Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 125

Another sockfarm

 * (also Draft:Bryan Benitez McClelland) G11 added  DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ reverted by Bri
 * ✅ OnTheClock G5'ed
 * ✅ reverted by Bri
 * ✅ Gabriel L. Grasso G5'ed
 * ✅ Sarah Jane Brown (artist) G5'ed
 * ✅ Ria Persad already reverted; Bryan McClelland G5'ed
 * ✅ remaining edits appear trivial
 * ✅ reverted by Bbb23
 * ✅ reverted by Bbb23
 * ✅ reverted by Bbb23
 * ✅ reverted by Bbb23
 * ✅ reverted by Bbb23
 * ✅ reverted by Vsmith
 * ✅ reverted by Bbb23
 * ✅ reverted by Hammersoft
 * ✅ reverted by Bbb23
 * ✅ reverted by Tornado chaser
 * ✅ reverted by Bbb23
 * ✅ reverted by Vsmith
 * ✅ reverted by Bbb23
 * ✅ reverted by Hammersoft
 * ✅ reverted by Bbb23
 * ✅ reverted by Tornado chaser
 * ✅ reverted by Bbb23

From Sockpuppet investigations/Kendy2020. GABgab 18:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Tagged most of the articles listed as G5. Still needs cleanup in terms of edits to articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 reverted most of the crappy little refspam edits. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think everything that can be done here, has been. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Franklin Road Academy


In this edit, the user claims to be paid to remove inaccurate information from the articles. User also edited Friends Select School. Billhpike (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Gol Misra Elementalist small sockfarm

 * Sockmaster worked on a bunch of indian school articles, like Wifione and Nachalp per its Special:Contributions/Gol_Misra_Elementalist including:




 * User:Marchjuly noticed the funky edits around these:




 * (sleeper)
 * (sleeper)
 * (sleeper)
 * (sleeper)
 * (sleeper)

Socks are all blocked and articles are tagged. User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris PRODed the Andrew Kass article and then self-reverted. Recording here in case this reminds anybody of anything, and so it is here for the future... Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This falls within my definition of G5 as when there are 5 or more confirmed accounts, we can be reasonably sure they have been blocked at some point in the past. I will tag and let another sysop review. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Greg Murphy (politician)


Persistent addition of trivial puffery to this autobiography. The user has been warned multiple times, and I've also asked for a user block, but things are quiet tonight, and I'm not inclined to edit war 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Sustainability12345


I first encountered trying to edit the Ria Persad article, changing her last name to reflect the fact that she had gone back to her original name as she had been divorced. I undid that edit, but I did later move the page (you may revert it, I shall openly say that I did not consider the merits of moving or not moving it). Some edits of interest here are this very nice peacock term added. Problems for me only started arising when I removed this random list of awards, when this is almost always not encyclopedic. They undid that, saying that this is the article's notability licence in a sense (which is obviously not correct unless in an WP:A7 sense of course).

Attempting to discuss with this editor hasn't led to too much, they haven't replied to a single thing on their user talk page. I then noticed that they created a draft, Draft:Bryan Benitez McClelland, which I initially declined for being too promotional sounding. It is very interesting how this article has been constructed -- the whole article created in one hit, unformatted, then formatting added later. It is as if the article was sent to the editor in one whole go and then it was the job of Sustainibility12345 to make the relevant formatting changes. Seems like undisclosed paid editing to me. ! dave 16:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears an IP edit remove the COI and advertisement tag I placed on the article about McClelland. They have reverted the problematic version of the article after I tried to tone down the promotional tone (even reverted the standard person Infobox). It looks someone is hellbent to maintain the quasi-resume profile version of the article. Also it must be noted that McClelland is affiliated with the Sustainability and Environmental Studies Department of Enderrun Colleges as its director hence why I tagged the article for potential COI in the first place.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Since nobody except you has seemed to have bothered to reply to this post I'm taking this to ANI. ! dave  08:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

CU blocked per Sockpuppet investigations/Kendy2020. Time to get out the flamethrowers? MER-C 21:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Alex Gurteen


The user has created a very poorly sourced article on (what he describes as a "famous person") Alex Gurteen. And edits in a way (and has a prose style) that indicates they may have some link to the subject (as well as seeming to have a degree of "insider" knowledge of the topic).

It was suggested they had a COI [] to which they failed to respond. I then mentioned this accusation on the articles AFD [], Oscar248's response was vague and evasive [, I then asked straight up if they had a COI (after having directed them to the COIN page []) [], as well as directing him to read further our rules on COI [] his repsionse was still rather vague and evasive [].

It is hard to fathom why he cannot just say yes or no, and it indicate he in some way not only has something to hide, but thinks there is a reason to hide it (in other words he is aware there is a COI and would have prevented him from creating this article). Either that or there is no COI and he is just playing some strange game.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter who I am, we just need to try and improve the article. I am trying to find the news article of Alex winning the ABF competition. I am trying to edit in a neutral tone. As far as I know there is not articles mentioning Alex's YouTube account. The exceptionally high number of views of Alex's oscar1994alex1999 channel warrants a Wikipedia article on its own. Oscar248 (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned before there is no COI. Oscar248 (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well lets see what community decides. You made an odd typo, have an similar name to his YouTube challenge and edit a lot of pages about that local area.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I never said I wasn't Alex (I clearly am) I feel it is important that the page is kept and that I edit for reliabilty as I have knowledge that is not known by other editors. I know it is not recommended but it is probably best for the page. I will improve the page over the coming days. Oscar248 (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you read our polices on COI (And what constitutes one)?Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The user in question has continued to advocate for himself in the third person here while trying to force their own page to pass an Specific Notability Guideline criterion created for himself. Yosemiter (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also think this type of deceptive behavior is against one of the rules of COI somewhere. Yosemiter (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And now he is comparing himself to Alexander the Great. Yosemiter (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Rai Pannalal Mehta


This article has been created by who I believe has an undisclosed conflict of interest with regard to the subject of the article. This editor was asked to disclose this COI here but did not do so. I have found a book Guns and Glories: Rajputana Chronicles, authored by Pratap Singh Mehta. The Wikipedia article uses large chunks of text from that book and would be a copivio if the book's author and the article creator were not the same individual. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Seeing.Interesting. Winged Blades Godric 11:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Lea210 / oDesk / Upwork
I came across this while dealing with an image licensing issue. Almost certainly a paid editor. ~ Rob 13 Talk 23:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (already redirected)
 * (already redirected)
 * (already redirected)
 * +1 related article —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * is not so  much  a BLP  as an  almost  blatant  artspam for Elance/Upwork. Obviously  written for and about themselves. This  is  the absolute height of gaming the system. I see no  reason  why  these companies and their executives who  openly  defy our paid editing rules should be allowed the benefit  on  an article in  our  encyclopedia  however notable they  might  be, but  sadly  our rules for  inclusion  are our  rules, and with  so  many  admins, New Page Partollers, and OTRS agents in the conspiracies, just about  anyone can promote  themselves in it these days. Possibly  for  discussion  elsewhere, pinging ,  , , and . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by admins being "in the conspiracies". That's a rather far-reaching claim. ~ Rob 13 Talk 05:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I too choose to disagree about OTRS (KDS was a one-off case) and sysops. Winged Blades Godric 06:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First, I think it a very poor idea  to refuse to have   articles on organizations or people who are trying to subvert us, if they are truly notable. It's just as poor an idea as trying to include articles on organizations and people who help us even if they are not actually notable. The test of a commitment to  NPOV is when you yourself are affected.
 * Now, In this case, Roseti is quite possibly notable. The articles is a press release, because it talks to much about the companies, but its fixable. The editor User:EagerToddler39 has done  has done a good deal of excellent work onS South American politicians, but also some articles in 2014 and 2015 that could use looking at.  But there is no particular reason to think he wrote this as a paid article.except the similarity with the deleted article on Kasriel.
 * As for the real issue, I will make a guess, based on known temptations that there probably were a 5 or 10 admins who have done some paid work mostly back in the 2001-5 period when anyone essentially could become an admin, , but at most 1 or 2 still doing it actively. NPPatrollers, yes, there are some problems,  OTRS I think screens its people better than RfA. We do need to watch out at NPP and AfC, and we need more people spotchecking articles that have been patrolled in particularly susceptible fields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 07:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside, as this predates the disclosure requirements, User:EagerToddler39 was a paid editor and worked through Upwork, and was hired to create the articles. However, that was years ago. Remembering that we didn't require disclosure back then it should come as little surprise that contracting sites hired contractors to work for them - even the WMF hired through at least one of those sites. - Bilby (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I think Kudpung's point is correct even if the details may be quibbled. The point is that our processes are open to subversion and are in fact being subverted. Right now there's an Upwork job with the title "NEEDED: Wikipedia Editor with AfC Rights", being worked on by an undisclosed editor (probably a sock of this guy) for a few hundred dollars. Why do you think that is? There's a pending Arbcom decision on paid editing by an admin. There is a litany of admins who have socked and misbehaved grossly in other ways sufficient for desysopping, including notoriously Wifione who used 60 socks to carry out paid advocacy editing. To anybody on the outside this could looks like the whole project is corrupt, which is why we get headline stories like "Is Wikipedia for Sale?" and "Is Wikipedia's front page for sale?" in popular and tech press. Our reputation is on the line. So call it a conspiracy, call it systematic abuse of Wikipedia, but it exists. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, and as you seem to agree, what we have to watch is AfC and NPP. Your list is 28 out of 1500, and only one of it has to do with paid editing. But it is not rare for people doing undeclared paid editor to claim greater rights than they have, and we will never be free from it as long as we allow paid editing.  There is only one way to avoid it: ban paid editing altogether, and advertise widely that any one who asks for money to edit a WP articles is acting against our terms of use, and anyone who offers money might well find themselves to be engaged in unfair competition.  DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What does Arthur, Toddst, Chase me et al have to do with Kudpung's statement?! Winged Blades Godric 05:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (Comment moved to WT:COI) ☆ Bri (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Barring the recent case of Wilfione and Ricky81682 (who otherwise was a very good pedian), all are years back (MZMc, Everyking (whom the community re-trusted), Runcorn, Pastor Theo, Law, Robdurbar, ArchTransit and NSLE).But, the point is that over-sweeping generalizations ought to be avoided.And, barring the case of KDS, I don't think there are rogues in OTRS either:) Winged Blades Godric 06:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (Comment about banned user becoming an admin moved to WT:COI) ☆ Bri (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Somewhat more interesting in the case was that GC got his tools back! Winged Blades Godric 06:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency alert

 * Bitcoin
 * esp § Criminal activity
 * esp § As an investment and § Crowdfunding
 * General cryptocurrency
 * esp § Fraud
 * Other cryptocurrencies
 * esp § Fraud
 * Other cryptocurrencies
 * Other cryptocurrencies
 * Other cryptocurrencies

This isn't your usual COIN notice, but I don't know where else to put it. Simona Weinglass of the Times of Israel published a script used in cryptocurrency scams

that included the following:

"You know, dear [name] that you are not going to trade, thanks to financial arbitration we will assist you (I advise you to go on Wikipedia). That is, we will secure your capital by taking only rising positions calculated through a trading algorithm (based on a database that contains the history and all exchanges made between users since its creation). But what is important to you is that you will be contracted on a 6% from the first month."

No, it doesn't make much sense to me, but very little of the script makes much sense except as - "this is how I'm going to get your money."

I have seen signs in stores advertising "As seen on TV". Now we're seeing ads "As seen on Wikipedia!"

In any case, I'll suggest keeping an eye on bitcoin and cryptocurrency articles. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 17:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Added some recommended watchlist articles at the top of this section. I just noticed some odd stuff in the December history of Bitcoin Gold, maybe it needs a look by experienced editors soon. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Jaane Kyun De Yaaron


It seems the only article this article ever created and edited. The account name is also similar with the name of one of the music directors of the film. The user has also been notified for their COI before Ammarpad (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:VASCHEL


Obvious evasion of ACTRIAL to create an article about an unremarkable startup. I remember seeing this behavior from some sock farm somewhere... but can't remember the exact sockpuppeteer. There's bound to be more accounts and/or webhosts. Not notified for obvious reasons. MER-C 15:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

John Jones (record producer)


A poorly sourced autobiography/vanity page. And I've never seen so many red categories. Needs a lot of attention and deep pruning. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Smart toy


EVestigatorSimonSmith (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)EVestigatorSimonSmith I need assistance. I am actually a subject matter expert and court expert witness in the area of which I did not even give any credit to myself for, and I am constantly being victimised for offering FREE knowledge on the Smart Toy web page. I suspect that it is either a editor that cannot handle the fact that somebody wants to contribute to the Wiki, somebody who an actual High Court listens to, which is rather insulting, or it is one of the many stalkers I have (who are jealous commpetitors that are being investigated by the police for several stalking crimes and being sued for Defamation and Misleading and Deceptive Conduct due to jealousy. I am a public figure in this industry and give advice/education in a professional sense to the media (either TV or Radio) at least weekly. I am being taunted by baseless threats from whoever wrote this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EVestigatorSimonSmith#Edit_War_Notice, and I am not the one creating the Edit War. If this is supposed to be an independent Free Encyclopedia then it most certainly is not. I noticed an "IP Address" deleted my addition. This indicates that it was one of the criminal stalkers who has already bragged for doing this before and targeting every single thing I do online. I should not be punished for that. This person has hacked into computer systems, contests where I have been the nominee, and is a serial stalker. I deserve a human explanation. It is absolutely not self promotion the advice I'm giving. People pay a lot of money to know what a Smart Toy can do in a family law case, and I am a Cyber Stalking expert, and an independent court appointed expert witness who has dealt with parents and children who suffer from breaches of AVO's. Why am I being filtered? Get real Wikipedia. What is the difference between me and Anthropologist David Lancy?


 * You should not be adding content like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smart_toy&type=revision&diff=814513134&oldid=800186537 this], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smart_toy&type=revision&diff=817459194&oldid=816697282 this], or [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smart_toy&type=revision&diff=818421229&oldid=818375097 this] to Wikipedia articles. The edits are promotional and it is inappropriate for you to be adding citations to yourself to Wikipedia. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And also not adding spam external links like this to your own website. In fact, looking at your edit history, apart from the first two edits, all your edits are self-promotion. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. This is the right place to report such abuse of Wikipedia, unusually misguided as a call for help which WP:BOOMERANGed. I see there's some WP:FORUMSHOP too at Help_desk. I also consider the account User:EVestigatorSimonSmith a promotional name (as a registered trademark) with promo only activity, so I'll report as such at WP:UAA.  Widefox ; talk 10:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Miss Indian World


For personal reasons this is one I'd like to keep some distance from. Could any interested editor have a look and do the necessary? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * --I think the 1st one is notable? Any minimal thoughts? Winged Blades Godric 11:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Concerned about autobiography mainly. Looks like I missed the fact that an editor was templated a bit before my post, so maybe it is a non issue now. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Arishfa khan


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. jivarshu 19:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * CSD-ed the user-pages.Drafts let to remain.SPI launched Winged Blades Godric 11:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts Thalachallour Mahonakumar
Sources all relate to the person's institution. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

See - it looks like a class project

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 05:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Refusal to declare COI officially


Question: Is it acceptable and satisfactory for an editor who is personal friends with the article subject, has stated in Wikipedia they are personal friends with the article subject, and has also stated in Wikipedia they are personal friends with the originator of and chief contributor to the article, to not formally declare their COI at the article draft even though they are contributing to the article? These editors often work in tandem and have done so previously in the face of previous edit warring squabbles and cases of sock-puppetry, backing each other up. I think this issue goes beyond just the normal COI, considering that the originator of the article and chief article contributor has a spotty history of honesty in Wikipedia regarding previous conflicts of interest, as well. I find the whole thing problematic. Am I exaggerating this in my assessment or does anyone else think this is an issue, as well? -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 23:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're making this a much bigger deal than is necessary. I've already declared a COI on the article's talk page. If you want to add something to the talk page banner, then go ahead. I've already said that's fine. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Me editing this draft is not much different than me editing articles about other people I know in real life, such as Andrew Lih, Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight, and Emily Temple-Wood. Is it really necessary to note this on every single talk page? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There, now you can rest in peace. And for the record, I didn't refuse anything... Happy New Year, all! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

IiitHyd

 * created Draft:Felicity, International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad
 * edited

I saw IiitHyd make an edit adding information about International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad to Felicity. Their username is clearly an abbreviation for that organization so I placed a WP:COI template on their talk page. They didn't respond but instead a half an hour later created Draft:Felicity, International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad and edited the International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad article. GnomeSweetGnome (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, going by my own evaluation of Felicity's standards and the fate of a few AFDs on more-prominent univ-fest(s), it isn't ever going to make it independently to WP.Anyway, he will be looking at a soft-block, if he resumes and I will be watching the editor. Winged Blades Godric 13:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Augustvideo

 * ✅-Currently Prodded.
 * created ✅-Currently Prodded.
 * created ✅ stubbed by Bri. Probably deleteable. ✅-Currently Prodded.
 * ✅ cleaned by Doc James ✅-Currently redirected.
 * ✅ cleaned by Doc James ✅-Currently redirected.

I have blocked this account for spamming / what appears to be undisclosed paid editing. Any further thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Their creations listed above will need to be looked at. Looks like you already did Slendertone ☆ Bri (talk) 22:29, 21 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)
 * I approved some (or all) of them on NPP. He has declared, via username (and details on his userpage), that he holds the Malkawi surname - however this is a surname shared by many. This isn't an obvious screaming COI. Of the 3 pages created - Malka, Jordan clearly passes WP:GEOLAND, List of people from Irbid seems to pass NLIST (and has a clear criteria), and Malkawi is similar to other surname articles. All 3 could be written better and use better sources. When reviewing I was somewhat concerned that Ali Malkawi was being promoted (both in text, and with a picture) a bit too much - this was a reddish flag that had me look at these a bit deeper at the time. I don't think this is paid, it is perhaps a tad non-neutral.Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there is a need for checkuser review because there is another account edit similar articles with conflict of interest. romanization is Malkawi (from arabic language). so I thick there is a need to submit CU request--مصعب (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * CU Confirmed the relation between the 2 accounts and both accounts were blocked--مصعب (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * there is a need to close this request because both users were blocked indefinitely with not that the user still trying to write about his tribe in other wikis--مصعب (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Please recover Contributors part
Please recover Contributors part to The National Memo article. Request and the text are placed at the article's Talk page. Thanks! -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , WP:COI editors in general, and paid editors in particular, are strongly discouraged from direct editing of affected articles. Often that "strong discouragement" takes the form of reversion: I have reverted your edits to The National Memo, despite the valiant attempts made by, and  to reduce the promotional tone to an acceptable level. I note that you did not disclose your paid relationship to the topic either in your edit summaries or on the talk-page of the article, nor did you bother to mention it when asking for help here; while not actually obligatory under our paid-contribution disclosure policy, all of these would have been an aid to transparency. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Correction: there was a paid editor template on the talk-page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please explain how removing 22 000 symbols of well-written and properly referenced factual content (esp. at infoboxes part) helps to improve the article (give better information to Wikipedia users). I am desperately trying to assume good faith here but really fail to do so and consider your edits no other than Vandalism. The paid essence of these edits has been clearly stated EVEN BEFORE they started. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * can you look into it? You seem to be the most reasonable guy among all the windmill (paid editors) fighters. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't ping me just because you think I will support your position, which I don't think I can do in this case. I understand it's frustrating to have your additions reverted, but I believe was right to do so. The "Contributors" section was unsalvageable - not only it was promotional (even if factually correct), but the whole "(National Memo) story .... picked up by (list of media)" construct looks like original research (see WP:SYNTH). The way forward would be to request smaller, incremental changes as was suggested to you on the talk page. Please respond there or on my talk page if you want as this is off-topic here. Regards, Rentier (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I pinged you because I think that in the whole paid-editors hunting team you possess the greatest amount of common sense and goodwill. Such cases are not only extremely frustrating but also push paid editors to the grey zone that Wikipedia community is trying to eliminate. Such area will always exist (my assumption) but the practice of punishing editors that follow COI editing guidelines raises eyebrows and definitely pushes towards grey or even black practices (not that this is my intention). This is especially strange when the edits concern some well-known subjects (as an editor who's habit is adding categories, I've seen numerous articles of obvious paid essence that are much-much-much less references but still considered "notable" by the community). I won't ping you again in such cases, just shared my point of view. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

COI with Watkin Tudor Jones (Die Antwood) supportes


Editors like and  continue to add and insist on (self-)promotional and non-encyclopedic content supported by low-quality sources such as youtube.com videos. On the article talk page, Centerone clearly demonstrated a lack of distance to the topic already. User Gene Zef2's lack of distance is already visible by their username, which contains Zef, designation of the South-African counter-movement to which Watkin Tudor Jones' band Die Antwoord (supposedly) belongs. Allensbacher (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A fan editing an article on a musician they like is not a conflict of interest. Do you have any actual evidence that has a COI? If not all I see is a content dispute that is best resolved through the normal channels (e.g. WP:RSN, WP:3O, WP:RFC). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I have absolutely no COI when it comes to Watkin Tudor Jones, Yolandi Visser, Die Antwoord, or any of their previous projects, collaborators or otherwise. I have no relation with them, their record labels, publishing companies, the movie studios they worked with, or anything else, either personally or professionally. I've never been to any performances by these artists, and I don't even own any of their work either in physical or digital form. My knowledge and interest in the subject came simply as the result of trying to figure out what the deal with them was when "Enter the Ninja" by Die Antwoord broke out internationally; I mentioned some of this in the talk page when I was making a plea to NOT make a change that WTJ / Ninja wanted made. is seemingly misrepresenting or misinterpreting both my relationship with other editors, as well as my edits - statements he has made both on this page, on my talk page, and on the talk page of the article; I don't insist on adding either 'promotional' nor non-ecyclopedic content, nor am I _adding_ youtube links (if I revert a bad edit that had that link as a reference, then it gets restored.) As said, this is really about a content, or edit dispute. made several edits which I reverted and invited him to discuss on the talk page, which he did not do; some examples are, he removed something for being redundant which it wasn't, and then he subsequently removed it for being a hobby, which it also wasn't, and for being yellow journalism, which it wasn't. In my discussion on the talk page I point to the youtube videos because when discussing art, IMO it is helpful to actually look at the art, and the artmaking process. We may need better references in the article, but it might be more helpful if he just asked for better references rather than gutting important parts of the article, and eliciting the help of others to do so based on his beliefs; it would be nice if he assumed good faith first. I'm sorry if this is longer, more emotional, and more detailed than it needs to be, but this whole process, and being accused of edit warring and a COI really leaves a bad taste in my mouth and has been bothering me. Centerone (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've not seen any reason to call out Gene Zef as having a negative COI on any ZEF related pages. He's made multiple positive contributions to the Yolandi Visser page (where I encountered him,) and has been more than willing to discuss any changes or reversions that have been made.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Additional: I've just noticed that  is potentially NPOV themselves with the comment "the South-African counter-movement to which Watkin Tudor Jones' band Die Antwoord (supposedly) belongs".  The inclusion of "(supposedly)" is of concern when one of the few things that is sourced throughout the Zef, Die Andwoord, Watkin Tudor Jones and Yolandi Visser articles is that Zef is a major part of the group identity.  I accept that better - or additional - sources could probably be found, but they are sourced nonetheless.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Gene Zef2 (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Gene Zef2 Let me start off by saying I have known the band even before they was Die Antwoord, I knew them when Waddy was with the Evergreens, over 12 years ago before Constructus, Max Normal and MaxN.tv. I happen to personally know the band as I am the Admin For Die Antwoord World Wide Fans. (website since March '09) I had to learn what wikipedia wanted and did not want to see on their page, any movies or articles I have posted in the last year or so are based in fact. When I post a REF to a movie to a youtube video it is simply so that anyone reading the article can fully understand the subject matter. Now Too many times I see people complain about things but nothing ever gets solved around here. I mean I know people dont get paid around here for what they do.... But like I learned in the Army.... if you are not part of the solution.... YOU are part of the problem. What I am going to continue to do is MY very best to make their pages as accurate as I can. If you dont want to help, please keep your comments to yourself, and keep my name out of your mouth..... Gene Zef2 (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Gene Zef2
 * It has been well-known that has a potential COI due to too close a relationship with the subject (nobody had to read into the mere mention of 'zef' in his name, it was never hidden); although it can be as  said, he's just essentially a fan editing an article.  Several other moderators and myself have taken a lot of time to try to educate Gene on all the issues surrounding managing that potential COI and all the ins and outs of why he should or shouldn't make certain edits, and we revert him when his edits are incorrect, or at very least warn him when his edits will be reverted so he can learn.  Most of Gene's concerns have been around getting basic facts correct (like Yolandi's birthday, and getting a better picture for the articles -- the one on Yolandi's page for a long time was an especially bad representation, and it is these places where he could be helpful in sourcing appropriately licensed content, etc.).   Most of his edits recently have been fact based and fairly neutral, although as you can see he can be a little passionate about the subject.  Allensbacher has neglected to read these discussions and taken my simply warning him that his edits will be reverted on my personal talk page when he asked for my help, as evidence of me being his "partner" rather than just another editor trying to provide constructive criticism to another wikipedia editor.  That doesn't mean that Gene Zef's edits are promotional anymore than my reverts of the incorrect edits by Allensbacher or others are.  My only goal is a complete article that provides a proper context to fully understanding the subject in a concise way.  We can certainly provide better references than youtube, but we shouldn't gut the article when links to youtube are the complaint, which at least initially, it wasn't. Centerone (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Haaretz says Linda Sarsour article has been manipulated


The newspaper Haaretz printed a story 3 days ago about conflicted editors on Linda Sarsour. It is being discussed at Talk:Linda Sarsour. The article logs are very complicated for reasons I don't understand, but I can say that it was fully protected by in July, and this was recently made indefinite. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Witzany reference spam
These IPs have been reference spamming the work of one author for > 10 years. See ANI thread from 2010. There are currently just under 100 mentions of Witzany here, most of which have been added as reference spam e.g. here where no content was added, just a reference to a book. It is probably appropriate for their to be some mentions in Biocommunication (science) and Biosemiotics but the vast majority of these need removing. SmartSE (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Path Solutions


Path Solutions was brought up at this noticeboard in the past, then AfD'ed due to insufficient RS. Now recreated. The article sources look weak to me (who is bankingtech.com? IBS Journal?) and the COI template on an earlier draft doesn't exist on the final product. Spot checking sources like this press release and this CEO interview shows that source problems remain. Also noting this is an AfC product. If I could, I would wave a magic wand and send it back to AfC; this is not acceptable quality. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It was deleted in August 2017. Have started another AfD, suggesting we delete and salt. Edwardx (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Masterknighted


I blocked and their confirmed sock, Brainplanner based on CU evidence and blocked  based on behavioral evidence. The background may be seen here. There has been some socking and meatpuppetry for accounts that seem to have clear conflict of interests. A more thorough COI investigation is warranted and Masterknighted's cooperation in this matter will be considered when we eventually discuss unblocking. I seem to have gotten assurances from them that you won't find anything else. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A small but interesting observation in this context: These 2016 edits by Masterknighted effectively implemented a suggestion that had been made repeatedly in the preceding months on the talk page by an openly declared COI editor (company representative), to de-emphasize and weaken the mention of some notable criticism of the company's product. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Upwork job


This is a five day old request for G-Terra's bio to be posted on Wikipedia. This is the subsequent page creation by a five day old account. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's something I don't understand in the logs for G-Terra/G-Terr. Is this a workaround for page creation? ☆ Bri (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Block the author. delete and salt their creation(s). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , he has 20 deleted edits.So, no tricks:) And, that was one of the most terrible jobs, I ever saw., isn't that G11-able stuff?! Winged Blades Godric 09:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Deleted, salted, blocked. MER-C 11:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

smartpillwiki.com and tipweightlossdiet.com


All that this person is doing is trying to find ways to spam links to these websites into WP, including creating Intelligent pill and the current draft Draft:Smart pill. I have nominated the links for the spam blacklist but this person is NOTHERE and should be indefinitely blocked. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note this comment left at my talk page. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sambabkc is just one week on Wikipedia. Maybe he just have to learn the ropes and rules. This looks more a case of Please bite the newbies. The Banner talk 23:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe u lern rite english gud won day! And good faith is not a suicide pact. The spamming is both blatant and persistent and if you look at the two sites they have similar design.Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You can keep your insults with you, dude. Where did you explain to him what was good and what was bad? Nowhere, as far as I could see! So you are just hammering an newbie. The Banner talk 00:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Marilyn Barnett


Has all the hallmarks of PE and the creator has already  had one article deleted G11: Daniel Reid. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * One thing that sets off my alarm bells is an article claiming that somebody is notable for founding something that does not have an article itself. You would think that the notable thing would precede the article about its creator if it really was significant and the creator was not already notable for something else. OTOH, how often do we get people being paid to write articles about the dead? Vanity is typically a property of the living. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Vanity is also typically a property of a PR agent  writing  for  his/her client. The point  being here is  that this article (to me at least) has the appearance of a biography masquerading as an advert. The subject, Ms Barnett, is not notable per Wikipedia criteria; the sources are all from local press, usually the same one, some barely mention  her, and some are not about her at all. One is a routine executive profile.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Being relatively new to Wikipedia editing I am not sure if I am supposed to defend myself here or in another place so if this is the wrong protocol, please forgive me. I want to reassure you that I do not have a conflict of interest. I cant even remember how I came across her name, but it could have been on the Wikipedia list of requested articles, or else it could have been in an article I read that mentioned her. Either way, I thought she had some important accomplishments and should have a Wiki article about her. That is really it. Perhaps it is promotional, singing her praises, but cant that be fixed with some editing of the article? I am not wedded to the way the article is written and understand that Wiki articles are constantly being changed and improved. I am sure you know wiki editing is a learned 'art', and I am still learning. Thanks for your understanding and patience. Daniel Reid (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup agrees looks like undisclosed paid promotional editing. Expecially when taken into account their other contributions. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Al-Masry Al-Youm


Deenasamirdakroury claims to be the marketing manager at Al-Masry Al-Youm, but has failed to make a paid-editing disclosure despite a notification and reminder at User talk:Deenasamirdakroury. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * --See User talk:Deenasamirdakroury. Winged Blades Godric 14:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, but don't the terms of use require the user to make the declaration themselves? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If they agree to it by a t/p message, I don't see any problem. Not Bureaucracy et al:)  If they choose to resume their activities in the article-space, they will be straight-away looking at a block and I will be speedying the user-page. Winged Blades Godric 14:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Wes Nichols


Exceedingly promotional article. First COI, could be a mistake. scope_creep (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The user disclosed a professional relationship with the article subject on the draft talk page . Also, you must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use  to do so. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Were you paid by Wes Nichols (directly or indirectly) to write an article about him? Please note that any writing on Wikipedia in exchange for compensation must be declared in the manner prescribed by WP:PAID. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Drm310. Will do. scope_creep (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No need, I already did. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

There was a disclosure which they removed about a minute after. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see now they removed that one and added it to the talkpage. It seems like everything is correct now and it's up to AfC to decide what to do with the contributions. Will prepare this for archival if nobody has an issue with it now. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hariboneagle927


NoNDeSCRiPT accuses me Hariboneagle927 of conflict of interest or "editing" in behalf of Rappler based on the content I added/removed from the article. I would like feedback regarding this. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for coming here for help. So first question is, do you think that you have any of the different flavors of conflict of interest? This can include a perceived conflict, where you don't actually have one but there's good reason to think there is one. It can also go all the way to a business relationship or, more subtly, a relationship where you are receiving something less tangible of value like publicity. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think I have a conflict of interest at all. I am not employed by Rappler at any capacity, formal or informal. Though I have used Rappler as references for articles primarily on sports related articles. The user alleged I have been biased towards Rappler by documenting a meme in Know Your Meme revolving around a personality connected to the Duterte administration (Bong Go) whose name was recently linked in a controversy regarding the Philippine Navy.


 * Also I don't really think that Rappler has to gain if I said that it is largely owned by a holdings company of the same name. Though he said a ruling from the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) said that Rappler and Rappler Holdings are the same company. I asked him to point it out where did it mention the claim but he doesnt address the concern directly and repeats accusation of COI and adhering to a NPOV. The user accused me of sowing confusion.


 * Also I have reverted back cited information (some from Rappler) critical against Mocha Uson Blog, a staunch critic of Rappler and other mainstream national media outfits which may have cause them to suspect I lean towards Rappler. I removed criticism of Rappler from blog sites. Please refer to the talk page of NoNDeSCRiPT for your reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hariboneagle927 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you think about us raising this issue on WP:RSN? I've also noticed this user (User:NoNDeSCRiPT to be extremely anti-Rappler, and I think we should form some kind of consensus about the reliability of Rappler in articles. There have been past discussions about Rappler on the noticeboard but none recently and none of them seemed to reach a consensus. We also might announce it on WT:PINOY to get more people interested in forming a consensus about the reliability of Rappler. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be a great idea to raise the issue at WP:RSN since User:NoNDeSCRiPT themselves claim Rappler to be unreliable source on the basis of its SEC license being revoked.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Correction: To my knowledge all previous discussions have reached a consensus that it is never usable as a source; it is unambiguously WP:USERGENERATED. --Aquillion (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So what do you see of concern here? A person can choose pretty much any sources they see fit. You can challenge the source's reliability but that is not necessarily a conflict-of-interest question. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Challenging Rappler's reliability based on these premises:

NoNDeSCRiPT (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Rappler is a blogging platform (proofs already in the article)
 * 2) The authors of the blogs are not journalists i.e. unprofessional first-party opinions
 * 3) Since the site has no newspaper counterpart, articles can be edited and the edits can't be easily detected.
 * 4) Readers are not assured that the authors writing behind Rappler news are really the journalists and not their hundreds of interns at Rappler X
 * 5) Rappler is no longer, legally, a mass media, and as the Malacañang palace put it, they are now technically bloggers and can continue as a blogsite (which factually they have been doing since 2012). And opinion  blogs are "unreliable sources" as per Wikipedia guidelines.


 * Please refer to RSN (Reliable Source Noticeboard) for a more appropriate venue.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This is the second time I've seen someone use "conflict of interest" as a synonym for "editorial bias of some kind", and both of them were by users whose user pages described them as Filipino -- does "conflict of interest" mean something different in the Philippines, or something? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No afaik, there isn't. NoNDeSCRiPT, suspects I'm connected with Rappler somehow for removing content on the sites criticisms by bloggers on self-published blog articles. The perceived bias against me led to them at least suspecting of me having conflict on interest.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Swami Sukhabodhananda


This account is an SPA only editing the article Sukhabodhananda. Edits are mostly about changing or adding irrelevant ELs &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 14:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is warranting a serious cleanup.Full-steam ahead:) Anyways, softer U-Block sought Winged Blades Godric 14:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ The change in editorial standards over the last few years is striking.This is G11-able stuff, now-a-days.If I fail to find good sources, it will be looking at the prospects of being subject to another AfD. Winged Blades Godric 17:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Annakoppad
After being asked directly by, has disclosed being commissioned to write the following articles last month:


 * Amar Pandit Yes check.svg Deleted via AfD
 * Avijit Arya Yes check.svg Deleted via AfD
 * Fortis Bangalore (Yes check.svg Merged via AfD)
 * Geysar Gurbanov Yes check.svg Marginal notability, tagged
 * Adam Bragg Yes check.svg Deleted via AfD
 * Avaza software (Yes check.svg Deleted, G4)

They are typical paid editing fare: poorly written, promotional biographies of marginally notable figures or articles on small companies. I'm also suspicious of the following articles, which Annakoppad has not disclosed but look similar:


 * Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Intellectual Property Management (Yes check.svg Deleted, G12)
 * Jisna Mathew-✅ Notable. Copy-edited.
 * Debashree Mazumdar-✅ Notable. Copy-edited.
 * Nanjangud Tirumalamba Yes check.svg Assumed notable
 * Deepika Thakur Yes check.svg Assumed notable
 * Monika Malik-✅ Notable. Copy-edited.
 * Poonam Rani-✅ Notable. Copy-edited.
 * Aninda Sinha (Yes check.svg Kept at AfD last year)
 * Giridhar Madras (Yes check.svg Stubbified)
 * Dineshkumar Harursampath Yes check.svg Deleted via PROD
 * Blueshift Labs Inc (Yes check.svg Deleted, A7 & G11)
 * Beagle (company) Yes check.svg Deleted via AfD

I tried PRODding the first lot but two newish accounts appeared to object – one a disclosed paid editor, one who hasn't disclosed but who has edited many of the above articles. Annakoppad removed the rest herself. Help reviewing and cleaning these up as necessary would be appreciated. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm busy currently so I can't look too much into this, but you might want to search Special:Undelete for Avaza and compare with the multiple deleted articles. I believe it is G4 eligible, and that article is connected to Sockpuppet investigations/Lilianarice paid editing farm. They could have switched who they are paying, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, the initial edit was a word-for-word copy of the version deleted at Avaza (software), so it's eligible for G4. That presumably also implies that Annakoppad is either part of the same sockfarm, or somehow obtained a copy of the deleted version from them. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Just for info Annakoppad declares herself, on her user page, to be female, so "himself" above should be "herself". Pam  D  22:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Another FYI for Joe, I have seen "how to" guides for Wikispammers that say to get the old copy from Deletionpedia. So the two possibilities you enumerated aren't the only two. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The question here is if they are WP:PROXYING, are a new freelancer, or are part of the same ring but are acting as a good hand account. If they are simply a new freelancer that got the content from a mirror, we don’t necessarily have an issue. If it is PROXYING or a new semi-white hat good hand account, there are problems. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Everyone, I was paid to write the ones that I mentioned earlier. The rest of the articles are unpaid ones that I did primarily out of interest not for money. I did not realize that Avaza software was deleted once before. Manjunath sent me the details for uploading on Wikipedia and I did it.I am very keen on writing more and more, so I take up any freelancing job and I find little help in writing wikipedia articles. The only way I can contribute more is by writing as much as possible. Writing on wikipedia is a hobby after doing a full time job and I invest a lot of time to pursue this as a hobby. So, please be considerable when you think that I am part of a bigger scam on Wikipedia.Annakoppad (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Annakoppad
 * Hi . Thanks for responding. The problem is that your disclosures of paid editing have been neither complete nor forthcoming. For example, on Talk:Blueshift Labs Inc, you edited a paid editing tag that another user had placed, implying you admitted it was edited for pay, yet it was not one of the articles you mentioned to Jytdog when he asked you directly. So which is it, were you paid to write an article on Blueshift Labs or not?
 * Wikipedia is a fine hobby and I'm glad you enjoy contributing, but it is not a good place for freelance writing, especially of the type you have been doing (e.g. re-adding deleted material, creating promotional articles on non-notable people and companies). You should know from reading WP:PAID and WP:COI that the community strongly disapproves of paid editing, and as you can see below your less-than-open approach is already raising the possibility that you might be indefinitely blocked from editing. I would strongly advise you to stop and work with Jytdog to fully disclose all your paid editing up to this point. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * given that Annakoppad has stopped working with me on their talk page, I suggest an indefinite block until they finish making their disclosures and i can talk them through the rest of the COI management process. Hard to work with someone who won't cooperate. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I gather that they have disclosed the client for the articles concerned. Is the issue simply that you believe that they have other articles which they have not disclosed? - Bilby (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Jytdog, Please let me know what information you require for completing the COI management process. Thanks Annakoppad (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Annakoppad


 * note- I just dearchived this. Per this, a sockfarm was identified of which Annakoppad was a part.

Socks: - Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Kenny Biddle

 * (AfD)

The user in question started a sandbox article early in the january about this obscure and almost unknown person. One January 2, the subject of the article himself created an account on commons and uploaded a number of selfie pictures, which were immediately added to the sandbox account. The user in question has been trying to get a lot of peacock and promotional material added to the article as well. There are two things that irk me, one is how can a person immediately know that a new user has uploaded the exact pictures that he requires onto commons. And the timing of kenny biddle (the subject) uploading the required pictures just when they were required is a bit too much of a coincidence as well. Without off wiki collaboration, this seems to be kinda impossible. The user in question has vehemently denied any off wiki collaboration dn that makes it a bit hard to swallow. Had he admitted that he just asked Biddle to upload his pictures for use, it would have been understandable, but his outright denial makes this fishy Elektricity (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If this were a court I could sue you for slander. No one accused me of collaboration, or asked about photos or anything else of that nature. So how and when did I "vehemently deny" something I had not been asked about? You need to point to what I said (an outright denial) that you bent into that accusation!


 * Also, your comment "The user in question has been trying to get a lot of peacock and promotional material added to the article as well" is ridiculous. I WROTE the article from scratch. How could I be trying to add whatever you consider "peacock and promotional"? Perhaps my writing style is not to your liking. But it was there in the first place. You may have legs to stand on if you said I was trying to KEEP it in the article. I do think you have been using a cleaver on my work when perhaps a pairing knife would do. But that is a matter of opinion and we should try to reach consensus. You are not assuming good faith.


 * Now regarding your points. "Obscure and almost unknown" are certainly relative. As I have mentioned, I am a scientific skeptic myself and Biddle has come up in many things I read and podcasts I listen to. I researched him and he seemed to me to be notable, so I thought Wiki should have an article.


 * On the photo timing... once the article was almost complete (I actually started it in late December, not early Jan. Get your facts straight.) and I was looking to add pictures, I searched Commons and found nothing there on him. He is easy to reach, as he makes his contact info very public, so I did so. I asked if he had anything he could upload. He was thrilled that I was creating an article on him, so of course he obliged. To be clear, he did not ask me to write it and did not know about it until I needed photos. Why was just asking for photos to complete the article a COI issue?


 * AND... Right at the top of THIS article it says: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period" Please explain how you followed that rule here. There was no discussion on the article talk page Talk:Kenny Biddle despite my attempt, as well as that of user . It went right to an AfD. Where again there was no answering of my questions, or of those of JGehlbach. RobP (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Jerry Bergh (manager)
According to a post today at W:C:Commons:Undeletion requests, User:Lifeline4 is Silvia Brooks. .    Jim. . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Notwithstanding his original post at the Commons UnDR saying "My name is Sylvia Brooks", Lifeline4 now says that he is Silvia Brooks's agent. However, it doesn't matter -- either way it's a violation of WP:COI. .    Jim. . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Hello- we are not Sylvia Brooks agent, we are her management company. Please spell her name correctly. --Lifeline4 17:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Jerry Bergh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeline4 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, as we represent Sylvia Brooks, with other clients, we fail to see why her profile is tagged with a the following.- A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (January 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)- This is a common practice in our industry, so we are not sure why she is being flagged. Please inform us what we need to change that does not meet with Wikipedia's practices. We read the article connected to this- and are working on cleaning up punctuation and wording- however, we do not see any language that does not reflect a neutral point of view. Please clarify.--Lifeline4 17:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Jerry Bergh

Also, just to clarify- the following comment which you site above- '''Notwithstanding his original post at the Commons UnDR saying "My name is Sylvia Brooks"- was entered by Sylvia Brooks. We had her come to our offices to give written approval of the use of these photos. As stated earlier- it is very common practice in our industry to work on behalf of our clients reputation- that is what management companies do. Please answer the above question about a neutral point of view. We have rebuilt her Wikipedia profile, adding in some of her recent accomplishments. Please be specific as to what particular wording does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you. --Lifeline4 20:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Jerry Bergh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeline4 (talk • contribs) As we believe Jamelwoodward has a prejudiced perception to this- we request that this be reviewed and undo. --Lifeline4 20:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Jerry Bergh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeline4 (talk • contribs)


 * You have just given us evidence of shared use of your account. Also, your account name is the same as your company. Each one of these alone is a violation of Wikipedia's username policy and will result in a block.
 * Before you attempt to edit the article of any client, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's non-negotiable policy on paid editing, as well as conflict of interest and ownership of content. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

John Christodoulou


Eniberisha repeatedly removed cited content and added promotional stuff. They received a COI notice and warning, and stopped. Another new editor appeared, Somethings29, very likely the same person, and did more of the same. Left a COI notice to no effect. Repeatedly reverting is usually the most time-efficient way of dealing with this sort of promotional editing, but sometimes they are too persistent, as is the case here. Edwardx (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeffed both accounts. MER-C 11:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, MER-C. That was quick! Edwardx (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

New sock farm
Related to a previously blocked farm that was CU confirmed and I blocked in November here. Current SPI reference is Sockpuppet investigations/Seokochin. Below are the accounts. I don't have time to add articles now, but if someone doesn't get to them, I'll do it later tonight or this weekend. The accounts used both regular IPs and proxies.

Accounts

Thanks everyone for the cleanup help. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I deleted everything apart from 100 Happy Days, which had a rather suspect keep outcome at AFD: Articles for deletion/100 Happy Days. MER-C 11:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy Days deleted G5. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Julia Duin


User:Kinnaret claims to be Julia Duin and is making changes to that article. ‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union  ‖ 07:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Julia's edits seem harmless enough  although  she shouldn't  be doing  it. A gentle word, perhaps? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done by . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sugo Music Group


Solid off-wiki evidence that Sugo Music Group is looking for an article on their CEO. I note that the corp article has all the hallmarks.. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * --Cleaned up.What are the prospects of an AFD? Anyway, clear-cut UPE.See Kenshoo. Winged Blades Godric 06:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Already prodded and proposed for speedy d by SamHolt6. Patient is unlikely to survive. ☆ Bri (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * deleted page as an expired PROD? The PROD was just put now. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And, Alex has corrected himself. Winged Blades Godric 07:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that happen sometimes when there are multiple deletion tags on one page. Restored and deleted again under CSD. Alex Shih (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On a side-note, the sole remaining creation looks to be UPE but I'm afraid that he passes WP:NACADEMIC. Winged Blades Godric 04:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As there are no other substantial edits, and the editing clearly violates the terms of use, that's a sufficient reason for removal. see Articles for deletion/Hongyuan Zha. Are we now using speedy delete in such cases? If not we might need a new speedy criterion, but AfD is still available.  As he is notable, someone else might want to write an article eventually. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The progress will be interesting.Proposal for such CSD criterions regarding TOU violations/UPE have been rejected in the past. Winged Blades Godric 13:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Steve Down


Article seems to be guarded by user:Anon1-3483579, who edit's no other article. There has been an accusation in the past, about Anon1-3483579 who is supposed to be Clark Gardner, an former employee of Steve Down. There was an article on him, which I adf'd. Change history comment: ''Clark Gardner is no longer employed by Financially Fit. He was an independent contractor and not an officer of the company. Clark Gardner is Anon1-3483579. Clark Gardner has a restraining order against making edits to this page.'' scope_creep (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi scope_creep, I figured I'd give my opinion on the matter. I'd like to point out that the users which make such accusations are the same users who continue to vandalise the Steve Down page. And as of recently, because I've been busy, I've only been monitoring the pages I have edited in the past, which include honesty Lucky Strike Brachioradial pruritus and Gujarat International Finance Tec-City. The Steve Down page happens to be one I make the most edits on because of the continued vandalism that is always in my recent watchlist. Users continue to blank the page and copy paste advertorial material. But that's a different story that I think admins are aware of. I find it humourous that users have accused me of being Clark Gardner, as I, as you stated, created a separate page for the individual which contained information I would assume Clark Gardner wouldn't find favorable (as all the notable information on him has to do with his financial crimes). So I'm not sure what info you need from me, but I can assure you I'm not Clark Gardner. The only reason I created a page on him a while back was because it came up in information for the Steve Down page and I believed it warranted a separate page (others decided it wasn't notable, so be it). As I have repeatedly stated on my talk/user page and the Steve Down talk page. I have no personal interest in these subjects. I actually came across the pages that I monitor by browsing "random article." I am not entirely sure how Clark Gardner is involved with Steve Down other than his relation to Financially Fit, but I can assure I am not him. -Anon1-3483579 (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope so. You did say that to me right enough. scope_creep (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * i worked over the article. i asked Anon1-3483579 if they had any connection and they said no; seems to me based on their edits that they are editing contra WP:BLPCOI but they said they have no relationship. i have given them notice of the DS on BLP articles. that is all we can do for now. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Joeysdy


Joeysdy has a conflict of interest with Yidan Prize and the related Chen Yidan. The most obvious evidence are the following self-authored photos/promotional images:
 * File:The Worldwide Educating for the Future .jpg
 * File:Charles Chen Yidan.jpg
 * File:Yidan Prize Medals.jpg
 * File:Yidan Prize Summit 2017.jpg

I have warned this user at his/her talk page of the policy at WP:COI, but he/she has still not disclosed a COI and has been removing maintenance templates at Yidan Prize. This is a WP:SPA here to use Wikipedia for advertising, in contravention of the policy at WP:NOTPROMOTION. Citobun (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yidan Prize COI Issue
Hi Citobun, I just added some Yidan Prize-related photos on Yidan Prize Wikipedia but I realised that it caused the COI issue. So I added the COI disclose as per Wikipedia's instruction and deleted all the visuals but it seems it doesn't help. What else should I do to resolve the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeysdy (talk • contribs) 03:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Polkadot (project)

 * promo, undisclosed COI, borderline NN
 * still redlink
 * G11, G12ed
 * G12ed
 * still redlink
 * SPA
 * SPA (now disclosed 2nd account )
 * SPA
 * (disclosed by Mariapaulafn1 as having COI at Polkadot (project) )
 * SPA Widefox ; talk 19:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (borderline N)
 * (linked to Gavin Wood)
 * creator of Polkadot (project), Gavin Wood, Melonport not an WP:SPA like the others

Borderline WP:N combined with promotional activity, copyvio, undisclosed COI, editor coordination, multiple accounts (AGF). Uhooep is not an SPA like the others, but as creator of two of the three articles it's possibly just coincidence. Widefox ; talk 21:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, i'm not sure what the suggestion is of me being included here, however I have no connection to other wikpiedia accounts or COIs relating to the subjects of these articles. I have been editing Wikipedia on and off since 2014 on a range of subjects. I created Gavin Wood and Polkadot (project) because I have an interest in emerging blockchain technologies and cryptography. I feel Wood played an important role in the Ethereum project, much like Vitalik Buterin, who admittedly has a longer and more established bio. I created Polkadot (project) as a basic stub which I note has now been expanded by other users. I also note that multi-language versions of Polkadot have been created (not by myself), and my only involvement in the multi-language versions has been to update to a more recent picture of Wood. I also wish to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, and if Notability debates are considered necessary then I approve of such debates, but I would prefer to be exonerated from any multi-account or COI accusations as it's simply not the case. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions. Kind regards Uhooep (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Uhooep, let me be re-emphasise that I'm not suspecting your account of promotion but the others are all SPAs, but one account has disclosed meatpuppetry with an editor with a COI, and using multiple accounts. I couldn't list the cluster of articles without you as creator being mentioned and needing to provide you the mandatory notification, that's all. Widefox ; talk 22:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Get a CU carried out and get it  over and done with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * CU requested Sockpuppet investigations/Mariapaulafn. Widefox ; talk 15:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

CU requested Sockpuppet investigations/Mariapaulafn. Mariapaulafn1 ; talk 16:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC): Hello, Apologies for taking long to answer. I have asked for the cancellation of the account I did by mistake and detailed the mistake on my userpage. I apologize for this, and I have also disclosed the fact that i speak with Repj but we don't have any work relationship. The user is only a blockchain aficionado whom I met on a chatroom. I have no intention to violate any code of conduct. I am new on this space and I only did a few contributions. I apologize if this came out the wrong way, but it was unintened. Moreover, I have not been working with the project for a long time (before contributing), but I have followed it and decided to correct the page in order to improve this valuable resource. I have no contractual obligations with Polkadot nowadays. My contract terminated on Dec 1st 2017. This page is not for promotional issues but for the sake of registering such a groundbreaking crypto project on a platform as Wikipedia. Thank you and once again, apologies.
 * (refactored)Mariapaulafn1/Mariapaulafn Please see and follow the following: WP:COI and disclose per WP:DISCLOSE. As you have coordinated editing with other people/accounts on and offwiki, please also see WP:MEAT. Widefox ; talk 17:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Barkaat Ahmad

 * person
 * affected articles
 * affected articles
 * affected articles

Very obvious paid editor. Has been blowing off community feedback til tonight when they made a feeble effort at disclosure, diff, after I gave them the template:uw-paid1 and started tagging articles with template:UPE. Will not talk. Jytdog (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this linked to Sangler? Winged Blades Godric 09:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The DreamsCloud AfC move to mainspace was by this editor. Can it be moved back for re-review? ☆ Bri (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Mrkoolblu was created the day they moved DreamsCloud to mainspace. Both accounts have an interest in a CEO last name Taube ☆ Bri (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * --This has some interesting history.Based on off-wiki leads and some conversation with DJames, I discovered that whilst Davykamanzi had followed the rules about disclosure etc, he has directly introduced the articles to mainspace, without any review.Thus, I draftified a bunch of his creations, I was skeptical about.This included DreamsCloud.10 days later, up popped Barkat who re-mainspaced it but was swiftly reverted by Nihlus days later.Months later, Chetsford, an independent reviewer vetted and accepted it.So, draftification isn't an option. Winged Blades Godric 07:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Barkaat Ahmad remains unresponsive and has probably abandoned the account; they haven't edited since the day I posted here and we should be on the lookout for new accounts. It is time to indefinitely block this account for ToU violations. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think blocking right now would be a good idea - they aren't currently editing, and there's no evidence that they socking. If they start socking then we need to block, whatever happens. But a block now would end almost all hope of engaging with the editor if they choose to return to paid editing, as a block almost invariably leads to a sock farm. I'd suggest holding off on a block until they edit with this account but still don't disclose, or it is clear that they are using socks to continue paid editing. - Bilby (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Moar socks
This time with a Bollywood flavor.


 * Sockpuppet investigations/Virasatgaur
 * Articles for deletion/Marina Kuwar
 * Articles for deletion/Marina Kuwar
 * Articles for deletion/Marina Kuwar
 * Articles for deletion/Marina Kuwar
 * Articles for deletion/Marina Kuwar
 * Articles for deletion/Marina Kuwar
 * Articles for deletion/Marina Kuwar
 * Articles for deletion/Marina Kuwar
 * Articles for deletion/Marina Kuwar
 * Articles for deletion/Marina Kuwar
 * Articles for deletion/Marina Kuwar
 * Articles for deletion/Marina Kuwar
 * Articles for deletion/Marina Kuwar
 * Articles for deletion/Marina Kuwar
 * Articles for deletion/Marina Kuwar

I've deleted a bunch of stuff; your help in dealing with the remainder would be appreciated. MER-C 11:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I dipped into this swamp a couple of times, and suggested that Proudpurian (talk) should perhaps be included in the sockpuppet investigation you linked above. – Athaenara  ✉  10:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Orange County Business Journal
Looks like a good-faith effort to update the article by a newbie with a COI. Should I revert? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to revert - it looks like minor updates that should be made either way. - Bilby (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , those were not minor updates, they were written either with the aim of promo-spamming or because of a misplaced belief that our entry is equivalent the journal web-site.I am quite amazed that you find the edit, including it's upper half, to have much/any encyclopedic value. Winged Blades Godric 17:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The list of events wasn't particularly useful, but that was there before. The main change was updating the editors. I don't see a lot of value in the list of events, but if you are going to have such a list, making them current isn't a major concern. - Bilby (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

KarimKoueider

 * sample articles
 * sample articles

This person edits almost exclusively about companies in Egypt, adding promotional, unsoruced/badly sourced content. Impossible to tell if they are conflicted or an advocate for Egyptian business. I asked about COI on their talk page diff) and when they ignored that, I posted the level one paid editing notice, which drew a response, which I pushed back on. They got angry, so am posting here so others can address their editing with them. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not exclusively edit Egyptian business, Sisecam a company you listed, is turkish. I advocate business in general with proof that I have edited Japanese businesses extensively before but tend to focus more on Egyptian business as they are very badly edited and their pages are inaccurate, outdated and with a lot of bad infobox formatting. I am sorry if my reply previously suggested that I would "not be productive" but you insisted after I claimed im not affiliated with anything. I took your response the wrong way, I would gladly take advice as im new to Wikipedia. KarimKoueider (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not say you edit exclusively about Egyptian businesses and I did not insist at your talk page. I said here your editing is almost exclusively about egyptian businesses and what I actually wrote at your talk page was please reconsider your answer. Distorting things is not helpful. Please stop doing that. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If you dont mind, I would like to ask for proof of "promotional, unsoruced/badly sourced content", most my edits deal with infobox formatting for companies. I dont believe I have inserted anything promotional and rarely add extra content overall. KarimKoueider (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Last response here; I will let others reply to you. The Şişecam article has now been deleted because it was entirely promotional. Good WP content is based mostly on independent, reliable sources, and summarizes them. Most of your edits are unsourced or use sources from the company.  You seem to have some conception of WP as a business directory - before the Şişecam article was deleted you wrote something like "this is business information" on the talk page, which was not relevant to any policy or guideline about content in WP.  Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you looked at the history of the Şişecam article, all I did was add a logo from their own website. I was not involved in adding any content. I understand WP is an encyclopedia not a business directory. I have a lot of knowledge of a lot of businesses around the world which is why I am editing based on my personal knowledge. KarimKoueider (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We have no way of knowing if the IP is KarimKoueider or somebody else. I am ignoring that remark as I am sure are others. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I logged out accidentally KarimKoueider (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I sent part of EFG-Hermes to WP:CP for a possible copyright issue. Might be worth checking whether other text in the listed articles is promotional due to copyright violations. /wiae /tlk  01:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC) (edited to add: I should be clear that the possible copyright issue in the EFG-Hermes article was not added by the user who is the subject of this COIN post, but nonetheless if articles are attracting COI edits, copyright is often a live concern. /wiae  /tlk  01:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC))

Michael Zasloff




Michael Zasloff is a promotional-sounding article with significant contribtions from and, two accounts apparently used by simultaneously by the subject of the article (the Michael zasloff account acknowledges being the subject in this edit). Three other articles that have a connection to Michael Zasloff, trodusquemine, squalamine, and magainin, have also been edited by these accounts to highlight Zasloff's contributions to the subjects. has made some promotional edits to the biography as well, and this account's edit history is suggetive of undeclared paid editing. is another account that has added promotional material to the Zasloff biography. ChemNerd (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * As you can tell by my account history, I am still learning Wikipedia. Regarding this article, I am very curious as to which edits I made that are in anyway promotional. Most of my recent edits were simply adding citations. It appears to me, Chemnerd, that you are in no way familiar with Dr. Zasloff's continued contributions to the medical community. That is fine. However, I am curious as to which part of the article appeared promotional. Where was someone making money? Ihave never been paid to edit Wikipedia and never will accept payment to do so.


 * I have eclectic tastes an Zasloff's work excites me. On occasion, I'd make small additions to the article (see history). I noticed that another user recently had made schanges that seemed accurate but weren't well cited. I went through and added a few citations (see history). To be honest, I didn't even look at the History page to see who it was.


 * My wiki username is a handle I use for lots of social media -- even a gmail account Earlier today I was contacted by someone representing Dr. Zasloff. They nformed me as to teh situation. And it is a lot less sinister than you would have it appear. According to this person, Dr. Zasloff cam upon the article recently and made changes he thought were fit. Like most people, he was not nd is not familiar with Wikipedia's standards. To him, he was contributing to his biography. There's no profit motive.


 * This is how it was explained ot me, and I believe it. There is no evidence that says there was any funny business. itsashaunparty (talk) 5:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I worked all of those over. They were horribly promotional and obviously the product of conflicted editing.  Jytdog (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:itsashaunparty Your comment above is not good. First you mucked around with the orignal poster's comment, which is not ok. Second, you were dead wrong about there being no problems with the content.
 * Third and most importantly, please clarify your relationship with Zasloff and his institutions/companies. Looking at the history of the Zasloff article your edits and those by him and others who seem connected to him, have happened together, in bursts, several times.
 * Please consider your answer carefully, because at this point it is pretty clear to me that you have been less than truthful about your relationships here. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding to what Jytdog just said. This isn't set up to be a drama board. We want boring conversations where people say "yeah, I know the guy" and we work with you on how to handle that conflict and continue to edit here. There's nothing wrong in coming out with such a statement. Hope you see that: this isn't set up to be a confrontation or a trial, just a remedy for editing issues. What becomes an issue is when people lose other folks' trust in this collaborative environment. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Excuse me, sir, you just called me a liar? Is this how you treat all young editors or just me? Wow, you're a mean person. It also sows in your "editing"

It seems to me that you are taking punitive action against this article. You make a slew of edits that serve the purpose of dismantling the work fo prior editors who sought to report serious, relevant facts. In fact, it appears you, Jytdog, are making edits in an effort to make this article (that existed long before I ever made an edit) appear to be a junk article. You also seek to disparage Dr. Zasloff.

Your tactics range from subtle to overt. For example, you write, "The company attempted to develop squalamine, trodusquemine, and pexiganan (a version of a magainin), but it ran out of money and closed in 2009," and cite an article about the company's closing. Besides the sentence's blatantly crude prose it is incorrect and purposely misleading. Your sentence makes it sound as though the company was still actively developing these drugs but couldn't anymore due to finances. The article does not say that or anything close to it. But, your sentence does make Dr. Zasloff sound worse -- almost like a failure! So good job, Jytdog!

You seemed ot be much more interested in making a mockery of a laudable career than you are in conveying information. You write in part,"... pexiganan, was rejected by the FDA in 1999 for lack of efficacy compared with the standard of care for diabetic foot ulcers..." This is the first time diabetic foot ulcers mentioned. Also, you state a source who praises the drug and writes: "However, the drug's greatest enemy turned out not to be bacteria, but the FDA, which refused approval on grounds of insufficient evidence of efficacy, despite an impressive performance in phase II trials—at which stage only 40% of drugs are approved, and most fail due to low efficacy."

There are many other inaccuracies and sloppy misleading data. The goal seems to be punitive. For one, Dr. Zasloff had the audacity to attempt to edit his own Wikipedia to be more accurate and neglected to follow precise formatting. Second, Zasloff is a traditional Jewish name and Maganin, one might guess, is a word derived from Hebrew.

I can't escape the feeling that many of these edits stem from an antisemitic mindset. I, for one, am also a Jew and I will not stand for it.

I do see the issue with Dr. Zasloff performing his own editing. However disagree on the measures you are taking to publicly mock a celebrated doctor just because he's a Jew who made edits without fully understanding the intricacies of the Wikipedia format. Thispage shold obviously revert to a time before Dr. Zasloff editied. As it is now you decided to throw away all work by prior editors just so you could be mean.

You knew before your edits that Dr Zasloff was aware and actively paying attention to this page, correct? Yet I see example after example of you disparaging him and his work with lies. Why would you seek to go out and hurt a 70-something year old accomplished physician? In every interview I've read, it seems his one constant driving motivation is to help others, Yet you insist belittling his contributions to the science community likely because of his religious beliefs.

The page can go back to a place where it was before Dr. Zasloff made edits. That's fine. But I won't stand for your antisemitic bullying.

Please consider your answer carefully,because at this point it is pretty clear to me that you have strong antisemitic beliefs as well as a sadistic personality.

itsashaunparty (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is really not what we were hoping for in terms of keeping a "drama free" noticeboard. Want to try again? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * So after still not disclosing any relationship but throwing out some pretty outrageous flack about me being an antisemite above,  itsashaunparty has gone all reverty to restore bad versions of the articles -
 * at the Zasloff article: diff (repeating antisemitic claim in edit note), diff
 * at the Squalamine article diff (accusation of antisemitsm in the edit note), diff
 * at the Trodusquemine artcle: diff
 * All those reverts, reverted by other people (not me). Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I simply do not understand why you have taken bias punitive actions against this article. Bias. Punitive. Above, I correctly point to flaws in edits you made. I point out, as an example, one instance where you write purposely misleading information in an attempt to disparage Dr. Zasloff. You cite it to an article that, at first glance, looks like it could be a good citation for this information -- but it's not.

After I pointed this out, someone edited this sentence. Because I was correct. And, frankly, you had written a sentence to belittle the subject of an article.

It appears that there may be a COI after all, Jytdog. Jytdog is out to get Dr. Zasloff and will stop at nothing. Why? There isn't a single controversy with this guy. All he does are good things. I do not see a reason Jytdog would do this to Dr. Zasloff. I keep searching for a reason, but the more I search, the more I do not see one. itsashaunparty (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * May want to take a look at WP:BOOMERANG. Deciding that another editor has a COI due to the fact that they seek to have questionable information removed is a profound jump to make, especially when considering that consensus must be found to include rather than exclude.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I marvel at the eloquence of Berean Hunter's phrase "defiant meatpuppet" in the block log. – Athaenara ✉  17:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Edwin van der Heide

 * (Afd)

SPA with a connection to the (sole) subject of the article. Repeatedly adds unsourced or poorly sourced material to the article. I have issued a COI warning, but this seems to have gone unnoticed. Kleuske (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see it has been AfDed. It really should be moved to draft space and then put though AfC.  The creator is both new and conflicted. I have asked at their talk page if they would be willing, and have asked those who have !voted at the AfD if they agree too... Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Everybody agreed to draftify, and it has been draftified. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Promotional United States fake currency


This is the second time now I have had to remove an image that this user has admitted to on WP:COMMONS to have commissioned. In that commons link, he even put a link to his/her facebook page which in my view falls under WP:PROMOTION. I had raised the issue with the user in the past when they placed the image on the page here: but received no response. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Revert history:, . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I forgot you had a problem with it, it was a long time ago, I have made many edits since then, my memory regarding things like that is very bad. This should be discussed on the Promotional United States fake currency Talk page, as my edit suggested. I suppose I have a "conflict of interest" for all the pictures I've posted (or that others have posted) that have links to my flickr account, which is entirely Creative Commons. You're also being extremely rude referring to me as him/her assuming that since you posted a link to my user-page you can see what I am. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Its on your talk-page still though, and please WP:AGF I really do not know if you are male or female so I didn't want to assume a gender. I want to add that you have also had a history of adding promotional things on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It didn't make it as far as COIN but there was a very similar concern at Talk:Tim Holmes re an event and images of US currency that could be interpreted as either performance art or a publicity stunt. I think he relevant test for inclusion is non-trivial, non-local RS coverage, as with everything. And the best practice that emerged in the other case was to include only a cropped image at Commons for identification. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with promotional currency images as long as they are provided by a reliable third party source, and contribute to the article (not just decorative). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So, if someone else posted my "Money of the Beast 666" image on the article or, others agreed it is ok to add the pic to the article, it would be okay? (Cross-posted to the article Talk-Page.) Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Conflicts of interest really depend on relationships that precede actions, so it is impossible to say without knowing who this someone else is relative to you. It is good that you asked on the article talkpage instead of posting the image at Promotional United States fake currency yourself. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually the image was posted on Promotional United States fake currency twice by Raquel Baranow (see revert history above). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Michael Serbinis


Serbinis article was drastically updates by IP address, adding 13k of promo. Second user added image. scope_creep (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC) user:Etyndale has submitted a disclosure notice, per WP:PAID for League Inc.