notable. he has also been adding spam to German wikipedia and got into a heated discussion here because he wanted to add of photo of Demitz to illustrate the article on the town called Demitz and was told by different users including an administrator that just because he has the same name as a town that doesn't make the photo relevant especially as Demitz does not have a page on German WP.

I have opened a ticket on the commons adminstrator's notticeboard to try and understand how commons can be used to host so much promotional material but I'm not getting much of a reply. commons AN Domdeparis (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I have mostly just looked at the Demitz article, which is now at AFD, but this looks like a clear-cut case of COI editing to me. The ridiculous level of puffery, use of snapshots of the subject in various locations & over many years as "sources", and SergeWoodzing's rather prickly response to criticism and questions on the talk page are all a dead giveaway. I'm skeptical that any of these people/subjects is notable about the notability of some of these people/subjects, this looks like a WP:WALLEDGARDEN that has escaped notice for years. Sources need to be scrutinized carefully, they are very good at making things look well referenced when they're not (see my !vote at the Demitz AFD for some examples). Fyddlestix (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, this is ancient history now but worth noting that EmilEiks was accused of using socks in 2009. There are also a ton of old drama-board posts that may shed some light on this: Seems like this person has caused quite a lot of disruption over the years. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment There are instances of the person Jacob Truedson Demitz trying to influence Wikipedia content through SergeWoodzing. After SergeWoodzing's edits on the subjects of Count of Wisborg and Prince Bernadotte were disputed for being WP:OR, there appeared a self-published paper, written by Jacob Truedson Demitz, which supported SergeWoodzing's edits and even went so far as quoting (!) the user's own comments on the Swedish article's talk page (  and so forth). Only after WP:RSN got involved, SergeWoodzing refrained from using the paper as a source. This was an important part of the user's ban from swWP. /Elzo 90 (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Here a definite accusation is made that there are "instances" of one person "trying to influence Wikipedia" through another person (me) because I (incorrectly) thought I could quote that person's work. There is no evidence whatsoever, anywhere, that any such attempts to influence Wikipedia ever have taken place. On the contrary, I have removed fluff and other unnecessary items from all these articles on many occasions.
 * Here my conceding defeat (an usual thing on WP and unheard of at svWP) looks like the reason being given as "an important part of the user's ban from swWP" - I rarely if ever use the word ridiculous, but that is. The two articles Count of Wisborg and Prince Bernadotte, however, are good examples which we've worked on, argued a bit about but finally greatly improved. I invite anyone to have a look at their talk pages and histories, and I challenge anyone to come up with any other result having been accomplished than that. They are good examples of lots of bluffing, errors and misconceptions being cleared up, not perpetuated. Hard feelings and grudges over these things (plus corrected Swenglish) seem to have have been perpetuated by some. That's sad. Because the results are quite good. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are not presenting all the facts, you conceded defeat on the 27th of September only after you had been warned here on the 25th of September for edit warring on this page in a boomerang ANI report that you yourself opened against 4 editors who were not in agreement with your self-published sources. Despite being warned by admin not to continue adding self-published sources and for overusing primary sources you continued to argue the point for 2 more days before "conceding defeat". A week of pointless arguments, a WP:BOOMERANG admin noticeboard and 2 editors including an admin that you sought help from telling you that you were wrong is what was needed for you to stop. This is the very definition of Disruptive editing. --Domdeparis (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The facts can be different depending on how we look at them. I argued that point until I was proven wrong according to the way it's done on Wikipedia, and then I admitted I'd been wrong and conceded defeat. It was important to me to learn from that error by following through as far as possible, without being sarcastic or untruthful or trying to trash anyone personally, and I did - follow through and learn. People were fair. If you want to call that disruptive you have the right to your opinion.
 * Perhaps claiming that 3000 images are all about cabarets (I replied below), when that is far from the obvious truth, is also disruptive. Perhaps claiming that a user's contributions year after year all have been about cabarets, when that too is far from true, is disruptive. Perhaps nominating 25 images for deletion at Commons without knowing much about Commons is disruptive. Perhaps this extensive complaint which you say you were "forced" to, and the threats to English Wikipedia you're warning everybody about and have implied in some of your comments here, is disruptive. Perhaps being overly deletionist, exclusionist, elitist, suspicious, accusatory, heroic is disruptive. Perhaps refusing to fairly evaluate obviously reliable sources is disruptive. Perhaps flushing a user of over 8 years down the toilet (your devastating comments below) rather than helping them correct whatever mistakes they've made, is disruptive. Perhaps flying in en masse from other language projects just to rehash 1-2-3-4-5-6-years' old arguments, from which we could have evolved, is disruptive. If none of the above, I don't know what's disruptive anymore, but I am always willing to learn, to correct my mistakes and to concede defeat when proven wrong. You? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: as an admin on svwp I was by a coincident dragen into this by Elzo last year, so you see my name in the links. I looked into the mentioned paper source and helped make it not be used. This and the Demitz problem and that it had been stated that SW had been editing from the same computer as Demitz made SW be blocked. We have seen the same problems on enwp, but because I am not editing as much as he does, and he has suport by other blocked editors from svwp it has been hard to make you notice it. He still has suport from exil Swedes, as you can see on the deletion discussion. .. which makes it hard for us to make you react without thinking we are the troublemakers. Hopefully you now can look into this matter and also the nobility matter in a neutral point of view and also see that my and other swedish users worries are not arguing but serious. I do not know the suporters, but it could be worth checken if they are relaterade to him too. (Sock puppets). Adville (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment (don't know how to divide this up in paragraphs) I have not refused to discuss this constructively, neither in the past nor now, neither at Commons nor on any other Wikimedia project. I have declined to continue to reply over and over to a non-administrator user who I feel since one disagreement has been intentionally hounding me lately, whose ever mushrooming investigation (at least in methoid) feels more like dogged persecutuion, like a self-appointed criminal detective stalking a huge crook, than like anything balanced and constructive. I've been here for many years and have learned a lot. The only time I remember having been seriously accused of COI before on English Wikipedia (and even then by Swedes whom I've had to comment on here) I was deemed OK. If I've unintentionally taken that as license and liberty to conrtibute things which the Community here cannot find constructive, I am truly sorry. The replacement of 2 images and some text by me yesterday was done in a spirit of cooperation. Always, I would much rather help in fixing whatever problems I may have caused than argue about them. In cases where I've opposed someone else's action I've always (always) given up, if proven wrong by guidelines or consensus, and tried to do so gracefully. There are no rules that we must always agree, but we must always try to be (1) fair and (2) civil. Two of my  images being removed by another user today cause me no heartache. On the contrary, all of us should appreciate help in cleaning some of our edits up. I have never contributed anything, though, without feeling it was relevant to an article, whether or not I know someone in an image or know someone who knows someone, and so on. Though I feel minimal confidence anymore, based on behavior I perceive, that my e-mailing scans of newspaper articles to this nominator will end up with their being treated faily and constructively, I will now do so anyway in good faith. There is evidence here and here, however, that as of today there is collaboration between my new antagonist (as I perceive it) here at EnWP (and Commons), and one of my most lengthily vehement opponents at svWP. Things like that scare me, and about as much as the many attempted outings at svWP last year (not much in the way of ethics rules over there) and the attempted outings & horrifying personal attacks by an IP made here yesterday but removed relatively fast. Anything that isn't done, right now, to try to distract me from my rather urgent research would be very much appreciated, me being an old man now, with worsening eyesight and a bit of brain damage. I spent considerable time researching at the National Library of Sweden again today to get better information and try to prop up the Jacob Truedson Demitz article by clarifying and translating reliable sources under it for evaluation in that deletion process. I've read WP:COI several times carefully, earlier and recently, and have always tried to edit in a way where my good faith would be evident even though I know some of these people and they know and have worked with a lot of famous people: many Swedes, a Frenchman and a Dane and a Norwegian and a German or two, a few Englishmen, and a number of Americans. I am always interested in constructive criticism and have made hundreds of edits to correct mine and those of others, whether or not there have been COI concerns raised or other problems. I've done lots of reference research, once I finally got the hang of formatting citations well enough (I thought). It has been my honest (honest) belief that it is allowed to add information about people one knows, as long as it is well sourced and relevant and benefits the project. That's why I've added it, and for no other reason ever. I've also specialized a bit in fixing a lot of confusing Swenglish in English articles (which has rubbed a few Swedes the wrong way, as complained about severely at their own project), and in reverting obvious mischief. My watchlist here is huge, and at Commons considerable. I try to get through them daily. The example of Mattias Klum as part of this accusation is quite odd, since it is not mine and there I have repeatedly criticized the fact that it's been mostly edited under several user names which have included the Klum name, and at first was also almost exclusively self-referenced. The articles on Alexandra Charles and Yaiya were not created by anyone I know, and my contributions to them have not been major. I would now like to be given a few days of relative peace to go on putting together that reference improvement in time, before defending myself additionally here, as probably will be needed. If y'all want me to go away, I'll be sad to do so, because I've felt kid of at home here, but at least I'll have a lot of permanent contributions here to be proud if, most of whch have no connection whatsoever to anyone I know. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You guys are killing me with walls of text. Please keep replies to a minimum. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it is well known that I have used a computer registered to Demitz and at times also used by him. It's used by several people that know him through his organization the Southerly Clubs, but he does not control its use and it is not located at his address. As far as I know, there are computers registered to him at several locations. I have only used one of them.
 * The participation of antagonitic Swedish editors here (of whom some admittedly are politicians) I assume could be judged against the infrequency of their appearances at English Wikipedia and by what they do comment on and edit on the rare occasions when they're here. Those antagonistic users all (all) belong to a cabal which operates together to ensure their control of that project, and it is in their interest to try to demean people, here and there, who've objected. None of them are very interested in entertainment, especially not drag queens and such. I have no doubt they'd all like to see some of these articles deleted and would celebrate it if I got blocked here too.
 * I have no objection to these articles being checked for reliable sources and notability. On the contrary, I would love to help improve them, which is my normal attitude. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry Bri - I'm not enjoying this either. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've e-mailed the complaint filing user here that I can send scanned refs to h, as requested, but have had no reply.
 * Swedish Wikipedia is active now with what there is not called canvassing (with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way) and there are very few rules at all, the ones they have being used arbitrarily by the elite. Here is one example asking another user to comment again and "utveckla den lite" [expound a bit] on his delete, but that user "tvekar inför att ta mig an SW och hans marionettgäng" [is hesitant to deal with SW and his gang of sock puppets], which I have none so that accusation would be a personal attack here, but not there. Also here's another about their old complaint on our use of the same computer where they're now informing each other that I'm "uppe för diskussion" [up for discussion] at English Wikipedia.  --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * OMG! I have worked for gay rights all my life and I for one enjoy drag shows at Pride festivals and such. Stop this, SergeWoodzing. This has nothing to do with drags and gays. It is about your strong COI. Dnm (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing that I told the user to explain his vote for the enwp, but you forgot to write that I said "observe this is written after he voted so it is not a call for more voters" just to avoid your accusations like this. I am also happy you write his concerns about your way of discussion. The question dnm wrote was not to make others come here but about diffs so he could show (not neccesary after you said it is true.) I am not in a gang against you. I only see the same as others do. Adville (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * @ Serge, briefly as I can: I find your claim that The articles on Alexandra Charles and Yaiya were not created by anyone I know somewhat disingenuous given that the Charles article, at least, was created by, who was apparently the same person as , and the reason we're in this mess right now is because you were adding images of one Emil Eikner (often pictured with Demitz, or with Yaiya) into all kinds of different articles . While they edited at different times, these accounts also seem to have similar interests (even in Mae West, whom Demitz is apparently a big fan of). The inclusion of Klum here shouldn't be a mystery to you, given that you've yourself written that they have the same grandfather. You can't possibly expect us to believe that this is all a coincidence. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right about Charles and I apologize sincerely (Very tired now, should be in bed, and that's a valid excuse at my age and in this situation). Didn't check "older 500" and knew that her article at svWP was not by anyone I know. Apparently (before my time with all this) we provided the first photo for her Swedish article (that's what we began by doing quite a bit of in 2008 and why Demitz wanted to free up all his image archives), so that also confused me now.
 * There are at least 10-20 more people who have well sourced articles on several language projects and are related to people I know. If the history of one article such as Klum clearly shows that I have improved it very impartially, by removing fluff & unsourced things, plus reminded them about COI, it makes me feel bad to see it here. I think I added the and linked names of his parents after his father recently died and they (not I) had made an article about him at SvWP. That's about it. Providing info about the grandfather was in god faith. I honestly didn't think that was an unusual thing to do.
 * As to your constructive edit summary now, please see my comment above about reading and trying my best to abide by COI. It's easier to find that part of my comment now that I know how to make §s. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I've skimmed this discussion, Jacob Truedson Demitz, and the AfD. From what I see, the content concerns are valid and the WP:IDHT from SergeWoodzing regarding WP:V,WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT problems should be enough for a block or ban. --Ronz (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That is a severely fluffy article. I don't understand why someone would fill a wall of text and then say "oh yeah I share a computer with this guy"--I mean seriously, no one like that should be writing on that person. However, I can say, and this is of some relevance, that my CU tool reveals no evidence of foul play, and it seems to me that, given the admission of the computer and other aspects of this discussion, the use of CU was more than warranted here. Serge, please try using  to create paragraph breaks. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I've always wondered how to do that, but seldom feel I need to write that long a piece. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify I am not saying that over the 8 years you have been here you have not just been trying to promote this person and his interests. I am not saying that the article on klum should go. You have done some non COI work...but...over this period you have systematically pushed to improve the presence of Demitz his cabaret and friends all over wikiprojects. On commons you have uploaded nearly 3000 images I believe all with links to Demitz's cabaret. You very clearly very close to Demitz and his cabaret. You have access to photos from his childhood his computer you edit pages on him his mother grandfather and cousin. But you refuse to say exactly what your relationship is. I think that you are honest and do not wish to lie so are in an impossible position and cannot disclose correctly. If we wanted to clean up the COI work it would take years to do seeing the extent. None of what you have added is essential or unique. All the photos I have seen are additional photos that can be removed without damaging the articles. There are a large number of other editors that work on the non COI pages you have edited. As such I believe that your presence and edits are far from being necessary and mostly contrary to policy so I suggest an indefinite block and Nuking all your edits. I don't know if this is possible or not. Domdeparis (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As noted here (it's the 3rd or 4th time I'm providing you with that link) I have access to the well organized files of the Southerly Clubs (including subcategory Ristesson), as do a few more people, and they mainly contain images on entertainment, genealogical and historical topics, images created and organized by that organization. The nearly 3000 images on Commons to a very large extent are not with any links to cabarets, nor are a large number of those images that have been added from there, through the Southerly Clubs donations, to a few hundred Wikipedia articles. I repeat, I have acted in good faith as well ss I can to add only material that I honestly have thought was relevant, whether or not (often not) it pertains to people I know or people they know. I've made mistakes, some serious, and have been glad to have help in correcting them. I've done no major damage of any kind, as I think a fair evaluation of my work here over time will find. While you're asking me to trust you one moment, you're making very serious but erroneous accusations like this (incorrect assessment of 3000 readily available images), again and again, and then suggesting that I be cast into the gutter, and all my work even on articles of history and the like, even my many vandalism reversals, even my many corrections of unintelligible Swenglish, be destroyed. That's supposed to be constructive? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't worry too much about that there a few editors here on English Wikipedia capable of correcting grammar and spelling and cleaning up vandalism. Domdeparis (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * More than a year ago, I asked SergeWoodzing at SVWP to either present his relation to JTD or state explicitly that he would not do so (om du inte vill besvara frågan skulle jag uppskatta att du åtminstone säger i klartext att du inte tänker besvara den). He dodged the question for several days and neither answered it nor declared that we wouldn't. I believe the general conclusion was that it was impossible for hom to come up with no specific answer to my question that would neither show very many of his promotional edits in articles and aggressive posts in talk pages in a retroactive bad light nor be an outright lie. - Tournesol (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to add here in the end that SW says we from svwp is haunting him all the time. He wants us to leva him aloe and so on. If you look in the diffs in this discussion you'll see that last year SW got a warning after using a suspect source that med Elzo dnm and user:Le Lapin vert were erasing. We also have had the same concerns as the enwp editors coming neutral into the discussion or trying to find oit if he is coin as Tournesol here above.means we are not trying to mock with him but we have serious concerns about the neutrality with his editings. Adville (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Retiring from editing COI articles
I am on friendly terms with Jacob Truedson Demitz in real life. The friendly terms are personal, not financial, but constitute a conflict of interest in this regard. I decline to publish my private circumstances on Wikipedia, but will no longer edit any article about him directly. I might put suggestions for improvement, especially to sources, on the talk pages of articles where a conflict of interest on my part is involved. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this means the case can be closed now. Anybody have a problem with that? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure the issue can be closed yet. It is also somewhat strange that you ask if someone has a problem with closing 19:25, when you closed the discussion one hour later. How would had the time to answer the question? I think it is going to fast. Dnm (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You must be volunteering to take this thing over because I'm done with it, amd the spillover on my talkpage too. Have fun! ☆ Bri (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, user:Dnm. The concerns I have here are the same as user:Domdeparis: All the linking in a promotional way and his way of Always feeling hunter by user. First he calls for neutral opinion and when that user is against and starta to discuss his wrong edit he does like [User_talk:SergeWoodzing here]. This makes it very hard to start rinsing the promo and that is also why a lot of Swedish user were affraid of him. This is the big problem now.Adville (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * From what I can gather once he has admitted COI there is nothing more to do here if we want to stop him spamming them we have to open a discussion with the admins who are the only ones able to warn and apply sanctions. What we can do is start cleaning up after him and if he obstructs then get the admins involved. Maybe there are some reading this discussion who would be willing to advise us how to move forward. Domdeparis (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, SW has admitted COI but tanken to account the way SW writes, reacts and so on i think the rabbit hole goes deeper. I Think the realationship is much closer. But maybe admins are the way to move forward.
 * Sorry, but I must do nothing of the sort. Dnm (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to assume good faith (hard as that may be) and no WP:OUTING. Ithink "personal friendly terms" is all we will get and to be honest this is enough to insist that he add nothing more to WP that is linked to this person, be it text or photos. With this admission we can start cleaning up the mess and if he disrupts us he is in clear violation of his promise to stop COI editing. We will have to be vigilant as before this profile was created there was another that did the COI editing so it is possible that a puppet might appear (sock or meat). Domdeparis (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Once again unavoidably on the defensive, because the usual cabal of enWP-infrequent and biased Swedish editors are ganging up here again, disrespectful (as I see it) of the advice of neutral editors who do a lot of good work on enWP and know the ropes, my rather sad comments are these:

Before I left Swedish Wikipedia last year I made these comprehensive lists in good faith, to help them decide whether or not I actually had done any substantial harm there. Almost none (almost none) of all that on those lists has been reverted or addressed at all.

There you have the main reason I have not been able to find good faith in the attitude of these elite editors there, and why it has only been rational (to me) to assume the opposite: that their actions there, which spill over here from time to time as they habitually stalk me (as I perceive it), are based on personal animosities.

The sarcasm and skadeglädje (a form of gloating joy - word is common in Swedish but does not exist in English) that's going on now in discussions on the talk pages of some of these svWP users, because I'm in trouble here, is a good example of why several of us who've complained about problems at that project are gone.

I have commented recently, in several other discussions about me on enWP, on the infleunce, as i see it, of the Law of Jante on problems such as these, on the very unpleasant reactions I've had from some (only some) Swedes when I've cleaned up their unintelligible Swenglish here (which one usually must know both langiages well to be abe to do) and on the lack at svWP of most guidelines here which help us resolve conflicts and deter us from attacking each other. Seems strange to feel compelled to put those opinions of ours (i.e. several ex-users of svWP) on page after page of discussions. I wish I did not feel duly compelled. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to correct you Serge but you didn't "leave" Swedish WP you were indefinitely blocked for notably making COI edits concerning your personal friend (your definition not mine) Demitz. Domdeparis (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say I left, it says several of us are gone, and it explains why. Plesse don't change what people have actually stated just to suit your own agenda, over and over and over again. As long as you keep misquoting me and giving more or less obviously false accusations (like 3000 photos mainly about cabarets) you're forcing me to defend mycelf against them It's very tiring, and I'm sure not just for me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I would be very interested to know if documents were ever sent, and if Dom or Bishonen saw anything that might shake up the AFD underway on the Demitz article (as of now, it seems to be leaning delete). If Serge has agreed not to edit where he has a COI, and abides by that that is good enough for me, and I don't see the need to seek any further admin action - but there is still lots of cleanup to be done, and for that reason I do not think we should rush a close of this section. Personally I'm at least considering nominating some of the other articles linked above for deletion, especially AlexCab, Wild Side Story, and Birgit Ridderstedt. Would love it if others (especially the Swedish-speaking editors) could take a look and see if they agree that notability is suspect there. I have a feeling that Throne of a Thousand Years might just squeak through an AFD but other opinions are welcome there. If its kept, it may need a depuff. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Fyddlestix. Yes, I got them, and have commented fairly elaborately at Articles for deletion/Jacob Truedson Demitz, some hours after you posted this query here. Please check it out, I'd be very interested to see what you think of my commentary on the article sourcing. I pinged you in my AfD post, but I've had some pings not work the last few days; apparently there's something about recent ping concerns at the Village Pump. Anyway, I found most of the sources useless, but there were a few reasonable ones. I agree wholeheartedly that the Demitz article will need more depuffing if it's kept. I guess I can only hope this ping works... Bishonen &#124; talk 14:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC).
 * Thank you for asking! Yes they've been sent and I'm working on a suggestion (very short article) for that talk page based on input received in the e-mails. I sent the scans to several people who've contacted me about them. In the case of Domdeparis I asked - first - if he had Swedish friends in Paris who could help, and he replied that he did. This does not jive very well with that assurance, which I feel tricked me into sending them to him at all, and this reply from an obviously very biased user really isn't going to help us much, neither the people sympathetic to me and my past work, nor my adversaries, nor neutral and fair (thus valuable) users here.
 * Except for the book article (which has been AFD'd before here) the other article subjects you're considering are also on svWP (and 2 on frWP, one on esWP) and have been scrutinized rather carefully there, plus worked on constructvely by a host of users I do not know. Just fyi. The Wild Side Story article here, as it looks today, was totally remodelled and much shortened not long ago (which it sorely needed) and that new version was modelled on the one approved, after some discussion about a few details, on deWP.
 * A lot of good faith work has been done by a lot of people, even ones who have opposed me here for the last few days, and again, though I've come to realize that I've made a few big COI mistakes, harm to WP has not been my intention ever, nor has the effect of the main body of my work here been any such damage. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Does this post of you really say that you do not want them who doubt your sourcing to have the sources? I do not get it. I know I was one of the users who found out and revealed your last source that was home made. It was proven by enwp that I was correct. Are you affraid that I Will FoU d out the same things here? Yes also to my bias I have an agenda: to write neutral accordibg to Good sources. My Children skall have a great encyclopedia. That is my agenda. That is ett I am concerned... And egen möte concerned when you write you sånt to censor your sources so Those who have fond out you did wrong before skall not ser the sources. Worrying. Adville (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Laura Kightlinger

 * Sockpuppet_investigations/RRIESQ/Archive blocked sockmaster, and socks:
 * still editing in 2016, edits appear COI/promo
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/RRIESQ/Archive blocked sockmaster, and socks:
 * still editing in 2016, edits appear COI/promo
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/RRIESQ/Archive blocked sockmaster, and socks:
 * still editing in 2016, edits appear COI/promo
 * still editing in 2016, edits appear COI/promo
 * still editing in 2016, edits appear COI/promo
 * still editing in 2016, edits appear COI/promo
 * still editing in 2016, edits appear COI/promo


 * There's a persistent long-term edit war (several years) over the birth date
 * Talk:Laura Kightlinger
 * Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_50
 * The primary concern is if there's no WP:RS for the date, it should be removed as BLP policy violation - this seems to be the strong policy based, and ORTS based previous consensus.
 * But, it is clear that there's a minority view of WP:NOTCENSOR, WP:NOTPROMO, together with undisclosed->disclosed COI per talk and SPI / paid issue (per SPI).
 * The lack of an RS (and over that, the ORTS) should trump, but I'm not in a position to provide an RS and correct the date, but don't want to engage in NOTCENSOR either
 * Latest round of date flipping started by IP providing a date
 * It's clear that there's ongoing undisclosed COI, and this is the example linked at the bottom of Paid editing (essay)
 * In terms of non-RS, COI editors were previously relying on IMDB which said 1969, but now says 1964, so they've switched to another source. If they believed IMDB was RS before, why is it not now (not that matters for us, but somethings not right here).
 * I've got it protected PC, suggest reaffirming consensus to remove date, and comment the article alerting editors to not insert a birth date without an RS. Widefox ; talk 16:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There was actually (for our purposes - Contemporary Authors) a reliable source listed if you look at the talk page. What the problem was that either the subject or someone with an official relationship with the subject was complaining through OTRS that it was incorrect, and either provided/didn't provide some contradictory evidence. As OTRS agents will not release or reveal the nature of their correspondence, its meaningless from a WP:V standpoint what is actually raised in an OTRS communication unless the subject is willing to make the information that is contradictory verifiable (either by self-publishing it, or getting a correction in a secondary source). As it stands, I would say the source used for the age was good enough absent any evidence to the contrary. (Lest anyone think I am one of the 'every detail of celebrities must be documented!' crowd, I have routinely supported and enacted removal of personal non-encyclopedic information on request by the subject where there is a credible reason to do so). An OTRS agent saying 'I have removed it because its wrong but I cant tell you why' should justifiably be rejected. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Only in death Correct, but if you read the talk page further, Contemporary Authors was questioned as an RS for this type of info. So given that, my personal take on the situation is:
 * Long-term attempted subversion/BLP vio/edit war with poorly sourced date, and suppression of an arguably RS date, by undisclosed COI editors:
 * WP:DOB doesn't apply as 1. BLP isn't marginal-notability 2. the info is already published
 * Contemporary Authors (and non-RS sources such as IMDB) now agree on the date (and per arguments on the talk, the WP:OR is that the RSed date is internally consistent)
 * This seems like WP:CENSOR vs trivial-WP:RIGHT WRONGS . The undisclosed COI edits are WP:NOTPROMO -> Streisand effect. Widefox ; talk 12:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ping discussion participants (none of whom have a COI, no COI "subject of discussion" notice given) User:ErrantX User:SummerPhDv2.0 User talk:Danlaycock User:The Rambling Man. Widefox ; talk 13:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Contemporary Authors was questioned as an RS, my interpretation of WP:V and WP:RS is that it meets our criteria. If they are unable to reach consensus on the talk page, a discussion at RSN would settle that. DOB is used to remove specifics for identity theft reasons, but not the age itself. While there is a lot of OR on the talkpage, we don't use OR itself to source information in an article, it does however lend credibility to the actual RS we have which indicates the age. Personally I have no problem with removing the age as an editorial decision - it certainly does have real and extensively documented consequences for women in entertainment to have their actual age known - but that should be decided as a result of a consensus discussion on the talk page, as listing the age, sourced appropriately, is not in itself against any of our policies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is COI editors actively over years inserting a seemingly false date. We should have no editorial pressure to either accept that, or WP:CENSOR, and it's not clear to me the influence of OTRS here. The image was also claimed as own work by one of the COIs, when not. I personally have no opinion on if it should be included, but as this is the example on a PAID essay, it looks like we can't even get that right. It seems clear that there's a substantial (possibly minority) view that the date should be included. If we censor based on subjects careers, what do we do about politicians etc?  Widefox ; talk 14:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I remember this issue; the source is wrong, based on information shared with OTRS, and the subject requested removal. Per the spirit of WP:BIO I don't see any problem with removing it. The information is not critically important and I am sure that in many years hence (e.g. when birth records from the relevant year is historically published) the correct information can be inserted without any problems. Persistent attempts to do something different to that is a pointless waste of everyone's time... --Errant (chat!) 10:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "the source is wrong, based on information shared with OTRS" - that information needs to be verifiable. OTRS is not a reliable source. Unless the information shared with OTRS is either self-published somewhere, or published by a reliable source, a published reliable source is acceptable. Its also largely a problem of Wikipedia's own making. Most reputable biographies that we use as sources contain standard biographical information such as age, year of birth etc, so the argument 'its not encyclopedic' doesn't fly in most cases. The problem is when an actor's/actresses age is included in a little read professional biography its a bit harder to find than just googling them and the top entry being 'Born in XXXX'. The correct response for OTRS in this case is to advise the subject they would need to get the RS amended, or provide a clear verifiable contradiction somewhere so we can justify keeping it out. 'Its wrong but I cant tell you why' is not acceptable. Had OTRS done its job properly and advised the subject/her agents the correct way to make sure the information is either correct on Wikipedia, or in how to provide enough information that it can be kept out as a BLP contradiction, then the COI wouldn't have to keep coming back to try and get it removed. In short, give advice in line with our policies and we wouldn't be dealing with COI editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're caring about this too much, it's a minor matter that I am shocked people continue to care about. It is verifiable by asking an OTRS agent to log in an confirm the details, and in this case I absolutely *did* do my job properly as an OTRS agent. I recommending finding something more interesting to do. :) --Errant (chat!) 10:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * An OTRS agent is not a reliable source. The subject is a primary source. WP:V is policy. An OTRS ticket is not a verifiable reliable source. That you, and other OTRS agents do not understand this has come up repeatedly. You can remove BLP violations where identified, as can any editor, you can make requests on behalf of the subjects, you can advise the subject on how to get changes to their article. What you cannot do is edit an article on behalf of the subject to remove information that is backed by a reliable source and compliant with policy without providing a verifiable reliable source in order to justify it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As an OTRS agent, I believe OID has hit the nail on the head.An OTRS agent is free to remove incorrectly sourced DOB, personal details et al on subject-request but iff he/she is removing something explicitly contradicted by an RS, that is a strict NO.The way out is to ask them to get the changes done in RS and make a request at t/p informing the situation to the editors.That whether the source used is a RS is albeit a diff. matter altogether. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 11:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OID has nailed the issue. It's either important enough for OTRS action or not. As is, it puts a chilling effect on the issue while COI editors persist, however minor the information is. Widefox ; talk 12:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Brent Faiyaz


Davykamanzi is a paid editor that does disclose, but tends to write overly promotional, poorly sourced BLP content. See Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard above. Apparently Davykamanzi has decided to not follow COI very closely despite the previous discussion. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how any of the content in the article is "overly promotional". This and the Godin article (in which case I could see why it was said) are the only times I've been called out for writing "overly promotional" content on the several paid projects I've done. The info is encyclopaedic content on the subject's career that you would find on any other musician's article. Davykamanzi → <b style="color:#0AE;">talk</b> • <b style="color:#ED2;">contribs</b> • <b style="color:#264;">alter ego</b> 18:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the problem and why we're here: You didn't recognize it with Seth Godin and you don't recognize it now. Rather than addressing it previously, you chose to move one. Now we're here. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Then please enlighten me cause I genuinely don't see what "overly promotional" content there is to dispute in the article. Every line of info presented on there is fact. I don't mean to use the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument here but I've written that article the same way I've written other musician articles (non-paid and paid; e.g. Isleym and Fred Warmsley, both non-paid); documenting major occurrences in the subject's career such as new releases, performances on national TV or accolades and citing those with reputable, verifiable sources. Other than getting paid, I don't see how this case is any different. Davykamanzi → <b style="color:#0AE;">talk</b> • <b style="color:#ED2;">contribs</b> • <b style="color:#264;">alter ego</b> 03:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can't support your articles, you shouldn't be creating them. The reason that you should be working from edit requests is that someone needs to review your work.
 * Do you recognize what happened at Seth Godin? Can you explain why most of your editing was undone there, even after I left it to discuss it here? --Ronz (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can certainly justify their existence as they pass WP:GNG. Articles published directly still get reviewed which is why some end up getting tagged or (speedy-)deleted, so unless I'm recreating a previously deleted article or editing a "volatile" (for lack of a better word) article I don't see the need to go through reviewers first. If the article's good to go, then good; if it has any issues that merit its deletion, then I accept that as well and move on. Davykamanzi → <b style="color:#0AE;">talk</b> • <b style="color:#ED2;">contribs</b> • <b style="color:#264;">alter ego</b> 18:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but why didn't you answer my questions, or address them in any manner?
 * My concerns here are that you're not following COI, BLP, NOT, NPOV, etc. When faced with these concerns you try to move on best you can without addressing the problems.
 * You created Brent Faiyaz to promote the new album. You didn't follow the behavioral and content policies brought up here for the Seth Godin article. Now you're edit-warring at Brent Faiyaz. --Ronz (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe I've done my best to follow WP:BLP because I provided reliable sources to the information I included in the article on his personal life (namely his DOB and his moving from Baltimore to Los Angeles). I noticed that you deleted his DOB then restored it upon realising that the sources I gave actually indicate his DOB. As for WP:NPOV, I still think I kept the tone of the article as neutral as possible and didn't make any blatantly or "overly promotional" claims (which is something you have still yet to point out to me as I asked earlier). In my opinion, writing that an artist released a new album on Month DD, YYYY isn't WP:SOAP because it's something that editors write on every article about a musician as part of documenting the subject's career as a musical artist. Davykamanzi → <b style="color:#0AE;">talk</b> • <b style="color:#ED2;">contribs</b> • <b style="color:#264;">alter ego</b> 06:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You did your best to promote the musician, using a series of announcements and briefs from sources that at best have little prominence.
 * Repeatedly writing that a subject did X on Month DD, YYYY with such sources is UNDUE and SOAP, and a BLP vio as a result. (You even had a CRYSTAL violation there writing what you did before the release date). You've padded the article as your clients wanted. It's typical promotional editing from someone that is putting their biases above Wikipedia's policies, exactly what COI is supposed to prevent, but then you're not following COI beyond declaring you have it. While I appreciate the declarations, they aren't the end of your responsibilities but rather the beginning. --Ronz (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Since there seems to be some confusion (eg your comment about his DOB), these edits were just me quickly examining the sources and associated content. Don't read anything into them other than what I've written in the edit summaries. My subsequent trimming of the article are based upon that quick review. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

CanadianSpecialForcesRF
This user name is an apparent COI:. I put a template on his talkpage, but since I am not an admin, I can't block him. I hope I did everything right?--Biografer (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * it's best to report username issues at WP:UAA, where admins more familiar with username issues patrol. The user responded in an edit summary, I'm not sure I agree with their explanation though. I'll follow up. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Nowcasting (economics)


There's a WSJ article that should likely explain this in detail Fed Economists’ Stakes in Forecasting Firm Spur an Internal Probe (but I don't have a WSJ subscription) and an available article Wikipedia Keeps A Record Of Your Edits — These People Don’t Seem To Know That - Why do Federal Reserve employees who make economic forecasts own a company selling private economic forecasts? and a mention in passing at Bloomberg

There is a Fed employee named Jasper McMahon, there's not much activity at Nowcasting (economics). I do have to say that IMHO the Fed has to be the squeakiest clean part of our government. If they start playing around with our money - sooner or later our money could become worthless. There have been edits by IPs in NY (where McMahon is likely located) and in NC (where there are no Fed operations that I know of). Some extra eyes on this, beyond what the article itself might suggest, would be appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * CORRECTION. Jasper McMahon is the CEO of Now-Casting Inc. and has apparently spammed the company website into the article, as well as a link to a TED talk on the subject that he gave. The Federal Reserve employee is Domenico Giannone, who doesn't seem to be an editor here (I'll check some more).  The Wall Street Journal article (or a version of it) is available at Fox News. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Still can't find anything new here. The worst is: Fed employee Domenico Giannone, who owns 30% of Now-casting Inc. blogs on the Fed site about the concept of nowcasting, linking to the Wikipedia article on nowcasting, which was edited and spammed by his partner Jasper McMahon.  Since the last McMahon edit was 4 years ago, I don't see anything we can do, but I understand why the Fed has an internal investigation. Unless somebody else knows something else about this, I'll drop it. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a fantastic case though, maybe the first time I've seen COI manipulation of a Wikipedia article being the direct subject of a lawsuit. May be an inflection point of a) WP's influence being significant to society in the real world and b) people in the real world caring enough to do something about it and c) at least one person thinks they can explain a and b to a judge. Above The Law has more about this . ☆ Bri (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a bit different. The involvement of the Fed, even at 3rd hand, in paid editing just astounds me. OTOH, I am surprised that there aren't more lawyers checking in here to find evidence. Consumer complaints on false advertising might be one place to look. See tina.org aka www.truthinadvertising.org for an updated list of problems/regulatory actions/court cases. Probably many of these companies are too small for articles on Wikipedia, probably many get winnowed out by AFC/AFD - after all paid editing and ads are bad enough, but with ads on, e.g. how to increase your IQ with a dietary supplement, I'd hope a lot of these never make it. Still if 15-25% of the companies listed on tina.org don't have a history here, I'd be surprised. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

August Busch IV


Edits by an IP that geolocates to the same state where August Busch IV is from (this is public knowledge). The edits reveal information that is unsourced except to an individual with close ties to the subject of the article.
 * Example 1. Line #36 contains some specific knowledge of inside office politics. Line #51 personal knowledge of flight history. Also details of romance with current wife going back 20 years. Line #90 contains some unusually exact statements about Bush's behavior during police custody.
 * Example 2. Line $65 contains a detailed version of events that Bush himself maintained during the trial but is presented in the article as factual event. Claims they are from court papers but none linked to and event only happened recently.
 * Example 3. Edit summary claims information is from a recent warrant. Are warrants public documents?

I don't know who this IP is, what connection they might have to Bush, it doesn't matter, but the edits show an unusually high level of inside knowledge and interest about Bush, and they tend to whitewash some things. -- Green  C  12:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Starshine60
I've blocked as it is obvious they are an experienced undisclosed paid editor. These are their creations:


 * (redirect already restored)

Not a creation but also COI affected:

They also removed tags from this article created by an SPA (stale now):


 * SmartSE (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Recommend that we redirect Ben Vigoda to Bayesian Program Synthesis but retain the latter. It appears to be notable and I've done some cleanup of the gross advertising. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's been done along with reinstating other redirects. There's nothing left to clean up. SmartSE (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Executive development


Don't even know what to do with this. My AGF self-wants to say it is 12 k (!) of misguided, unreferenced OR. My skeptical self wants to say it is support for one or two spam links. What to do? Nom for deletion? Redirect? But where?

It's really hard to tell which way plagiarism is going but this passage is found elsewhere on the World Wide Web. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Bri, I'm finding nothing but mirrors on the copyvio front. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I kind of thought so, and found bits and pieces on a public domain OPM thing for the SES. But thanks for looking. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I have draftified the article.Will take a look as to the scope(s) of a thorough re-write. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 08:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Chinese language sockfarm

 * (Americanized name) repeatedly recreated, originally by Mokezhilao sockfarm
 * (same person)
 * ;master
 * (Americanized name) repeatedly recreated, originally by Mokezhilao sockfarm
 * (same person)
 * ;master
 * (Americanized name) repeatedly recreated, originally by Mokezhilao sockfarm
 * (same person)
 * ;master
 * (Americanized name) repeatedly recreated, originally by Mokezhilao sockfarm
 * (same person)
 * ;master
 * (Americanized name) repeatedly recreated, originally by Mokezhilao sockfarm
 * (same person)
 * ;master
 * (same person)
 * ;master
 * ;master
 * ;master
 * ;master
 * ;master

A new sockfarm Sockpuppet investigations/Ren Yifan which might be Sockpuppet investigations/Mokezhilao and Sockpuppet investigations/123Aristotle. Seems to be naive yet extra persistent. Details in a moment... ☆ Bri (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The zipper article was AfD'd here; closed as no consensus. The only keep vote was by one of the not-yet-known socks. I just renominated at Articles for deletion/Fujian SBS Zipper Science & Technology (2nd nomination). ☆ Bri (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Vixvovessor has created a significant number of articles that we might want to take a look at:
 * GABgab 21:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * GABgab 21:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * GABgab 21:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * GABgab 21:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * GABgab 21:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * GABgab 21:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * GABgab 21:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * GABgab 21:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * GABgab 21:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * GABgab 21:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hema Sardesai
Self-declared COI (edit summary here), but not a verified account. I've just reverted some highly promotional edits and left them a COI warning. Other eyes may be helpful. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 23:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reverted a host of edits by this user, all of which were unsourced. Clearly here only to promote herself by any means necessary instead of contributing to the encyclopedia. sixty nine   • speak up •  00:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Almost deleted the entire article-content.If things go downhill, blocking would be a suitable option.But, I think that the subject is notable.So, refrained from AfDing et al. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 07:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

coi?
Are this editor's edits ok? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/OfficialShindig

And this looks like the smae person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/KentFrederick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.168.8 (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There's certainly a user name violation. I started cleaning up Steve Gottlieb where there was a lot of puffery and unreliable refs. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up Shindig (video chat platform).Some parts could be restored but that's thoughts for another day:)Got one of the editors blocked for U-Pol vio. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 12:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Art Gallery editing Wikipedia articles
I have a question: I work for an Art gallery. My job involves curating and writing about some of the artists we host. I've been getting acquainted with Wikipedia these last few days to see how I may be able to contribute within guidelines. Would my contributions be considered COI editing? I am not paid by the artists involved, but my employer is an arts organization that hosts some of these artists. I have been advised by another editor that I should only limit my contributions to article Talk pages, is this the policy or personal opinion? Do I need to declare I'm a paid editor? If so, where? Thank you in advanced for your help. CroatianNeptune (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, the other editor is correct: COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly, and to propose changes on talk pages instead. This comes from the guideline Conflict of interest. Guidelines are not policy, strictly speaking, they are a set of best practices that have wide consensus. Paid editing does fall under our policies, standards that all users should normally follow. The applicable policy is Paid-contribution disclosure. You have a conflict of interest if you edit articles about artists who are represented by your employer and you are required to disclose your connection. Instructions on how to disclose are at WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. All the best, Mduvekot (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting here and for being open. Mduvekot has hopefully answered your questions, but one thing that I noticed on your talk page is that you say "We often gather detailed information about the artists we host" - please be aware that only information that has previously been published should be included here. If you are gathering information directly from the artists then it should not be included. SmartSE (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I do want to point something out that should be clear to all involved if it isn't already. The gallery where CroatianNeptune works produces high-quality monographs on important artists. Those would absolutely be useful as sources for encyclopedic articles. I know that some people might think that there is a problem with such sources because the artist and the gallery are not independent, but it is simply not feasible to produce a monograph on a (living) artist's work without their involvement. I will vigorously argue in favour of using such sources. Where it becomes awkward is if the author of those monographs, or an employee of the publisher, then comes to Wikipedia and starts editing articles on the same subjects using their own material as a source. The sections on Citing yourself, Cultural sector and perhaps Wikipedians in residence, reward board may apply. Mduvekot (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Israel business promotion


Hoping that the major contributor to the articles above can explain what's going on here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You seem to have gotten your knickers in a twist when adding the drafts to the case above. These articles are unrelated, but all seem to have been edited by Zozoulia. I've no comment as of yet as to whether they are suspicious. SmartSE (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes I lost my trail of breadcrumbs. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can.

1. Zvi Harry Hurwitz is not a business. He was an Israeli diplomat, journalist and political operative. The insinuation that I was paid for it is ludicrous. The man is dead. I knew him and once worked with him some 35 years ago and wrote the article for altruistic reasons alone.

2. Zohar Zisapel, together with his brother Yehuda, founded Israel's first home-grown hi-tech start-up group. Both brothers have served as chairmen of the country's electronics industry association. As the article notes, he is often called the "Bill Gates of Israel" in the media. The industry he created now employs something like 10% of the Israeli workforce. Perhaps calling him the "Bill Gates of Israel" is an understatement. I wrote the article together with a friend who is also a Wikipedia contributor, and both of us know the Zisapels (so do thousands of other Israelis who have been involved in the hi-tech sector and in the various charities they support, but we received no payment. In fact, Zohar was unaware we wrote the article and may even be unaware that it exists -- we've never spoken to him about it.

3. I wrote the article on Safe Drive Systems after it's Israeli competitor, Mobileye, was purchased by Intel for $15 billion. Mobileye, apart from having its own article, is mentioned in the Intel and Intel Mobile Communications articles (and maybe more). Because I know people who work in both Mobileye and Safe Drive Systems, I also know that it is inherently unfair to host an article about one and not to have one about the other, since collision detection technology is not unique to Mobileye. That would be akin to having an article about the iPhone without one for Android. Zozoulia (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * COMMENT This thread was damaged/deleted by Zozoulia in this edit. Content is now missing. He also damaged other parts of the Noticeboard. It's too late to do a revert someone will need to try and manually piece the Noticeboard back together. -- Green  C  12:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've hopefully fixed it all now. Thanks for pointing it out. SmartSE (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * SmartSE (talk) Bri (talk) Once again I request that the banner insinuating that I was paid to write the Zvi Harry Hurwitz article be removed. There is no basis for assuming that (the man has been dead for almost a decade) and it is personally offensive. Zozoulia (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We somewhere else that I would step away if you wanted other COIN editors to consider that request, so you don't need to ping me. ☆ Bri (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Activity on Jillian Shea Spaeder


The article Jillian Shea Spaeder was created first on 17 October by User:StageDDesigns (talk), who was promptly banned for having a promotional username. The editor was able to edit the article in question several times, and published an image of the article subject on commons. On 19 October the article was recreated by User:Gmalagon (talk) using the same information and the same image. This implies to me that either the original editor returned under a new name or someone is soliciting paid editors to create the Jillian Shea Spaeder article. The second option appears to be more likely as Gmalagon has been active longer. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

User:IMSMTS
Please can you review the pattern of editing of Special:Contributions/IMSMTS. This editor has declared that they are a paid editor, and has gone on to create a series of drafts relating to albums recorded by the band that they are working for. Are they ok to do that, or should they be requesting new articles at WP:REQUEST? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, I was told to add missing material from the bands page which includes the albums and any other missing details on their page. I am new to wikipedia and have read the guidelines but I would appreciate some guidance as to how I can go about my work without conflicting with the site's interests. I understand that some of the albums I am creating are old but they contributed to the development of the bands notability, hence the need for creating them. Thank you in  advance.IMSMTS (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * it is really good that you declared that you're being paid to publicise Mexican Institute of Sound. Now that you've done so you need to familiarise yourself with the rules that paid editors have to work within as part of the terms of use of the site. You can read about those rules at WP:HelpCOI, Edit requests and Articles for creation. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help. IMSMTS (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Not thrilled to see the article using PR-style writing like "Lara distinguished himself as a musical trendsetter", "radio support from tastemakers", a list of almost three dozen collaborators, and extensive unsourced material. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Tatelyle/Ralphellis

 * (master)
 * (at AfD)
 * (at AfD)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Ralphellis has uncovered ten years of socking. He has a fondness for an author named Ralph Ellis who publishes unusual religious theories. I might be wrong but this edit, still standing, is concerning. Is it the person adding references to his own work? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's because of this post, but the whole section depending on the citation has been deleted. Which is good. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Francis Drake Conflict of Interest

 * Francis Drake
 * New Albion
 * User talk:Ggitzen

Please refer to "Mediation decline of My Edits were removed from the Francis Drake and Nova Albion page" under the User talk:Ggitzen. In the last 2 months (September 2017) I have found that the administrator: Horst59 is a board member of the Drake Navigators Guild. The Drake Navigators Guild are the promoters of Drake in California; an unproven anchorage. In my mind, this is a total conflict of interest and all of my edits which were deleted should be reinstated. As a legitimate long-time researcher and well accepted author, I should be permitted to post to the Francis Drake and New Albion pages.

P.S. The Drake Navigators Guild has been saying that the NPS as designated official site of Drakes Bay but the NPS Pt. Reyes National Seashore page says: "probably landed" is not conclusive. And their official documents which I have thoroughly researched say "Drakes Bay as the most likely site"; again this is not proof or conclusive.

Additionally, As of September 2017 I am now the President of the 501(c)3 Sir Francis Drake Association. We are registered in both Oregon and California. Ggitzen (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Ventus again

 * blocked here per the block log; blocked on de-WP for undeclared sockpuppeting for paid editing;
 * blocked here per the block log; blocked on de-WP citing the CU check done here.
 * Articles created in 2017
 * Drafts
 * Drafts
 * Drafts
 * Drafts
 * Drafts

Background: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 119

Hello,

I like to bring the following incident to your attention, which might be relevant to enwp as well because both users are editing here:
 * (short summary) The user in question has a history of paid editing yet here at enwp. It looks like the user is contacting people (in this case a Professor) via e-Mail, offering to write an article for xxx (higher range) euro. A professor who got such a mail talked to during the Frankfurt Book Fair. In german language it is called "Kaltakquise", not sure if there is a 1:1 translation to english.

Relevant discussions (in german language) are viable here with deeper details:
 * de:Benutzer Diskussion:Ventus55 (Diff - google translate)
 * de:Wikipedia Diskussion:WikiProjekt_Umgang_mit_bezahltem_Schreiben
 * (As per comments at the WikiProject it looks like he has connectuons with, who is also doing paid editing.)

Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging users previously involved:  . --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hum. Concerning. Have started a SPI here Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Confirmed as socks.. One account states they are a male the other they are female. With this degree of issues both accounts need blocking and all the articles they have created need taking.
 * Have indeffed both. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Kaltakquise means "cold calling". Listed articles created this year up in the header. Articles created prior to that in the section just below this line. Bri.public (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)



Lots of work ahead of us, I have begun placing the COI and UDP tags.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Will take a look ino the matter. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 08:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, they had cleverfully choosen the field, one where we have kept our inclusion barrier low to prevent systemic bias etc..Our NPROF guidelines would guarantee a stay for most of the articles.All pay and little worry about deletions etc. :) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 10:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Godric asked me for my opinion on this case, and I tend to agree. I think tagging them for paid contributions but not pushing to delete most of them is the correct response. The articles are not well written, but they're not worse than many of our new articles, and they're of borderline rather than clear-cut notability (full professor rather than distinguished; minor awards and societies rather than more major ones) but probably on the pass side of WP:PROF from the ones I spot-checked. So the harm to the encyclopedia is not necessarily on the content side, but rather (1) how much can we trust the accuracy of what a paid editor wrote? In this case, I'm guessing that the clients (the professor-subjects of the articles) generally wanted the articles to be accurate, so we may be ok here, (2) the reputational damage to the encyclopedia from a pool of subjects who are led to think that paid promotion is how Wikipedia articles are made; I think we are dealing with this appropriately by tagging their articles with the paid-contributor tags so that they have a visible indication of our response to paid editing, and (3) the financial loss to subjects who need not have paid for an article, but this is not really our problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about this tagging, which I removed. Its of an academic who has been dead for 55 years. For some reason I doubt that it is a UPE article or that there is a COI. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * People buy articles in memory of family members. I agree BLPs are a bigger concern. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to say a big THANKS to User:Steinsplitter and User:AFBorchert for helping with the cross-WP stuff. So valuable in this case. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Pete Hawkes


Someone (most probably Pete Hawkes) has been continually editing the Pete Hawkes since at least 2013, continually using new throwaway accounts, to promote the subject. I've only listed the single-purpose accounts from this year above. The latest edits aren't terrible, but they do include peacock terms like "supported some of the biggest names in the industry". This is continual, blatant violation of the CoI policy. I'm not sure what the best solution is. I'd say permanent semi-protection would at least force the author to make some edits to other articles before polishing his own article. --Slashme (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Indian sockfarm/potential undisclosed paid editing
I've just filed a case at Sockpuppet investigations/Shivamevolution on the suggestion of, who has already done a CU on a few of the accounts listed there. No question that some socking has gone on but concerns have been raised that it may also involve undisclosed paid editing, so I was asked to mention it here also in the hope of getting further input.

As I say on the SPI case page, the filing is a bit rough round the edges. There was a lengthy discussion on my talk page (linked at SPI) and it became so complicated that none of us seemed to be prepared to take the plunge re: filing. I'll try to copy some diffs over to the SPI later when I get back from a job, although I suspect the automated report will have highlighted a lot of the issues before then. - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Reping, just for their info. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Tagged the creations of blocked socks with the undisclosed paid template. Rentier (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Thanks, Sitush. Depending on how the SPI shakes out, this could be a G5 situation on the presumption that there is another blocked farm on another VPN controlled by the same ring. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have undertaken drastic edits at many of the articles touched by the ring, to remove all PROMO stuff etc.I have also prodded one of them and draftified another one.But, as Tony said, (depending on how this turns out), G5 would be a hugely beneficial option. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 16:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Another paid editing sockfarm
Sockpuppet investigations/Michakellies


 * (project management software) (AfD'd)
 * (recreated)
 * (consumer appliance)
 * (HVAC company)
 * "renowned Brand Strategist"
 * (medical device)
 * (American online marketplace; AfD'd)
 * (recreated)
 * (American restaurant corp)
 * (advertising agency)
 * "world authority in Ancient Healing Secrets"
 * (American restaurant corp)
 * (advertising agency)
 * "world authority in Ancient Healing Secrets"

Potentially all part of one or two SPIs. Details to come. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added Avaza as well, which I found in Special:Undelete. Its largely the same article. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Stone & Company Entertainment

 * (since redirected)
 * (since redirected)

Editing only on these articles, and username indicates he/she is a company employee. Redirected article consisted of promotional content of non-notable subject. sixty nine  • whaddya want? •  20:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Katie Geralds


It would appear this user (all four accounts appear to be posting similar information) is a former partner of Katie Geralds and due to some personal conflict that ended their relationship appears to be adding inflammatory content to this page. Based on the name it would be obvious that this is a conflict of interest. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting. I'm keeping an eye on the article and will take action as necessary. May I suggest though that uw-defamatory3 would have been better than uw-vandal3? SmartSE (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good thanks. I didn't realize that was an option to be honest. If I notice anything again, I will use uw-defamatory3. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Liborbital sockfarm

 * See Sockpuppet_investigations/Liborbital. There are numerous overlapping groups of socks in this SPI and many articles requiring attention. It's unclear how many groups there actually are, but I've tried to group them together here based on technical evidence and behavioural overlaps SmartSE (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ cleaned
 * Not confirmed yet, but overlaps and looks suspicious. I haven't listed their page creations here yet.
 * G5/G11 speedied
 * (Seems ok)
 * G5/G11 speedied
 * ✅ cleaned
 * ✅ cleaned
 * G5/G11 speedied
 * ✅ cleaned
 * G5/G11 speedied
 * ✅ cleaned
 * ✅ cleaned
 * G5/G11 speedied
 * G5/G11 speedied
 * ✅ cleaned
 * ✅ cleaned
 * G5/G11 speedied
 * ✅ cleaned
 * G5/G11 speedied
 * ✅ cleaned
 * ✅ cleaned
 * G5/G11 speedied
 * ✅ cleaned
 * G5/G11 speedied




 * Blocked:
 * for a near-identical repost of Special:Undelete/Samir Tabar at Draft:Samir Tabar, (admins only) and this (note that I only deleted the draftspace redirect). MER-C 04:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * for a near-identical repost of Special:Undelete/Samir Tabar at Draft:Samir Tabar, (admins only) and this (note that I only deleted the draftspace redirect). MER-C 04:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Prof.Marlin is now considered likely to the group above so these all need attention:
 * SmartSE (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * SmartSE (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * SmartSE (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * SmartSE (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * SmartSE (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * SmartSE (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * SmartSE (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * SmartSE (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

D. A. Davidson & Co.


Article on Wall Street bank, created and principally edited by the above SPA. Requires major work, and also the editing activity indicates probable paid editing, COI at a minimum. Coretheapple (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

A promotional editor who has declined to disclose.



First edit was to vote in an AfD and they already new about GNG. Followed by adjusting piped links.. So this is not their first account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * IIRC, there was a paid editing ring involved with the Raheja articles. I think the Hardest account was warned about issues then. Some other accounts were definitely picked up, per the templated list at Talk:Raheja Developers. I think that article has also been reported here in the past. - Sitush (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikiaccnt1234 SPI. More COIN archive links and notes at User:Bri/COIbox32 ☆ Bri (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  09:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Will be taking a detailed look.On first glances, intersections with many SPAs are seen. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 07:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is obviously a seasoned paid editor as I've asked for declarations at least since Dec last year and they never responded, instead they have these nuggets on their userpage: "I only edit pages that are of no professional interest; other than to further the knowledge within an area.", "n my short time on Wikipedia, I have found promotional material to be a major issue here, and I may go a little loose on my criteria for deleting such articles." Now they've acknowledged paid editing in their unblock request (I declined). Obviously not the first account, and likely not the only one active right now either, but I can't figure out under what name to file an SPI, I do see another possible account based on the similar Commons Copyvio uploads related to Nivaan Sen. Just pinging as he handled the last SPI linked above by Brian. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/ManishMuradiya is related and likely to be with the group Bri has listed.


 * I've gone through most of the G5 tags and deleted them per Berean Hunter's comments on the SPI. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * --Yeah, they are definitely plausible redirects.Thus, the option would be to delete the pages and create a new redirect, in place.The paid content, written while evading blocks and puppeting, need not stay; even in page-history.I neither think that Sitush will dis-agree. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 15:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Have written to EdwardX about Niladri Paul.And what happened in the case of Jafar Dehghan?Doug nominated the page last time and it does not appears that he will dis-agree! Winged Blades of Godric On leave 15:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The only ones I declined were the redirects. I don't see a need to delete them just to get rid of the page history, and in fact there are reasons why we might want to let that stay that I don't want to get into here for BEANS reasons. The ones that still have G5s on them another admin can assess. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

MusicLover650

 * Long-term abuse/MusicLover650

Not for immediate action, just awareness. A recent SPI has indications that MusicLover650/Earflaps (COIN archive 109) may still be active. Will follow up if anything especially interesting occurs. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Another group of connected accounts

 * blocked for copyright and TOU problems


 * blocked for spam long time ago


 * not recently used

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles
 * Connaught plc
 * The Hut Group
 * Myprotein
 * Oliver Cookson

Socks from this week

 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Vrenturaila - not confirmed socking, but these are obvious UPE:


 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Akrumoftruth - no CUd yet, but I'm > 95 % certain of UPE:


 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Genepangettalaga - also not CUd yet, but it's DUCKish


 * Sockpuppet investigations/AloneinWorld - mainly related to Cover Wallet which I have dealt with, but they also created this:


 * Sockpuppet investigations/MassiveYR - not CUd yet, but again DUCKish and G5 will apply to their creations as it a continuation of Sockpuppet_investigations/Vukhudo/Archive.


 * articles
 * (subsidiary)✅ cleaned ☆ Bri (talk)
 * (subsidiary)✅ cleaned ☆ Bri (talk)

Feel free to split this post up, but I just wanted to list them here whilst I have the time. SmartSE (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tackled (blocked and/or CU-endorsed) the first 4 cases, but I'd appreciate any help with the behavioral analysis. SPI really needs more UPE sleuths. GABgab 22:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Partly why I helped to create WP:Identifying PR is to educate and evangelize these resultant article quality issues. Many of the signatures are included there. I've been referring to it in edit summaries too, which seems to help make cleanups "stick". Hybrid (media company) for example: right off the bat, in the lede, there's a circulation claim sourced only to the company's website. The second citation is the company; the third is forbes.com/sites which is a reliable indicator of PR. A 10 second glance at sources shows us more self-citations Travel Wire Asia/Tech Wire Asia etc. It's not that hard really. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Would someone with "admin goggles" look at the deletion history for Cavit Collection? I believe it may be a recreation. Found it: User:Sonuep/sandboc was a userspace draft in the Yaplipa sockfarm, COIN archive 120. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad you found the sandbox. I searched Special:Undelete for similar titles, and couldn't find any in main space. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Cf. with  wrt "Hybrid". GABgab 23:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Jan D. Winitz


Rug Connoisseur is an employee of Claremont Rug Company: Our page has now been deleted and I request that it please be restored and in the future, I will not add written content to corresponding pages from our website. My intention was to provide more educational information about these types of rugs to enhance the user experience when searching through Wikipedia for these rug types and then reference the source not to promote our website. Thank you. 

Jan D. Winitz is the founder and president of Claremont Rug Company.

The editor has attempted to create an article for Claremont Rug Company (speedy deleted for being promotional), spammed the company's website, and copied information from the website into an article.

I've reverted the latest edits from Rug Connoisseur because they once again used poor, promotional sources originating from the company (a press release and a article for an insurance company's newsletter written by Winitz).

At this point, I'm thinking a block might be the best solution. --Ronz (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * As I understand there may be a conflict of interest, the intention of making the last revision was to remove content that may be overtly bias or promotional on the 'Jan David Winitz' page and instead just leave the factual content of his life and career. I added in citations from more sources that we not written by Jan himself or linked to Claremont Rug Company's website instead using supporting sources like the three I used in the first paragraph of the 'Life and Career' section which were articles written by staff writers from the San Francisco Chronicle and the Houston Chronicle . Are these sources considered poor, promotional sources on Wikipedia? The intention of this last revision was not for promotion it was to add additional sources to hopefully have the tag removed from the Jan David Winitz. Appreciate your advice, thank you.Rug Connoisseur (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you had read and followed the advice on your talk page, we wouldn't be here.
 * All the sources are rather poor, and your attempts to improve the article highlighted a press release and an article by Winitz.
 * I've gone ahead and trimmed back the article to something with far fewer problems to work from. If there exist better sources about him, we certainly could use them. Sources written from outside the hype of art promotion would be especially helpful. Shall we continue on the article talk page? --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, I have a few more sources I would like to provide you for review to support the content on the page. Would you like me to add these sources and the content they support on the article talk page? Thank you.Rug Connoisseur (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The article talk page is indeed the place for such discussion. As an aside, the picture of the guy in the article is truly godawful -- isn't there something better available, like a candid shot? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Divshirsat12



 * articles
 * "a practicing homeopath"
 * "an advertising and brand professional"
 * other
 * other
 * other
 * other
 * other
 * other
 * other

Editor has recreated Rajesh Shah, already AfDd three times (twice with result delete). Other articles created include a number of Indian playback singers, in a pattern that fits WP:Identifying PR, for example, a list of "appearances at various national and international events, and television reality shows" and brand ambassador endorsements.

There is a connection to another editor whose history includes recreation of a repeatedly deleted article, Bookeventz, and another one who created Akhil Talreja. In addition Rohanpednekar38 uploaded a homeopathy-related file, now deleted. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Socking now CU confirmed ☆ Bri (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Alarming, Please Investigate.
I recently joined upwork and now I am able to understand the issue, some clients told me that some users are claiming they have special rights on Wikipedia, they could be admins. They even told me that they own multiple accounts and even give guarantees and approves low rating articles. I have evidence of most of the cases. I have seen many profiles on upwork charging a lot of money. Maybe you guys should investigate which admins are involved in paid editions and reviewing lower grade articles as I have seen on Wikipedia that the article, if approved by an admin nobody touches it. I read investigations and archives and have seen some projects I think users here who have many problems with paid editions are those users on upwork who are charging that's why they only hit those articles (and users) which they don't get or have an open project description. eg, this article Le Trio Joubran there was a job on upwork for this article and it was updated right after that on October 7, 2017, and the client was looking for an admin with rights to edit a protected page. There are three more people active and I hope will investigate this as well.

Also, see who approved these Ntfrmhre and FreshAddress and this Oliver Isaacs article's reviewer and creator is a paid editor. I have evidence for all of them and surely who approved those and others I have listed are surely paid admins who are hidden and only hitting new users who create articles where they don't get that job on upwork and start investigating those articles. Obviously, if people are posting jobs on upwork for editing Wikipedia articles, multiple people could apply and I have seen some high ranked profiles. I have some names that I can give who I think are paid admins.

I have also seen that this process say that do not post anything without evidence while most of the accounts were blocked without an evidence and also reverted changes without any solid proof, again all those mentioned admin accounts involved in these quick actions. So please, investigate that also if you are that much sincere and loyal with Wikipedia terms. I have other pieces of evidence as well that I will share soon. Investigator87 (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * List below of affected articles and users:
 * Note the usurping page tactic used here which could help link this account to a known sockfarm- for any ideas?
 * Note the usurping page tactic used here which could help link this account to a known sockfarm- for any ideas?
 * Note the usurping page tactic used here which could help link this account to a known sockfarm- for any ideas?


 * Le Trio Joubran was edited 7 October 2016. Before sharing evidence here check you are in compliance with WP:OUTING; it may well be better to email a trusted user e.g. User:Doc James who's quite involved with these things. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's highly, highly likely that whomever is claiming to be an admin actually isn't one. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 20:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)