Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 123

Call for data
Pinging a few people here who may be able to help:. I'm currently speaking with a researcher at a top Computer Science department who specializes in machine learning. He's potentially interested in developing a machine learning solution to identifying paid editors. In the past, he's researched sockpuppetry instead of paid editing because he lacks data on "confirmed" paid editors. Can you develop a list of substantial SPI cases or paid editing cases that included many accounts (say, more than five)? If I can get enough data together for him, the researcher may be able to help us out significantly in tracking and combating paid editing. Feel free to just add to the list below. ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Rob, I have a few. Busy currently, but will work on it. would be helpful here as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I added some of the UPE-related SPI cases I'm familiar with. Rentier (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course we also have Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Connected_contributor_(paid) and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Paid. I would love to see an analysis comparing the disclosed paid contributions with the undisclosed ones. See also: meta:Research:Sockpuppet_detection_in_Wikimedia_projects Rentier (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for someone to compile information from the connected contributor template. See Bot_requests. (And the person I'm talking with is the person running that research project.) ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Added a few to the list below. Maybe will have something else to contribute? I think he has a few datasets up his sleeve. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No datapoints for me to contribute, but I'm very interested in working with this researcher. I'd like to get a labeled dataset released publicly so that we can have many researchers working on the problem.  Thanks for pinging me and thanks to BU Rob13 for starting the thread. --EpochFail  (talk &bull; contribs) 17:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Very nice to see you here. I'm sure almost everybody here would love to help you, e.g. in labeling datasets.  It would be extremely useful for all of us here to have AI do some of the work for us, e.g. instead of calling up ORES for an estimate ("prediction") of article quality, just call up BORES for an estimate of the chance that an article was written by a PR or advertising guy.  The sockpuppet data below could be very interesting, but I'll suggest a couple other datasets that might work as well.
 * The key to the 1st one is that almost everybody who has grown up in a country where people are drowning in ads (just about everywhere) recognizes advertising-speak when it is aimed at them. But admen and PR flacks seem immune to this knowledge - they just keep on writing in AdSpeak. Take a random sample of small-to-medium sized business articles on Wiki (large companies have a different dynamic - customers also edit them) and ask us to label which ones are written in AdSpeak and which ones aren't.  Perhaps Sentiment analysis might be used here as well.
 * Similarly, admen and PR flacs just can't seem to be able to refrain from using bad sources for their articles, even though they tend to use a lot of sources. If you could get a list of the 2000 most used reliable sources on WP (as a whole rather than for business articles) and get the ratio of sources not in the top 2000 to total sources, it would be a big clue to finding the PR folks. Any help would be appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Added a few. MER-C 02:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Rob, I should have asked this before: are you certain that the dataset generation necessarily is based on sock accounts? Wouldn't it be equally informative to examine the work of individual editors who were eventually blocked for promotional/POV edits, or for not fully disclosing ? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

List of paid editing cases

 * Long-term abuse/Orangemoody 2012–present
 * Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Orangemoody
 * Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Orangemoody
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Anatha_Gulati/Archive
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar/Archive
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Highstakes00/Archive
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/F1F2F2/Archive
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Lipgon/Archive
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Lilianarice/Archive
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/BurritoSlayer/Archive
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Pleaschamp
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Luxembompamu/Archive
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Capeman7/Archive
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Thekohser
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/FlowerStorm48 2012–2015 or later
 * Sockpuppet investigations/CastleKing1440 2012–2013
 * Long-term abuse/MusicLover650 2007–present
 * Sockpuppet investigations/MusicLover650
 * User:Bri/WikiExperts LTA 2009 or earlier to present
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Sibtain 007 2012–2015 or later
 * Sockpuppet investigations/OnceaMetro/Archive 2013–2015
 * Sockpuppet investigations/LogAntiLog 2014–2017
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Notsosoros/Archive
 * declared
 * declared
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Gouyoku/Archive
 * User:Brumski/paid editing adverts
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Vierouchka
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Pshibe/Archive
 * Sockpuppet investigations/JonathanBentz/Archive (smaller, but confirmed with off-wiki evidence, so we know for a fact these are paid)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Action1212
 * Sockpuppet investigations/123Aristotle
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Susana Hodge 2015–2017
 * Sockpuppet investigations/ManishMuradiya
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Euclidthalis 2012–2016
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Factsonlyplease39 2013–2016
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Kabir Vaghela 2015; 67 confirmed socks
 * Sockpuppet investigations/TejaswaChaudhary 2015; 90 confirmed and suspected socks
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Smileverse 2013?–2015
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Euclidthalis 2012–2016
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Factsonlyplease39 2013–2016
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Kabir Vaghela 2015; 67 confirmed socks
 * Sockpuppet investigations/TejaswaChaudhary 2015; 90 confirmed and suspected socks
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Smileverse 2013?–2015

The World of Gregory John Boyle

 * - cleaned already but I expect Great Outrage Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Socks
 * See SPI, all blocked, just need cleanup/review of articles above, and tag their talk pages

Started socking and never looked back. Caught my eye due to advocacy against circumcision. Has written effusively praising articles about how great he is, and all his friends too. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Suspicion Surrounding Minimumbias

 * I was made uneasy by this user's behavior after viewing the List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. It is a striking example of page protectionism. There are consistent and unjustified example of reverts and edit warring as well as arguments from authority (he claims to be a Professor emeritus at a "world-class leading university"). Further please check Minimumbias talk page, specifically his revision history. He has a history of deleting sections which make his page look bad. There is no current vandalism to report, but I just want to give you a heads up. All the best. Pdyusmep (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The editor has not yet been notified of this discussion - I have requested do so. It might also be worth being aware of an exchange I have had with the editor on their talk page about who is using the account - there was some confusion over whether it is being used by the professor, or by one or more of their students (see 1 and 2 ). Their explanation is that it is one student posting on behalf of the professor (3), however both on the user page and talk pages comments are made as if in the first person by the professor (e.g. 4 and 5). I'm not sure if that is a problem or not, just flagging it for others to consider. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment and others - I am now very concerned about a serious red flag on the Carnegie Mellon article. The user of interest included an entirely new section in the article only to revert a fellow editor's (me) call for discussion on the talk page first. The user of interest summarized his revert as so: "Unreasonable editing". This is the sort of behavior that can be found on other pages this user has been involved with. It would be strange if all of the human users associated with this account (i.e. "Group of students") exhibited this same editing behavior. Please address this as soon as possible. Pdyusmep (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Further, if the user is truly a professor emeritus at a top university, his heavy editing activity and timeline of editing would be entirely strange. Just trying to give as much information as I know. Pdyusmep (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Users removing warnings from their own talk pages is considered acceptable practice, per WP:BLANKING. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're bringing this up under this comment. It is not addressed above. Further, that is the least of my concerns. I'm more concerned about his editing behavior on actual Wikipedia articles. Pdyusmep (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Having just looked at the Carnegie Mellon example you called on, its your edits that look to be of concern, not theirs. You deleted their alterations not due to any stated objection to the content, your summary was "Do not add an entire section without consulting the talk page. Thank you." Looking at the talk page, I see no concerns about adding new sections or anything else added by a human being in literally years, so there is no sign that they didn't consult the page... and there is certainly no requirement that we discussing everything on the talk page before seeking to improve the article, particularly in a non-destructive manner. You did not provide any argument on the talk page then or since against the additions. Their action may not be the epitome of the WP:BRD cycle, but you gave nothing to discuss. You've come here and made rather vague complaints (such as making an issue of a retired person doing a lot of editing), but given little to hang a concern on. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, you should actually look at the user's history of edit warring and page protectionism on the Nobel page among countless other examples. Further, the user on several occasions has used the IP address: 107.77.210.145 as a sock-puppet to avoid the 3RR rule. If I could get the input of a competent editor who would offer to use CheckUser on his account that would be helpful. Pdyusmep (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And as for my own edits on the CMU page my objections were based in the user's history of page protectionism/disruptive editing and the fact that universities are not credited with the founding of companies - I made very clear in my summary that his addition as it pertains to corporations was more applicable to the notable alumni section. Further, the academic discoveries portion of his addition is just an extension of the Research section - hence why I moved it there. Please pay a little more attention even if this isn't your field of expertise. Pdyusmep (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you made no such thing very clear in your summary; at the time of the post I made, you had made (under your listed account) just one edit to the CMU page, and your edit summary was exactly what I quoted above. Nor are the edits since summarized as you indicate. Nor, despite your insistence that other users consult the talk page before they be allowed to edit, have you posted anything to the article's talk page despite making large edits yourself. One does not need a high level of expertise in a particular topic to be able to read the page's edit history. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, you are completely dull to the user's history of page protectionism and edit warring. Read above and actually do your job to investigate the user's history or don't clog up this discussion at all. You're right - it doesn't take much expertise to realize that universities don't start companies - people do. Pdyusmep (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain why you think you get to tell me what my "job" is; the other volunteers here are not all monkeys designated to dance for your pleasure. If you are making false claims here in your effort, then it is to the general benefit that that their false nature be revealed. If you don't want people noting when you've made false claims, then the prudent move would be not to make false claims. Attacking someone for noting that you've made them does not actually advance your cause. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your comment applies to your own behavior. I raised the issue and then clarified it for you, which wasn't enough for you to pursue the issue I am raising. Accusing me of an ulterior motive is pathetic and perhaps something else we should also address. Let's allow other editors to chime in. Pdyusmep (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________


 * Hi, sorry for the trouble. Originally I thought this account Pdyusmep did not deserve a reply, but since now he/she has begun to attack User:NatGertler here and in User talk:Pdyusmep, I'd like to reveal what is really going on.

1) First of all, some brief history. Based on my preliminary review, account User:Pdyusmep is highly likely the resurgence of the blocked account User:RabidMelon, which was affiliated with Columbia University and controlled over 10 socket puppets. Account User:RabidMelon had been blocked indefinitely earlier this year (2017) by administrator "Bbb23", and what's more it was first blocked in 2010 (but was somehow unblocked in 2011). However, few months ago several New-York-based IP addresses such as 74.108.156.96 User_talk:74.108.156.96 appeared in Wikipedia, displaying almost identical editing behavior and language as that of User:RabidMelon. But the IP was again blocked for disruptive editing by administrator "Drmies". Now it comes this account User:Pdyusmep.

All these accounts and IP addresses are contributing/protecting the page of Columbia University, even though account User:Pdyusmep now pretends to be a Harvard graduate student (the User Page is just set up today). These accounts show protectionism of Columbia University Wiki-page and uses double standards while viewing other universities. Their standard tricks include Sock puppetry, threatening, bluffing, disrupting, and consistent reverting of other editors' revisions. They appear offensive/aggressive, using insulting words sometimes, when talking to other editors whom he/she does not agree, for recent instances: User talk:Pdyusmep (see section "Your COIN comments"), User_talk:Ber31 (see section "Regarding IP '74.108.156.96'"), and on User_talk:MelanieN.

2) Secondly, one of the socket puppets of User:RabidMelon was User:PrincetonNeuroscientist, who was protecting fiercely Columbia's Nobel laureate count when I first started to restructure the page List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation. Several unqualified affiliates were excluded from Columbia's count. From then on, User:RabidMelon together with its socket puppet accounts, including today's User:Pdyusmep, had been following my editing, making unreasonable reverting and reporting me from time to time. He/she could use whatever argument he/she thinks of to argue with you. Sorry for the trouble.

3) Thirdly, User:Pdyusmep and its related accounts/IPs has accused that IP 107.77.210.145 is my socket puppet. This is just his/her way of attacking/reporting me. Any administrator is welcomed to prove that I am completely unrelated to IP 107.77.210.145. The false accusations made by User:Pdyusmep are common in his/her editing. Minimumbias (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

User Mingwingko

 * User


 * (plastic surgeon)
 * (plastic surgeon)
 * (building they have offices in)
 * (building they have offices in)
 * (building they have offices in)

My actions with regard to this user's activity so far:
 * yesterday: deleted the Shenthilkumar Naidu and Martin Huang pages as spam per WP:CSD G11 and removed (diff) a link which the user had added to the Naidu page
 * today: posted a Uw-paid1 warning on the user talk page after the user re-created the Shenthilkumar Naidu page.

By the way, Wing Tai Properties Limited owns and manages Winsland House I. Edits to that page (and redirects to it) by, , and  suggest that there might be some sock puppetry involved as well.

I'll post a coin-notice on Mingwingko's talk page. – Athaenara ✉  08:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked as a spam-only account. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Historical Mensch and the Ami (magazine) and Mishpacha articles
has repeatedly engaged in disruptive COI editing at and. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here for examples. Some of those diff links show NatGertler trying to fix the problems. Both NatGertler and I have reverted and taken the matters to the talk page. Historical Mensch simply reverts and does not attempt to discuss. The editor has had multiple warnings on his talk page. And, as the last diff link shows, the editor was also recently reverted by Sir Joseph. The edit histories also indicate that this editor has been editing the articles as an IP. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've only been dealing with the Ami (magazine) stuff, but his recent edits have been to repeatedly insert claims that it is a "leading" weekly, that it is "popular", "most widely read", and yes indeed, "mostly widely read". All of these are unsourced; there are sources dangling after the claim, but those are often sources that were there before the addition and in no case do they support the claim made. The promotional intent is clear and undeniable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Noting here that TonyBallioni has blocked this editor twice now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Editor was also recently blocked by GeneralizationsAreBad. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Maximiliano Korstanje


This article was started by a WP:SPA,. Virtually all substantive edits are by a series of IPs with no history other than this article and adding his books to other articles, e.g., ,. The IPs geolocate to Argentina, where the subject lives.

Most of the references are to his own work, including books published via notorious academic vanity press IGI Global.

I would like some support for at least aggressive cleanup if not outright deletion, please. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Guy, the article has an unopposed recommendation for cleanup on the talkpage. I will comment in the affirmative there. Anything else you are looking for specific to the COI issues? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Stubbed for now as virtually the entire thing is WP:PRIMARY and reeks of PR. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh oh, has reverted me and Guy ☆ Bri (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted back to a stub, went to leave a COI notice on the editors talk page per  Where upon the anon adds 5k more. Jim1138 (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The anon left a message on my . He's not too happy. Doesn't seem to want to read his talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * noticed a 2015 edit here to Disaster tourism referencing MK Jim1138 (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In face the vast majority of that IP's edits, 2012-2015, were about MK. Pam  D  13:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also at Sociology of terrorism in 2016 ☆ Bri (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And I notice that another IP "Rafael" has just expanded the stub, with no sources apart from MK's own publications. Pam  D  13:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As well as - Noellesch9 - please chime in here. Jim1138 (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Malkawi


he is editing Malkawi article without reliable resources and it seems that there is an conflict of interest in his contributions because he tried to write it in many languages and were deleted. Please look at talk page. مصعب (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

David Dausey


Lovingly crafted resume, mainly sourced to subject's own publications. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Furqanrizwan sockfarm


Found and blocked by and I. GABgab 16:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also . NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ...Which implicates (WP:QUACK). GABgab 16:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

List_of_router_and_firewall_distributions


This is in regards to OPNSense being included in the table for completeness. It is an active project, with unique code, and About 485,000 results (0.64 seconds) from Google. Several editors are prohibiting and have locked this page in an effort to censor this open source project from being included on this page and nearly every reference has justified removal as being non-notable. I believe this to be inaccurate and it is largely 3 editors that are prohibiting its inclusion. This in-spite of IPCop being included and being inactive and not updated in over 2 years, while OPNSense is an active project with the most recent update being less than a month old. Several references state that no article exists, yet one did exist and was fought and deleted by some of the following editors, again as non-notable

In the process of finding a firewall solution, I came to Wikipedia in addition to other sources. I was disappointed to learn that TechRadar had an article including OPNSense as one of the 6 best firewalls of 2017, with similar articles elsewhere. only to see it missing from Wikipedia. An article on Techradar with that title, one of the top 1500 worldwide sites and top 1000 in the US, should summarily define OPNSense as notable and end this long-term and unnecessary debate.

One note for removal stated "there is no consensus to add OPNSense, or indeed any entries without Wikipedia articles.", without noting that at one point a page did exist and was deleted as being non-notable. This is a vicious circle that defies the comprehensive compendium that is stated as part of Wikipedia's purpose.

I came across this when attempting to add OPNSense and found this dispute in progress. Over a dozen unique authors, likely more like myself, have attempted to add OPNSense to the table and, almost exclusively, a single editor with a likely COI and definitive bias is reverting them. This seems to have begun Jan 2015 and seems to be actively monitored for the addition of this singular item.

I am seeking restoration of the original OPNSense article, inclusion of OPNSense on this page, and to prevent censorship of a valid project from inclusion because of what I believe is a personal prejudice.

Accounts actively removing and fighting any addition of OPNSense into the table for neutrality and completeness are included only to simplify and expedite the review process:


 * started on 20Jul15 with editing the FreeBSD page, continued to heavily edit the PfSense article, defended the GNG of PfSense from being deleted, which I agree with. Much of the behavior seems to indicate that this could be a sockpuppet of a competitor of OPNSense.  His edits are ONLY PfSense promotion or OPNSense averse.



ComputerRick (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC) — ComputerRick (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Limiting lists to notable members, and judging notability by the presence of a page on the subject, are both common on Wikipedia. The first allows lists to keep from being ungainly large; the second allows notability to be established in a place where the full source of notability can be explained, as well as encouraged establishment of articles on notable topics. The best reaction would be to establish a page on the subject that passes review. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The best solution might be for people involved in a project not to try to use Wikipedia to promote it. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What evidence can you present that I have any affiliation with said project? You are either unable to perform any level of research or you are simply attacking me to further your own agenda.
 * First, there is a German page that currently exists, the English page was removed around September of last year by the same user that is constantly fighting it. Did you even look at  and compare to mine? I have no involvement in this product and interesting that the page that existed was deleted by the same person that has pushed for the continued removal of a valid project.  Yet, you don't see a COI with a user that has almost exclusively promoted pfSense and fought any presence of OPNSense on ANY page.  You state GNG, yet Techradar.com can list it in their top 8 firewalls, ahead of pfSense and you still claim not notable.
 * I've donated to Wikipedia every year for the past 8 years because I feel that it was a neutral ground for information, that's at an end. This is censorship at it's finest by those who have a clear agenda.  I'm asking everyone to consider the position and edits done by myself and others.  Apparently, I won't find a fair arena to be heard as {user|Mr.hmm} is on a personal campaign to ensure that OPNSense is not allowed any presence on any page and has succeeded in deleting the page and references on multiple pages.  If you check is contribs, you would see that seems to be his only mission, to promote pfSense and delete OPNSense.  As to your claim that it's GNG, I would point you to the place where ensured that the original OPNSense article was deleted.  He's abusing the system and for anyone to not look at his contribs and not be able to see that he's clearly acting in a fascist manner to suppress something he doesn't agree with, and you are supporting said censorship.  I have lost faith in in Wikipedia.  It's no longer a gathering of knowledge, it's now a quagmire of garbage that allowed by those gaming the system bogged down by bureaucracy.  Reject me and be done with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComputerRick (talk • contribs) 11:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How interesting, after OPNsense draft was rejected many times (see Draft:OPNSense) by established reviewers in the past days, I'm the target of a brand new account promoting OPNsense. OPNsense is well known for abusing Wikipedia for years. Non-notable project that seeks to gain visibility with Wikipedia. Why would you report and ? They too noticed the continuous abuse by OPNsense. Where's the conflict of interest? Meanwhile we have OPNsense developers and employees promoting their non-notable software on Wikipedia.--Mr.hmm (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC) — Mr.hmm (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Really? Yet another SPA appears to push this product, and the first thing he does is open a COI on me? I removed mention of OPNSense from this article exactly once, with the edit summary "Write the article first (as a draft since the article [has been] deleted multiple times and salted)" That's it. I have also removed several other entries from the list that did not have articles to establish their notability either , so I'm not showing any bias against OPNSense. I have mentioned on the talk page that I removed the other entries, and suggested that articles should be written about the missing distributions if any editors wished to see them included in the list. That's the entirety of my edits to this article and its talk page. How can that possibly be evidence of a COI or an account "actively removing and fighting any addition of OPNSense into the table"? Meters (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess it's easier to sell it that way, when there's a "group" against them. I understand why would they mention me, I've been the most persistent with blocking their constant promotion. But they mention you and Quasar G. so it looks "bad". Sorry you got dragged into this.--Mr.hmm (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No biggie. It's so far fetched it's funny. I think my summary about first writing the article as a draft because it has already been deleted multiple times and salted pretty much sums up the situation. Meters (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OPNSense is mature enough for production and until I went to add it to the List_of_router_and_firewall_distributions article, I didn't realize that Mr.hmm's only purpose as an account is to erase all mention of OPNSense and promote pfSense. I simply listed all three suppressors of this information for completeness, but I believe that they are simply uninformed, while Mr.hmm is intentional and quite deliberate in his actions.  Can we consider evidence and not baseless claims that you continually make to users when attempting to add OPNSense?  Mr.hmm, amazing that you're account is newer than mine and primary edits for my account have been in routing technologies.  It's interesting to me that OPNSense was released in Jan 2015 and this account became active in July of that same year.  Your first edit was to add PfSense to the FreeBSD page and the second was to remove OPNSense information from the derivitive section of the PfSense page.  You've been very busy and from your edits and comments, especially in regards to protecting the pfSense page when it was being suggested for deletion then proposing that the OPNSense article be deleted for WP:GNG in the same comment should raise questions.  The OPNSense page has been deleted multiple times after approval and you've fought or succeeded in getting it removed or delayed at every juncture.  Then you change your name to hide your actions, also very suspicious.  Meanwhile, my account was created in 2012, for simply correcting small errors in computer technology, largely focused on routing.  You've made 214 edits, ALL related to PfSense or OPNSense.  I've made 12 edits, my initial contribution to IS-IS and now to getting this record corrected.  I've added 12 web citations to the Draft:OPNSense to support that it is notable and meets the guidelines, since that seems to be the rubric which you hide behind to ensure the page isn't created.  I am going to follow this up with a WP:SPI against Mr.hmm for his unilateral actions for PfSense and against OPNSense, which appears to be a direct competitor.   ComputerRick (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First, do you even know how to use Wikipedia? You inserted your reply all over the discussion. Maybe you should learn formatting first before promoting OPNsense. Second, please do follow up with WP:SPI and list yourself and all other sock puppet accounts brought here by OPNsense. Personal attacks, even insults where you call me a "fascist" is really a great way to portray me as the bad guy. Only one thing is clear, I have been protecting Wikipedia from continuous abuse by OPNsense and their sock accounts. --Mr.hmm (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct, I"ve made multiple mistakes in this process to call you out. You are a pro, this is probably one of dozens of accounts that you use to make money by promoting a product and removing competitors.  You definitely know how to game the system.  I apologized to the other accounts that I shouldn't have posted, for no reason other than I was wrong to include them on the COI.  You have no evidence of your claims and I do.  You attack anyone who wants to include it as socks and attack them, but I am hoping that through all of this, that those who can settle this dispute actually look at the evidence and can see that you are clearly biased and controlling material through bureaucracy.   ComputerRick (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I urge you to stop making baseless accusations. Your editing is disruptive, you insert your replies all over the place, including reviving old discussions with your own flawed formatting. Harassing me because I prevent constant self-promotion and vandalism by OPNSense will not end well. This is your final warning.--Mr.hmm (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Mr.hmm and Computer rick, and your fellow single-purpose combatants (not Meters or Quasar)... this is a board where problems are brought to the community for independent review. This is not a place for you to bicker, and neither of you is looking good.
 * Please listen -- Wikipedia is an open and actually nonprofit project. Every article that is relatively good here, is a product of love -- of volunteers dedicated to our mission to provide people with encyclopedic accepted knowledge, and who do so following community norms (our policies and guidelines). We are not a product manual or a place to market things, although people very commonly mistake it for that.
 * When the subject of an article is something that has an active, online community that is devoted to it, the vulnerabilities of Wikipedia are greatly amplified, and it is not at all uncommon to stumble across pages in Wikipedia that have been hijacked by such communities. We have been struggling mightily, for example, to wrest articles about various cryptocurrencies out of the hands of editors who are affiliated with specific currencies.  In those topics, there is not only fanhood going on, but many of those people hold those currencies, and there is very clear financial COI.
 * The same thing is going on here. We have these open source software projects which have their online communities around them, and both of them are sold by for-profit companies.  We again have the insidious combination of advocacy, active communities of online "fans" (and "haters"), tied in with for-profit financial conflict of interest.  Each of one of you - based on what you have actually done in WP to date - has brought  your external interests and conflicts into Wikipedia and together you are wasting the time of the volunteer community - the lifeblood of this place - with your bickering, and are harming our encyclopedic content (or trying to).
 * As far as I can see, all of you are abusing Wikipedia - this beautiful thing that has been created by love.
 * I am going to open discussions with each of you, asking each of you to disclose your relationships with these project and companies. (Not who you are, just your relationships). I am going to explain to each one of you how the Wikipedia community manages conflict of interest and advocacy, and I am going to ask each of you to abide by those ways in the future.  The past is the past, and we can all let that go if people understand what they have been doing wrong and start self-correcting. If.
 * Please stop arguing, and please stop trying to change any content, while those conversations are ongoing. Also, please don't interfere in each other's conversations. Just wait a while.  Here in Wikipedia, there is no deadline, and working things out sanely, is the most important thing.  I am hopeful that once each of you learns what you should do as an advocate and/or someone with a clear COI, you will each start acting appropriately.


 * I also urge independent editors who participate here frequently to have a look at PfSense and Draft:OPNsense. Neither of those is a Wikipedia article - PfSense is a page in Wikipedia that has been hijacked and turned into a brochure for that software and Draft:OPNsense is aiming to be the same.  Both of those pages should make the company behind the product far more clear -- Rubicon Communications, LLC (Netgate) in the case of PFSense (where the company is at least mentioned) and Deciso in the case of OPNsense, where the company is mentioned only in the infobox.


 * Once these one-on-one discussions are done, we can come back here and resolve any further issues that remain. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything Jytdog said. This isn't a free for all web forum. Please treat the volunteer resources donated to this project – time and attention especially – with respect. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * So I have gone around and talked to folks, and trimmed the cruft out of pfSense and worked on Draft:OPNSense enough that it was moved to mainspace, where i cleaned it up more, and had it moved to OPNsense (which had been salted due to relentless efforts to create it), and now is in all the listicles and nav bars etc. So the articles are kind of reasonable.
 * In my view advocates for OPNsense pushed too hard too early to get an article. I am still not sure if OPNsense would pass an AfD but it will only get stronger with time.
 * Folks have edited very much as advocates and I have asked everybody to check their fan-hats at the login page. We will see what happens but i don't see anything more to do for now. Jytdog (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Malkawi
he is editing Malkawi article without reliable resources and it seems that there is an conflict of interest in his contributions because he tried to write it in many languages and were deleted. Please look at talk page. مصعب (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Koch Brothers wikiwashing

 * (disclosed alias, retired 2010)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/MBMadmirer/Archive
 * (disclosed alias, retired 2010)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/MBMadmirer/Archive
 * (disclosed alias, retired 2010)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/MBMadmirer/Archive

The Intercept reports in a December 1 story that Koch brothers have been employing a PR firm, New Media Strategies, owned by Meredith Corporation, to wikiwash articles related to themselves. Editors named in the investigation are listed above, include the MBMadmirer sockfarm (from 2011!). Fang alleged that Articles for deletion/Lee Fang, initiated by /NMS Bill was retaliatory or something based on his former association with New Media Strategies. Personally, that seems a stretch, but I thought it should be discussed. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * An expanded version of what I said to on my user talk page: I worked for NMS until July 2010, which included some work on a few Koch-related topics using a now-retired account, ; see the disclosure in my first edit request here, and a favorable summary of my work, by a volunteer editor some time later, here. (FWIW, none of my disclosed, mostly hands-off work is mentioned in Fang's article.) After I left, someone else apparently created an account to edit directly and without disclosure, and the SPI resulted in several account blockings. Fang actually wrote about this very same incident for Think Progress at the time. I'd forgotten putting Fang's entry up for deletion (from my personal account) about a year later, and I don't remember why I decided to do so, except as you can see in my AfD rationale that I felt the case for Notability was lacking. For the record, I still do. WWB (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to take WWB's explanation at face value and not pursue it any further.
 * However some interesting things came up in this investigative journalism. Do high-profile PR firms infiltrate Wikipedia? Yes. Do they create fake news sites to help their clients? Yes (written about further in Salon.com here). Something to keep in mind for other cases – foxes in the henhouse. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Publicis PR company and US subsidiaries
For context, 167.246.61.0/24 reports it belongs to Lion Resources 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago. The following firms give that as their address: Arc, MSL Group, Leo Burnett Chicago, Starcom MediaVest Group, SMG Multicultural. 167.246.62.0/24 reports it belongs to Lion Resources 424 2nd Ave. W. Seattle. The following firms give that as their address: Publicis Seattle, Publicis Dialog, Optimedia, MSLGROUP, Razorfish (corroborated here). Most or all of the firms are Publicis subsidiaries.
 * Lion Resources static IPs


 * Chicago office?
 * Atlanta office?
 * Texas??
 * Chicagoland?
 * LION Resources Seattle
 * LION Resources Seattle
 * LION Resources Seattle
 * LION Resources Seattle


 * articles and involved SPAs
 * owned by Publicis
 * owned by Publicis
 * - creator; 7 November 2015
 * 167.246.60.1
 * owned by Publicis
 * Atlanta
 * San Diego
 * owned by Publicis
 * indeffed sock / Sockpuppet investigations/Susana Hodge
 * 167.246.61.1
 * owned by Publicis
 * declared COI
 * declared COI
 * declared COI
 * owned by Publicis
 * awards arm (?) of Team One
 * declared COI
 * exec involved with Publicis
 * Atlanta
 * San Diego
 * owned by Publicis
 * indeffed sock / Sockpuppet investigations/Susana Hodge
 * 167.246.61.1
 * owned by Publicis
 * declared COI
 * declared COI
 * declared COI
 * owned by Publicis
 * awards arm (?) of Team One
 * declared COI
 * exec involved with Publicis
 * declared COI
 * declared COI
 * owned by Publicis
 * awards arm (?) of Team One
 * declared COI
 * exec involved with Publicis
 * exec involved with Publicis
 * exec involved with Publicis

I think there's a pretty significant problem in a lot of articles related to the firm Publicis and their subs. The accounts listed above are virtual 100% SPAs for the company. Some have edited pretty recently, others not so recently.

Requesting that an admin examine deleted revisions of The Legacy Lab based on this test edit. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bri. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously most of the accounts (& many anons) listed above never declared a COI. The community needs to decide whether the three four declarations that have been made are sufficient per WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY. One was made just today on this page so we can conclude they are aware of this conversation and able to participate if they choose. I'll just note that no clients are visible anywhere as far as I can see, and only YashO listed specific articles. Disclosing clients is specifically required under WP:PAID policy and ToU. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * (originator)
 * I think both are employees of Team One (advertising agency) - PenaCynthia started that article. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think both are employees of Team One (advertising agency) - PenaCynthia started that article. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think both are employees of Team One (advertising agency) - PenaCynthia started that article. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

For the record, the Lion Resources IP address range 67.246.61.0 to 67.246.62.255 has been blocked for 3 years. The COI-declared accounts should still be able to edit when logged in. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Antenoels




Came by this on NPP, and I thought it would be a good idea to bring to COI (I am however a COI newbie). Antenoels is an account with less than 100 edits that is creating well fleshed articles (formatting, references, infoboxes, etc.) on non-notable subjects (to wit - two of which were recreations of deleted, per AFD, articles). Thepeacebone is a 9 edit user whose sole editing is editing an article (one day after) Antenoels created Alana Camille Bunte + added the article to Why Not Model Management and Laguna Beach High School. Antenoels created YapStone (a payment company, probably notable), Tom Villante (YapStone founder, probably not notable), did major work on David Rasnick to refactor so AIDs denial isn't the "main thing" diff, recreated Chinedu Echeruo (was AFDed to redirect, recreated - ), major work on Yahu Blackwell (created 30 days previously by user:Roland H Lester (a 16 edit account that created this, did some work Gary Lockett (another boxer) and in 2014 edited Restoration Hardware (to remove/tone down a scandal)), and re-created (deleted in April 2017 AfD) California Closets. Given the subject matter on the one hand, and the seemingly experienced editing on the other - I thought it appropriate to raise here.Icewhiz (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To me, it looks like a case of possible sockpuppetry or undisclosed paid editing, at least for, who could easily fix the problem by going to WP:PAID and complying with the instructions there to tag his/her user page appropriately. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is SPI worthy. See: Sockpuppet investigations/Roland H Lester TonyBallioni (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is LogAntiLog. I've tagged all but one of the pages as G5 and sent the other to AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User: Nygiants123

 * - I'm not seeing problems with the edit here other than the source might be questionable
 * - The source is poor, but the edit is a list of home towns
 * - Speedy deleted
 * - The source is poor, but the edit is a list of home towns
 * - Speedy deleted
 * - The source is poor, but the edit is a list of home towns
 * - Speedy deleted
 * - Speedy deleted
 * - Speedy deleted
 * - Speedy deleted
 * - Speedy deleted

Nygiants123 is a new account. I'd like to think that a new editor can learn how to use detailed edit summaries, provide well-formatted references, and work incredibly fast (making 10 substantial additions between 15:06 and 15:59 on 29 November 2017), but this looks more like an experienced editor. However, Nygiants123 has accidenly tagged most of these edits as minor, and has used poor sources all around.

I've reverted 9 of the 10 rapid additions, the exception of the one for Simon Sinek, as being poorly sourced, most overly promotional as well.

There seems to be more going on here. Those 10 rapid additions were to BLPs, many (most? all?) of which have had rather blatant COI editing problems. The subsequent edits are to recreate twice-deleted Joe Vitale (author) BLP, where Nygiants123 has apparently made sure that the new article is different than the previously deleted ones, which Nygiants123 was able to find copies external to Wikipedia.

This looks exactly what I'd expect from a paid editor, so I wanted it to at least be documented here. I'm wondering if someone recognizes this editing behavior as a possible sock? --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me guess, (SPI) who had created Joe Vitale previously? The prior COIN discussion (also part 2) is both interesting and depressing. - ☆ Bri (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks related. I've not looked closely at the edits from this account yet. --Ronz (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like the same editor. I've reviewed the edits, leaving a couple. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like the same editor. I've reviewed the edits, leaving a couple. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * - edit seems ok
 * - edit seems ok

Jordanyear23 actually returned to make this edit that is blantantly promotional on its own. I don't think an experienced editor would make such a mistake, so I'm guessing this is meatpuppetry. I suppose a SPI is the proper next step. --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)



Nygiants123 is back as well. (More to follow when I have time). --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Download



 * Companies/brands created
 * - created after ToS update requiring WP:PAID disclosure
 * - created after ToS update
 * - created after ToS update
 * - created after ToS update
 * (redir Sanela Diana Jenkins of Neurobrands)
 * Biographies created
 * Chinese inventor
 * American exec
 * American entrepreneur
 * American author and spiritual teacher
 * American yoga studio ent.
 * Involved
 * (see File:PaulAllgoodpainting.jpg)
 * (redir Sanela Diana Jenkins of Neurobrands)
 * Biographies created
 * Chinese inventor
 * American exec
 * American entrepreneur
 * American author and spiritual teacher
 * American yoga studio ent.
 * Involved
 * (see File:PaulAllgoodpainting.jpg)
 * American exec
 * American entrepreneur
 * American author and spiritual teacher
 * American yoga studio ent.
 * Involved
 * (see File:PaulAllgoodpainting.jpg)
 * (see File:PaulAllgoodpainting.jpg)

has created or been involved in creation of the articles listed above. What brought me here specifically is his creation HUMAN Healthy Vending, a company whose founders went on to do SnackNation and that article was declared paid editing. It isn't beyond comprehension that they might have commissioned both articles, but one of them – the one by Download – was not declared paid.

Some of these are the kinds of companies desperate for good coverage on WP that have gotten editors in trouble before: ASEA, LLC is a multi-level marketing company; Pepperstone is a forex broker; Superfish was an about-to-go-broke Internet advertising company when created; Homejoy, ImLive.com, WebHostingBuzz, and Zady are e-commerce retail/media/service companies.

I'm assuming in good faith that he or she will be able to tell us about this. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Other editors ☆ Bri (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * SPA, uploaded ASEA, LLC logo & expanded
 * (blocked sock), de-orphaned Airobotics
 * , contributed to Zady and created Simba Sleep which aroused
 * , contributed to Zady and other iffy articles

This doesn't look promising. Took a harder look at some of Download's contributions that weren't full article creations. Found some stuff that looks like straightforward (ref)spam for stuff like Dream Night Limousine Service, Celebrity Cars Blog, Phoenix Appliance Repair, Mosaic Art Source, mosaicio.net (mosaicio.com), realestatelicense.com, binarytrading.com, yourlawyer.com and houseflipmentor.com.

At this time in light of everything here, I'm formally asking an admin to remove advanced permissions from, namely pending changes, autopatrolled and rollbacker. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've nothing to add about Download, but CU picks up these accounts (confirmed):

and Stephen Shih is definitely dodgy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Above accounts and Stephanie Shih all blocked. Bri, I've removed Download's autopatrolled and pending changes reviewer flags. Don't see any edit warring, so left rollbacker. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * > refspamming a binary options website
 * > good faith
 * The only way it could be worse was if the site belonged to a (ahem) company selling binary options, instead of merely accepting commissions from said "brokers".
 * Were these accounts editing from webhosts? Their behavior is very similar to Special:Permanentlink/811704448. MER-C 12:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and yes - I can see some direct connection (again excluding Download). There is also a connection to India. Needless to say, we're range blocking as we go. But if you want feel free to drop me a ping about any more VPNs which turn up, because I'm into blocking them with a vengeance. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Have applied the WP:ROLLBACK tool to the socks as possible and appropriate. With very few exceptions their contribs were additions of weirdly routine business transactions such as store closures, appointment of new officers, and acquisitions, especially for fashion retailers. Don't think the encyclopedia will be missing them really. Also noting that in many cases the first edit was a "cover" edit and noting in particular that KnownAsNerd-Kirk's first was related to Australia. ☆ Bri (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd independently noticed that Download seemed dodgy. Unless there is a very convincing explanation soon, I don't see much choice but to block them. Bri hasn't said, but download has made 75k edits and while I've no clue what proportion are dodgy, it would certainly appear to date back a long while given that BuySellAds.com was created(sorry admins only) in 2011. from your look through the contribs, do you have a feel for the proportion that seem bad and when they begun? SmartSE (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Have a look at User:Bri/COIbox70 for the answers you seek ... some obviously benign edits related to obscure musical instruments and living species have already been stripped out, a few remain on the list related to Australian geography. I'd estimate the weirdness was there from the beginning with the BuySellAds.com thing but they laid off for a while. Definitely by November 2011 when the forex article (Pepperstone) was begun, they were doing it seriously. I'm never sure with these guys whether the other editing was either a cover, or pursued when there was a break in work. The long list of sequentially created species reminded me of another dodgy editor I've come across but not recalling right now who it was. If anybody's got a guess what was going on with the testosterone articles, I'd be happy to hear. Also: does anybody else want to take a guess at what was going on with the "adoptees" and "classroom"? This was a bit disturbing to me as one of them (at the time) was a pre-high school student in my area, whose editing reminds me of someone else in the Vipul case – both perhaps on the Aspberger's spectrum. I don't want to list the adoptees here in case they are just caught up in this unawares, but one was who got indeffed for some atrocious behavior so I don't mind listing them. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , I would endorse a block here of download. Fits a pattern we have seen with longterm accounts that go inactive and but exist to offer cover for promotional editing under being an established editor. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I can’t easily clean these up for a few days as I am travelling and using an iPad. The articles urgently need pruning of “sources” that are obvious press releases and advertorial. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's been no word from Download and nobody has objected to this being UPE so I will block them. SmartSE (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Alan Morrison (poet)


I first encountered an article in a poor state of affairs, suffering from considerable lack of NPOV as caused by a COI editor. I embarked upon a large scale tidy to bring within wiki standards, mindful of excess content that was inappropriate, unencyclopaedic or unreferenced. I shared the rationale on the talk page at the time (Lacks sources for entire sections. The tone of language. The excessive linking to external sites. Overly detailed.) The subject immediately (within 8 hours) resisted the change and reverted. Another editor (AdventurousMe) agreed, and was challenged by the subject (What is your problem about this page? You seem to have a real agenda here which is quite puzzling.). There was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing on that talk page and when I returned to it, I made swingeing cuts from this to this to bring it back to an acceptable standard. Yorkshades and Translated1 are the same person. Unsure why two accounts exist, but they both exclusively edit this account only, having first done so in 2008. They are linked as proven by this edit. I issued standard COI warnings on their talk page (using a template) and was given this response: ''How dare you accuse me of 'soapboxing', 'promotion' or 'advertising', none of which I have done on the page you mention. How dare you remove so much neutral information from the article too.'' There's a lot of inappropriateness in this person's behaviour, from 3RR, ignoring request upon request to address the COI policy, refusing to acknowledge NPOV and other key guidelines, whataboutisms and then issuing barely-veiled legal threats such as 'defamation by implication'. BJBeamish, the creator of the article, has weighed in with his opinion too (calling me a troll). Discussion on the talk page has and always will reach an impasse until intervention from another party. Rayman60 (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Rayman60. Thanks for bringing this here.  You did exactly the right thing in doing so.  This is a very difficult situation, where concerns about conflict of interest arise from a content dispute, an effort is made to address that, and the two get tangled up in the mind of the other person.   I believe you are correct that there is a COI here and I have opened a discussion with Translated1, to which I hope they will respond calmly.   It will help, if you step back from both the content at the article, and from Translated1's talk page, and let me see if I can work with them to get oriented to what they should do.   Once that is done, we can turn back to the article and fix it.  It does need fixing, but there is no deadline here, and it will be better if we can bring it into line with Translated1's help and blessing, as opposed to over their dead body as it were.
 * Again thank you for identifying and raising the issue. I hope the approach I am suggesting works for you. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts Jytdog. I note you have worked hard on this since it has been raised. Now you are involved, I'm happy to step back and allow you to direct the page's development. Much appreciated and hope it works out! Rayman60 (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Mark Z. Jacobson


This article should have been deleted under WP:CSD, it was created by a sock of a blocked or banned user. The edit history shows that much of the content is the result of an ill-tempered back and forth between the subject, who has not reacted at all to repeated requests to stop adding promotional content, and one other editor. The subject is contentious, and the edit history is a mess. Much of the grief seems to track back to a lawsuit initiated by the subject against critics of a paper he wrote (see ). That's more or less guaranteed to make you no friends in science, I guess.

I think the subject is notable, but the article needs a careful review because it is virtually impossible by now to establish which bits are promotional guff by the subject, what's left over from the original spamming sockpuppet, and what's actually good content that adequately reflects the dominant view independent of the subject. I wonder if I should start by stubbing it? Guy (Help!) 08:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC).
 * Huge mess. The coi editor needs at least a final warning at this point. The article would probably best be approached as a rewrite. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing by User:Gibmul


I'm starting a discussion here based upon User talk:Gibmul and some comments made at User talk:Drmies. Gibmul is a new account who has stated on their user page that they are a newspaper journalist who occassionally does some paid editing. They have only stated on their user talk that they are being paid to update Yoshiki (musician), but have added Connected contributor (paid) to Talk:Silent Siren, Talk:Alex Cubis, Draft talk:Ximble as well as some other userspace drafts they are currenlty working on. The account is only a month old, but so far pretty much every edit seems to be associated with paid editing.

Gibmul also stated in in the aforementioned "Paid editing, etc." thread that they are using the sandboxes as proof pages for others to assess and review. It's not clear, however, who these others are and no indication has been given in any of the "Paid declarations" regarding who Gibmul's employer or employers are. Then, there is this statement about being a working newspaper reporter and used to this type of thing which taken in combination with this major addition made to the "Silent Siren" article (without any apparent article talk page discussion) might actually indicate a lack of familiarity with WP:NOT.

So, I think the community should require Gibmul to clarify who their employer or employers are as well as to require that article talk pages be used per WP:COIADVICE and WP:COIREQ to propose any future major revisions to any article in which they are being paid to update. That way the content can be assessed on Wikipedia by other editors watching the article so that anything too PR-ish or otherwise not compliant with relevant policies and guidelines can be cleaned up as needed. I think it's important that some specific boundaries with respect to COI/PAID editing be established early on if Gibmul is going to be a regular contributor to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to COIN, Marchjuly. I have opened a discussion with them at their talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for stepping in . Because of your user talk page post, we know now who Gibmul's employer is and at least one more article he/she has been paid to edit. Unfortunately, I think we also know the following:
 * The "others" who are reviewing Gibmul's work on these two articles are likely his employer(s), and these reviews are taking place off-Wikipedia without much, if any, serious consideration being given to Wikipedia's policy and guidelines and to editing by consensus.
 * Gibmul's employer seems to misunderstanding WP:NOT and WP:OWN. The employer(s) may believe they are being objective in acting in the interest of their clients and their clients’ fans, but those interests are not really objective in a Wikipedia perspective. The employer seems to feel "objective" means "their preferred version" or "the best version for the fans" which is an indication in my opinion of WP:NOTHERE.
 * Although Gibmul is trying be upon front about being paid and is making a good faith attempt to discuss these things, the primarily concern still seems to be to make the employer happy. Of course, keeping the client happy is important when you’re being paid to do a job, but I think this is not necessarily in Wikipedia’s best interests.
 * Anyway, since you're handling things on Gibmul's user talk, then I stay away from the page unless asked to comment or I need to post there for some other reason. I do think Gibmul should be asked to clarify his paid/COI status on the other drafts being worked on. Connected contributor templates were added to their talk pages as well. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Kershaw/Kai/Shun single-purpose editor

 * abandoned/deleted AfC submission
 * abandoned/deleted AfC submission
 * abandoned/deleted AfC submission

KAI owns brands Kershaw, Shun, Zero Tolerance Knives. The work by this editor is unusually focused on those brands including many indications of promotion listed at WP:Identifying PR in the Zero Tolerance Knives article. That article at least needs a thorough scrub for COI. I'm afraid if you take them out, you're left with items in basically a few listings in harwdware compendiums like Gun Digest Book of Tactical Gear.
 * Lists of patents
 * Unknown or at least non-notable awards – many awarded at trade shows where the company participates
 * TV show product placements
 * "Collaborations" with commercial brands and knifemakers that look like namedropping
 * Company-related sources
 * Corp spokesperson interview
 * Press releases ("outdoor wire")

Also: This appears to have been created as an AfC submission but I don't see any indications that it was approved as such. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The submission was submitted on June 1; the guy must've gotten tired of waiting, and he copied from the draft into the article and got the draft deleted Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So he waited eight whole days then did a cut/paste of the original content including the AfC headers to the current article and requested deletion of Draft:Zero Tolerance Knives? Interesting. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . I wanted to respond to your concerns so we can clear this up. I’ve been focusing on these pages because the Kershaw page was being cluttered with information about Shun and Zero Tolerance. I felt all three brands were notable and deserve their own pages, because the Kershaw page was previously confusing. I’d like to address your points.


 * •If patents are not an acceptable or notable addition for Wikipedia pages, then I apologize. I looked at other pages for inspiration, and noticed that patents were cited in knife articles without issue, notably, the CRKT page.


 * •I don’t see how referencing these awards is inappropriate. They were listed on the Kershaw page, without issue, before I started editing. Instead of cluttering them in long paragraph text, I decided to consolidate them in a formatted table. Both Blade Show and International Forum Design have Wikipedia pages, so I don’t see how they aren’t notable. If they didn’t have dedicated pages, I would not have included them.


 * •Again, several TV show product placements were listed in the Kershaw article before I started editing. I wanted to separate these references to avoid confusion.


 * •I included collaborations because that appears to be the standard for many knife pages. In particular, the Strider Knives page already referenced Zero Tolerance Knives, so I found it appropriate to make that connection on the ZT page. Readers may want to know what knifemakers have worked with certain companies. For example, I took inspiration from the Spyderco page, which includes a list of knifemakers. The specific Kershaw collaboration your referenced was not an edit made by me.


 * •I tried my best to keep sources limited to unaffiliated books, magazines and websites. I see your point about that Outdoor Wire press release, and I agree it can be removed or changed. As for the website, if a journalistic interview with a spokesman is a bad source, then I agree it should be changed as well.


 * As for the submission process, I am new to Wikipedia, so I was confused by the process. I initially thought AtC was the only way to submit, but when I realized you could submit a page instantly, I switched to that option. I thought both methods were valid. If it is better for these articles to be submitted through AtC, then I apologize. Staplepuffs27 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Other articles have problems too; as you noted Spyderco shouldn't be there. Taking inspiration from any article related to consumer goods, consumer finance, etc. should be done very carefully unless it recently passed GA or FA review. The knife industry is interesting because it has "celebrity" artisans/craftsmen like Bob Kramer (I created that article). I'll let another editor take a crack at this before I reply further. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Staplepuffs27 confirmed on their talkpage that they are an employee of the knife company. But the articles still need attention by an uninvolved editor ☆ Bri (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

American PR firm

 * very probably related
 * his book
 * ditto
 * ditto
 * ditto
 * strong-ish link, possibly related
 * (Food Babe)
 * abandoned AfC
 * American author, performance coach
 * weak link but possible
 * at Vani Hari, article creation profile matches; see also Sockpuppet investigations/Vukhudo
 * strong-ish link, possibly related
 * (Food Babe)
 * abandoned AfC
 * American author, performance coach
 * weak link but possible
 * at Vani Hari, article creation profile matches; see also Sockpuppet investigations/Vukhudo
 * abandoned AfC
 * American author, performance coach
 * weak link but possible
 * at Vani Hari, article creation profile matches; see also Sockpuppet investigations/Vukhudo
 * weak link but possible
 * at Vani Hari, article creation profile matches; see also Sockpuppet investigations/Vukhudo
 * at Vani Hari, article creation profile matches; see also Sockpuppet investigations/Vukhudo

I'll be away for a few days, just wanted to start a discussion on a new finding. There's a PR firm for various creatives that lists themselves as representing Food Babe, Marc Eco, Tim Ferriss, Ryan Holiday, Tucker Max, and others since ~2012. The bulk of their business seems to be around printed works especially business related self-improvement. Putting 2 and 2 together leads to at least a few editors. Not ready to name the firm yet; pending discussion with trusted admins about limitations of WP:OUTING. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Reedsy created by founder


Creator has added a link to his userpage which self-identifies as founder of the firm. I think he best thing to do is draftify Reedsy and let it go through AfC. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * -✅ Winged Blades Godric  08:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So this was just "re-floated" by User:Tomwsulcer bypassing AFC and the article history wiped clean, both of which I find problematic. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The subject Reedsy is clearly notable. I'm not affiliated with Reedsy in any way so there's no conflict of interest. I've been revamping Self publishing and saw the Reedsy link light up red, and scratched my head. That an earlier version had a COI problem is not relevant here. This is a rewritten article with appropriate sourcing and fluff removed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * From a quick glance, I think clearly notable is a bit of an exaggeration here. I'd give it a 50/50 shot at AfD, at best, maybe 60/40 in favour of deletion., I haven't run it through duplication detector yet, but I don't see a clear copyright problem in terms of prose. It appears to be different, and wouldn't necessarily require attribution if it was written independently. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, per above, I went ahead and did a BEFORE search and took it to AfD to see what the community thinks. See Articles for deletion/Reedsy. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Methinks you're clearly wasting everybody's time here at Wikipedia. It's clearly notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

When you created the article did you not include in the edit summary that it was "copyedited" and preserved references from the old version? This implies that you used the old version for reference does it not? You must attribute such material. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How is this relevant to the discussion? This noticeboard is Conflict of interest noticeboard. Regarding Reedsy, there's no conflict of interest at present. I floated the Reedsy article and I have no affiliation with Reedsy. You're wasting people's time here at Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If the basis was the article created by a connected contributor, then it is relevant. Copyright is also usually very relevant on this noticeboard because there are questions of ownership of the material and reuse of text that might not be compatibly licensed. If you copied any text or remixed it in anyway from the previous article, you must attribute. If you did, you can place a note here and I'll make the edit summary attribution in a way that the draft can be deleted since there is a mainspace article. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are no copyright issues with Reedsy. I wrote it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thats not what was being asked: we know you wrote it in its current form. Did you use any or part of the text of the previous version/draft as the basis for the article and rework it? As Bri has pointed out, your edit summary suggests you did. If you did, there is currently a copyright issue until we attribute. Attribution is easy, and I can do it in less than a minute in most cases, and less than two when it is more complicated. We do need to make attribution if what the edit summary suggests is true, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What's up with this case? Noting there has been no reply to an administrator's direct question for a week now ☆ Bri (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Admins aren't special. Our janitors do not get paid and have to clean up a lot of shit. The article has been deleted. Does that mean that this has been resolved? &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Facilius / Karishma Rawtani

 * ''Thread originally titled "paid editing company", re-titled by on 21:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)



We appear to have a company that will both create you a Wikipedia page after first creating the references required to support said page.

They go through AfD looking for customers. For those with OTRS details are here 2017120510013262 With respect to the quality of the references used in paid for articles this is not really surprising. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Faciliusinc advertises their Wikipedia writing service and even blog about it. posted about them in August on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Integrity/Editor Registry so perhaps she knows more. According to publicly available WHOIS data:
 * http://applicationwrite.com is a redirect to http://faciliusinc.com but the WHOIS data includes the registrant name,  which is consistent with information on the Facilius website as well as found a comment by an ex-employee on a blog post which James linked to on User:Doc James/Paid Editing Companies. Hopefully this helps.  Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  22:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What brought them to my attention was Doc James' post at archive 118. The contribs of the editor are not fully disclosed -- we have client but not employer. According to, there is some kind of unspecified connection between the editor and a PR firm we can conclude is Facilius based on evidence in a related Flickr upload. At best this is skirting the COI disclosure requirements. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 50% of the articles have been deleted, including multiple G11s, some A7s, and a G4 on top of AfDs. The TOU don't matter at this point, if this was an ordinary user who had not declared, we would be blocking as a spam only account who continues to upload advertisements to Wikipedia despite warnings (and I consider every CSD notice a warning). Unless there is opposition, I suggest blocking for using Wikipedia as a means of promotion in violation of WP:NOTSPAM. Bri, this is the perfect example of what we have been talking about: editors who declare will almost never actually follow en.wiki policies and guidelines. They should not be exempt simply because they meet the minimum legal requirement for hitting the save button. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * His other biographical creations and drafts ought to be looked at too:
 * Limnesh Augustine
 * Priya Belliappa
 * John Adrain
 * Elliott Michael Smith
 * Draft:Jade Mya
 * Draft:UrbanClap
 * They all look like their notability is questionable. I've already sent Elliott Michael Smith to AfD. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It is long past time to create a speedy deletion criterion for material created in violation of the terms of use. The present situation, where people will defend to the death spam articles created in blatant violation of the ToU, is insane. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Am in complete agreement on blocking for the reasons stated. If another was needed, raises further CIR questions around comprehension of sourcing and content requirements here. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In almost all cases, we end up being able to use G5. Generally we identify the problem, try to discuss it with the editor, and end up with a block. At which point anything they create becomes eligible for G5. Prior to that G11 works in the most obvious cases, an AfD for anything borderline. - Bilby (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Based on the above concerns, and the additional articles brought up by Joe, I have blocked the account for violating local English Wikipedia policy. There is no need to determine if these were a TOU violation, as they have repeatedly been violating the local policies that control here. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, this isn't the only firm offering a package of undisclosed Wikipedia advertising and fake news. Another entity listed on Doc James' compendium says this: "To generate press coverage, we put you in contact with multiple press agencies and guarantee a minimum of 5-7 major media mentions. Once this first hurdle is cleared we can begin work on your Wikipedia page." ☆ Bri (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It has happened quite a lot in the past. Morning277 used to offer the same service (and for all I know still does), and it isn't unusual to see job ads for media coverage in order to get into Wikipedia. That said, if the site accepts fake stories, it isn't a reliable source. If it doesn't, and you can get covered in it, then it seems fair enough. - Bilby (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Another Karishma Rawtani editor



 * ,, : it was pointed out on my talk page that  also discloses having created several articles for Karishma Rawtani, and that for some reason, new account  just left a talk page message saying they're "interested in you article creation service"  [sic].... at least a few of the paid articles don't have talk page connected contributor (paid) templates and definitely should. Mr RD's relationship with Karishma Rawtani was also discussed in February 2016 with  here: User talk:Mr RD/Archive 5.  Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  21:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I do not know . I used to work with Karishma over a year ago. I've not worked with her since then. For new articles where I have WP:COI, I proceed through WP:AFC or talk page. I only add images and do minor changes that are uncontroversial and non-promotional myself. Apart from these, I prefer community consensus.  Mr RD   08:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Brian Whelan related articles


All edits promote either Whelan or Morra. I asked on the 4th if there was any relationship but there have been no edits since. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Started editing again without responding to my question.

Maximiliano Korstanje (continued)
(See also earlier discussion on this page)



WP:SPA is steadily reinserting resume-padding and WP:PEACOCK into this article after it was pruned back. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And today a new WP:SPA has registered and started to edit the same article. Pam  D  23:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

DavidAllen,TheBMJ


Editor is a SPA who only edits articles related to The BMJ. Their very first edit was to request an edit on Talk:The BMJ so they are very aware that they have a COI and shouldn't be using Wikipedia to promote their organization and its members. They have created new articles at least one of which, Theodora Bloom, is a WP:COPYVIO. I warned them about COI editing but they continued editing Peter Ashman which they created. All of their edits are completely unreferenced and sometimes they actually delete referenced material to replace it with material pasted from elsewhere. GnomeSweetGnome (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am not sure if this is the right place to engage, but I need to know where to go from here. Firstly, I have added a COI statement to my own page and identified the pages for which it exists--doing so in the format you suggested. 2 editors here at BMJ have existing pages on Wikipedia which I would like to be able to make uncontentious amendments to. In addition, there are 2 further editors I would like to add to Wikipedia with a new page for each. At the same time, I would like to standardise the entries, making them briefer, and including less personal information, for instance. My completely innocuous edits to the 2 existing pages have been removed--I think because they were made by me, not because of any objection to the content. I have a DOI reference to add to the Peter Ashman page if it can be reinstated. I wish also to assure you that there is no copyright violation in the case of Theodora Bloom's entry. I had never seen the source you mentioned. Perhaps it is in the nature of biographical entries that two people's summary of the same career will be very similar. That said, I am of course happy to try and rewrite it to make it less like the source you quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidAllen,TheBMJ (talk • contribs) 10:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

NYT ♥ NYT


NYT corporate IP contribs include a on how great their managing editor is, their new China website, also creating bios of other staff members. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Cook's Kitchen possible UPE account
I inquired yesterday as to this account's paid status and received no response. They joined in October and instantly started creating articles on organizations and BLPs that have UPE hallmarks. Bringing this here for review of the articles and also to determine whether a UPE/spam block is warranted. Thanks to all for their thoughts and help. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I have answered on my own page now. I wasn’t paid by the legal orgs I wrote about, but am a member, of them, is there a way I should be declaring a conflict of interest for this? Cook&#39;s Kitchen (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

BuildersBelt

 * File:Simon Wadsworth Profile Image.jpg
 * File:Simon Wadsworth Profile Image.jpg
 * File:Simon Wadsworth Profile Image.jpg
 * File:Simon Wadsworth Profile Image.jpg

Funny how an editor can go straight from asking newb questions at Teahouse to building an entire article about a reputation management firm in a single edit. And of course headshots of corp execs w/o licensing. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Kaleida Health


Well I didn't really want to do this, as the editor 204.110.0.1 appears to be cooperative, but I feel like this COI needs to be dealt with by the officials because I don't know much about the policies (they seem a little bit vague and ambiguous).

To the marketing editor, I have no vendetta against you or Kaleida. However, WP:COI mandates that editors connected to a subject disclose their interests, and then follow through on associated actions. Buffaboy talk 06:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP is a static IP assigned to the hospital group, and the editor has "I am the director of marketing for Kaleida Health" but uses "we" in edits – they should be encouraged to create an individual account for starters. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Meg Maheu and False Alarm (band)
An editor identifying herself as Meg Maheu has previously been promoting the punk band False Alarm along with associated musicians. Recently she began putting herself forward as a possible writer for The New Yorker and Rolling Stone. (As if applying for the job via Wikipedia would ever work.)

A quick Google search shows Maheu is connected to the band. She is also posting online videos of bandmember interviews.

A week ago, blocked one of the IPs,  blocked a couple of them, and  blocked another. Rather than playing whack-a-mole, how about a rangeblock? I know that a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2600:1:B157:E2D5:0:0:0:0/41 would have some collateral damage. Is the disruption from Maheu bad enough for that? Binksternet (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

MathWorks


Hi everyone, I try not to bring edit requests to this forum anymore but this is an unusual case. I opened an edit request for my client, MathWorks, four months ago to the day. It got partially implemented and the request was marked closed, but my replies and revisions were ignored. I reopened the request three months ago to try to get an answer to the remaining items, and the request was closed again today by an editor who briefly looked and believed it was answered already. That editor has now reopened the request, but it is back to the bottom of the queue, which typically means another 2+ months of waiting.

I understand that as a COI editor on Wikipedia, I am relying on the generosity of volunteer editors, and no one owes me their time. However, my client has been patiently waiting for a third of a year for a response to these fairly simple edit requests, and has been under significant internal pressure to make the edits directly despite my advising against it. I humbly ask that, if someone has a moment, they would please take a look at the outstanding items from the original request. The discussion and revisions are marked inline. I've also provided sources for a few items marked with cn tags in a reply on the same thread.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Mary Gaulke (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Why should you and your client get priority over all the other edits in the queue? I'm sure all those other people think their requests are just as important. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely understand, but my client has been bumped to the bottom of the queue twice now, most recently because of a simple error, and is now looking at an additional 2+ month wait on top of the 4 months already waited. In my mind that is above and beyond the typical edit request experience. Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Compared to a lot of paid editors I've seen, has a commendable reputation for good-faith contributions and compliance with WP:PAID. I will examine some of these edit requests soon when time permits. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize for pestering, but checking in if this is still on your radar. Thank you so much. Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris MaryGaulke is very much one of the "good guys" and she gets WP, in my experience. Reviewing her stuff is pretty quick, generally.  Something to reward. Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks Drm310 and Jytdog. Agreed we shouldn't discourage paid editors who actually are willing to play by the rules. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not really a paid editor, it is a company representative requesting edits exactly as we advise via OTRS. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Morgan & Morgan PA

 * United for Care
 * Whois ids to M & M
 * Whois ids to M & M
 * Whois ids to M & M
 * Whois ids to M & M

Morgan & Morgan is a personal injury law firm based in Florida, founded by John Morgan and his wife, United For Care is a marijuana legalization campaign in Florida founded supported and run by John M. The top anon ids to the M & M office and has been templated for COI by  Various templates on all the articles or editors (some removed) as well as AfDs. Just guessing from the name, but Weedtruck might be motivated by an interest in United For Care, but is almost an SPA for the law firm, John Morgan and other lawyers or alumni or the firm, and articles of companies they are suing e.g. minor?. Also this first anon which is just a link to A M&M You Can Sue These Guys ad That strikes me as a new low for paid editing - law firms editing their court opponents' articles. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not a new low, unfortunately. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think editing the articles of the companies you are suing (2 of the 3 above) plus Chinese drywall scandal and sinkhole suit and linking them to your ads soliciting plaintiffs/customers to sue them, looks to be beyond the legal ethics pale. I'll look more at the articles of people they sued tomorrow.
 * It's now clear that the 144.121. anon is the same editor as Weedtruck. WT added very similar paragraphs to 7 of 8 articles of lawyers employed by the firm. Same section heading, same wording, style, and length, similar links. The IP added the eighth. Same section heading, same wording, style, and length, and similar link.
 * Weedtruck started and is the main contributor to the 3 main articles and of course the IP is assigned to the M&M offices.  does this look consistent with normal legal ethics?  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 05:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Jumping in here as someone with some knowledge about this: I'm not familiar with Florida's professional responsibility rules, but under my state's rules (which are derived from model rules and are likely very similar to those from other states), a lawyer is prohibited from engaging in conduct "involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation." If there's an active lawsuit against the party, it gets even worse: if the opponent's Wikipedia article can be viewed as having "potential evidentiary value," an attorney can't alter it or counsel anyone else to do so (which, frankly, applies to both sides as far as the court is going to be concerned).  There's also a provision against attorneys making extrajudicial statements that might prejudice the trier of fact (i.e. a potential jury pool); query whether a revision of an opponent's Wikipedia article constitutes an attorney's "statement".


 * TL;DR: Not to me. 's mileage may vary but I rather doubt it. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  20:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Further clarification, though: If there's not an active or anticipated lawsuit, and the law firm's additions to the article are merely unflattering but nonetheless true, I don't see an explicit breach of professional conduct guidelines. This is way too interesting a question for me to get out of my head now that I'm done with lunch, dang it! -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  20:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to opine on anyone's legal ethics on-wiki. However, the Arbitration Committee has repeatedly opined (including in decisions I've written) that "[a]n editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing the biographical article on that individual." With modification the same general principle may be relevant here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Added Jan Schlichtmann to the article list. Another attorney with the firm and (according to the article, based on a press release) its classaction.com operation. Public corp records confirm classaction.com is a John Morgan thing. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Watkin Tudor Jones
I would rather need some help here, Watkin Tudor Jones and here, Yolandi Visser. Allensbacher (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Particularly the Watkin Tudor Jones article is constantly being redesigned by people obviously fascinated with their star [as indicated by their usernames (including codes such as Zef, designation of the band's background sub-culture movement)]. Allensbacher (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking. Winged Blades Godric 16:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * --✅ One has been cleaned up extensively and one redirected.Shall the promotional activities resume, leave a ping.Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 05:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Maria Goranova and articles alleged to be created by her
Hi all, not sure what to do with this information other than to drop it here. This IP editor flagged three articles as having COI issues: The IP claimed that Maria Goranova wrote all three articles, about herself and her colleagues. Editor echoed similar dissatisfaction here, here and. Pinging Allensbacher in case they wish to express their objections here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Maria Goranova
 * Alessandro Zattoni
 * Lori Verstegen Ryan

One other note: The creator of these articles was indeffed in 2014 for copyright infringement, so I don't think pinging them or dropping a COIN notice on their talk page is useful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Biographies are my hobby. Yet, I have no specific issues with these three persons; clear cases of COI.Allensbacher (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2017


 * Clear-cut COI.I would have draftified but given the timeline, it's way too old.--Any take on their notability? I think, they are. Winged Blades Godric 05:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Southbank Investment Research


A majority of Tony Many's involve promoting Southbank Investment Research. The two websites listed above, that Tony Many is adding to many articles, are owned by Southbank Investment Research. 108.16.195.87 (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm..By all chances, a paid editor.Moving the article to draft. Winged Blades Godric 05:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Anil Aggrawal


Pretty blatant self-publicising here. What should be done with these articles? Guy (Help!) 14:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They were both discussed in a 2009 AfD, Articles for deletion/Anil Aggrawal. Both Aggrawal and his Journal are notable, and the articles are short and NPOV, although as DGG has pointed out, the name is unfortunate. Edwardx (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The name of the journal may be unfortunate, but that's what the name is, and we have to use it. It's a notable journal by our standards .  The bio was originally self-written, but is currently neutral (actually, I think some of what has been recently removed by another editor could be restored), and he's notable also. We have a number of other self-written faculty bios from earlier years . In principle, they could be rewritten from scratch, but thee would be no actual advantage in doing so.  What would be more useful is to make sure they are NPOV, DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

KaKao Bank


Articles concerning a Korean bank (KaKao Bank) have been popping up recently. The articles are all formatted along similar lines, with similar, promotion-filled sections (such as "Services" and "Advantages") appearing in all three incarnations of the article. A trio of editors have been involved in creating the article(s) in question, indicating to me this could be a case of either undisclosed paid editing, COI editing, or sock puppetry. It is also interesting to note that, per their edit histories, one of the three edits the sandbox of another. Requesting that we watch the subject to see if the article is created again. SamHolt6 (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No.Probably part of student-assignments.Pinging whose (probable) lack of on-site interaction is concerning to me. Winged Blades Godric 05:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is part of an educational project (see ). I don't understand what you mean by lack of on-site interaction, through most feedback the students got from me was verbal, in class, not on wiki, because, well, this is a physical class. The students I believe did disregard my instructions to work in the sandbox and posted something in the mainspace before it was ready, but there is little I can do about people (students) not following instructions (you know, teaching, herding cats, similar problems :D). Anyway, I fully agree that the article has issues with promotional/how-to no-nos, and I've told students to gut most of the problematic content. I am in fact quite involve in AfDs on WP:CORPSPAM (see this essay I wrote), so the last thing I do is to create more spam promo problems, but I do believe this company is notable (it clearly passes media coverage test, just google for "Kakao Bank" - there are reliable, English sources and a ton more in Korean), and hopefully this project will end up producing an encyclopedic, non-spammy entry. In either case, this is not a COI issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks:) Winged Blades Godric 06:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response and the clarification Piotrus. I was worried when I saw the article show up under different names, I though someone was trying to circumvent the deletion log. All good now though. Cheers. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

GetResponse


Latest in a long line of people who have showed up to promote this marketing software - used to send mass emails i.e. spam. I asked them about COI and they said no, but their behavior and "arguments" say something else. Just listing here to get more eyes. I do not think we will get a different answer from the person. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The editor did nominate the article for deletion and mentioned me in a conflict of interest noticeboard just because he didn't want my edits being placed. The editor has a long history of trimming a long informative article (GetResponse) down in addition to many edit war warnings and disruptive editing. He failed to provide a reasonable explanation for his adamant behavior repeatedly trimming the article. This editor has some other intentions, well, in addition to, building a good encyclopedia. Kevdaren (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

World Branding Forum


I have engaged with the editor on their talkpage, User_talk:SMasters, and they state, "No, I have never, ever had any relationships of any kind with any of these people or companies, now or in the past." [the first four articles above] They also state, "For Bryan Loo, it is the same situation as the rest. I get Google alerts on branding stories and I sometimes think they are notable enough and work on them. I have seen the state of the current article and it is nothing like how I first drafted it a long time ago." In my reply, I noted, "As for Bryan Loo, you started it on 8 June 2014, and last edited it on 9 June. However, the article you created is much more promotional than the current version." That version can be seen here, Bryan Loo on 9 June 2014. This is a very experienced editor with an edit count over 50,000 (although they have edited little in recent years), yet many of the articles they have created seem to bear the classic hallmarks of COI/paid editing, especially if one looks at the article versions at the time of their last edits to them. The thoughts of other editors on this matter would be much appreciated. Edwardx (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment--Interesting.Will be looking in details. Winged Blades Godric 16:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me help connect the dots. I work as a copy editor and have worked for various news outlets. When I started in Wikipedia, I was primarily based in Malaysia. I have a personal interest in branding and related topics. As such, quite a few of my contributions are on subjects based in Malaysia. In the early to mid 2000s, there was a lot of media coverage about the Superbrands project in Malaysia. This is where I started the Superbrands article. It is worth noting that this is a global organisation and not just one that is in Malaysia. One of the people who ran the Malaysian project, Peter Pek, was often quoted in the media and he was also quite well known in the advertising and marketing circles, and had quite a number of speaking engagements at conferences, etc. Now, in 2007, a reality TV show called The Firm hit Malaysian TV screens. At the time, I remember that it was one of the highest rated English language shows on local TV, and I started the show's article. This is where you can connect the dots, because Peter Pek, Ng Ping Ho and Anne Low (listed above) were all involved in this show. By the way, Ng was actually the director and not a "reality TV star" as someone said in his AfD. If you want to mention these people, you will also need to mention Chan Boon Yong, Zafrul Aziz and Joel Neoh Eu-Jin, who all featured in the show. All these articles were started by me. Pek, Chan and Zafrul were the millionaires judges, and are all well known in their respective industries. Joel was winner of the first season, and went on to become Vice President of Groupon Asia-Pacific. Christian Neal Capes was also on TV as a reality TV star at around the same time which is when I started writing about him. For Bryan Loo, this caught my attention as he won the Ernst & Young |Emerging Entrepreneur of the Year Award. I have mentioned in his AfD that it would be worthwhile asking WikiProject Malaysia for comments as he has been in the news quite a bit and also appears in social publications like Tatler, etc. As for why the editing appeared to take place in one day, you can see from how the article was started. I wrote it in my sandbox and moved the entire article to start it. It was certainly not written in a day. As I follow Peter Pek and set up alerts for him I found that he had left Malaysia and was now attached with the non-profit Branding Forum. It also organises an awards programme that is interesting to me since I like branding and it is related to this. In addition, the winners are all very large brands (many are public listed companies). Now, while I am somewhat flattered that people think that I am so well connected to personally know all these rich and famous people, I can assure you that I have never met them in real life, nor do I have any connections with them whatsoever. So, I am not sure how there is any conflict of interest here. As for paid editing, I wish! Unfortunately, none of these rich and famous people paid me a penny. I have also started (or made major contributions to) Anthony Soter Fernandez (Malaysia's first cardinal), Lillian Too (Malaysian author), Marcel Knobil (author and Superbrands founder), Arab Banking Corporation and EMI Classics, none of whom I have any relationships with. I did contribute quite a bit to Murphy Pakiam (Archbishop Emeritus of Kuala Lumpur), and he is the only one that I have actually met in real life and took this picture. So, if you have any further questions, do ask away and I will be happy to answer them. – SMasters (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * SMasters states above, "I work as a copy editor and have worked for various news outlets". This only makes their article on Bryan Loo (specifically the version they last edited on 9 June 2014) more of a concern. And they are stating above that Loo won the "Ernst & Young Emerging Entrepreneur of the Year Award", exactly the same claim as in that article version. However, the cited source makes it clear that it was only in respect of Malaysia, and that he was not even the overall country award recipient. This is the sort of creative use of sources that we expect to see from COI/paid editors. In any event, a cursory glance at the sheer number of baubles handed out by the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award program suggests that they may be close to vanity awards. Edwardx (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, is this a discussion about COI or notability? I never said that I wrote an entire article because he won an award. I said that this caught my attention, as it was covered in the local news. I wrote about him because he started a franchise that grew to a hundred branches and people were talking about it. And what are you trying to say above? That all copy editors here are paid to edit? I have disclosed this on my user page for many years, so why is it suddenly a concern? If you want notability then look at, , , , , , , and . I'm sorry but if you have issues with the article then go and join the AfD discussion. I have also explained that I have no COI with this. I will answer any questions, but I don't know what else to say. It looks like you have made up your mind and nothing will change it. – SMasters (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)