Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 132

Zmadeba


Looks a lot like UPE, especially given, which was previously deleted as spam. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Guy, I just sent the mandatory notification to the editor ☆ Bri (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ken Urban
User:Johnmichaelkennedy states, "I am a public relations practitioner located in Greater Boston and happy to be both a donor and a relatively new editing member of the Wikipedia community. I am compensated by some clients of mine to update facts and correct details on their own Wikipedia pages. I disclose this when editing those pages." He only edits Ken Urban, but cannot see any disclosure of this connection. Posted a COI notice on his talkpage on 30 December 2017, but he continues to edit the article. Edwardx (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * User has now posted a disclosure on his userpage. I have added the connected contributor (paid) template to Talk:Ken Urban. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we want anything else to happen here? I see the article is tagged for cleanup as well. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Lady Eleanor Holles School
Could someone take a quick look at this school article, where someone identifying as the husband of the headmistress has been making changes? It seems to be something of a borderline COI, and I've held back from commenting on it; I'd appreciate more eyes. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC). Full details on Talk:Lady Eleanor Holles School. Rhanbury (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Rasheeda


Rasheeda is signed to her husband's management company D-Lo Entertainment. The above user only has edits for Rasheeda's page (since 2009). Right now this user has been constantly trying to falsify Rasheeda's birthdate, trying to shave 6 years off her age, despite valid sources confirming her real birth date. Pinchofhope (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also note that Dlo117@gmail.com is Rasheeda's booking email. https://twitter.com/rasheeda/status/623981877733359616?lang=en Pinchofhope (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've used the COI template on the user's talk page.
 * I've also looked at the article, and removed the birthdate altogether. The birthdate was not listed in the source being given for the date. No reliable source was given with a birthdate. There was a claim that there were articles that had another birthdate, but then a judgment in Wikipedia voice as to them being wrong. None of this is acceptable, and it is best that the birthdate remain out of the article unless it can be reliably sourced. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Liberty Holdings Limited


This article has been extensively edited by IP addresses belonging to "Liberty-life". Cordless Larry (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Stubbified by JzG. Not sure if there's anything else to do unless someone wants to undertake deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've now been left a message by one of the IPs above saying that they will stop editing the article, so posting here seems to have done the trick. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Tigers Limited


Fully referenced article made with one or two clicks, well polished. The username clearly suggests they work in PR department. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Ammarpad. Meantime is the name of PR company that specialises in the transport and logistics industry. Tigers Ltd. is one of their clients. See the list here. Voceditenore (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked and deleted. MER-C 19:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Page creation log now live
It can be found at Special:Log/create. I thought folks at COIN would be interested in this. I am not sure if this should go to the talkpage, or here. So please feel free to move if you think so. Regards, — usernamekiran (talk)  19:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Recruiting auto-patrolled editor
Hi, while looking into the problem of blackhat paid editing found an advert on a work ad site looking for an autopatrolled editor to upload precreated and finished articles onto Wikipedia without being reviewed. It said the poster is in Czechlosovakia and is named Vlad, also that they've spent over $4000 on the site so this could have been going on for a while. Another ad was from a new north California legal firm offering $400 for a Wikipedia article on them and if successful to create articles for their clients. Most of the other ads were minor league asking for a wiki article on themselves as individuals or business from $50 to $200, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good work so far. Can you identify any specific article at this point? If so does it look like any particular editor has been a paid editor? (this will likely have to be a guess - so just point out your suspicion and ask here for help.  Don't go making final, fight-to-the-death accusations.) . If you get to the point where you are afraid of outing somebody, ask an admin for help. I'm particularly interested in the Czech connection.  BTW Czechoslovakia is now defunct.    Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Possibly Highstakes00 related: see ☆ Bri (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Also involving Mrkoolblu: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 125 ☆ Bri (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no more at present but will look into it more Atlantic306 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Are the jobs still active, or have they been resolved? I am interested in taking a look... MER-C 20:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The job is still open. Previously (for the same job, but at different times over the past year) they hired User:Barkaat Ahmad, User:Ukpong1 and User:Davykamanzi. Davykamanzi is disclosing their paid edits now; Ukpong1 was indef blocked in March by Smallbones, and I've just indef blocked Barkaat Ahmad. I don't recognise anyone else who has been hired except for one which I don't have enough to prove who they are, but I have a suspicion I'll look into. - Bilby (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It was that blocked Ukpong1. Anyway, I'll be curious to find out more about this too, so I'd appreciate if anyone can keep me posted as well. Alex Shih (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have paid more attention to who did the block. I don't expect anyone to be hired now, as I'm sure that they are aware of COIN, but we'll see what happens. - Bilby (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , you are invited to add these firms to WP:PAIDLIST. It serves as a central repository and history for this stuff, and has been useful for research which I won't go into in great detail here. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A search through the recent list of articles created by autopatrolled users returned no relevant results. MER-C 17:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * (Highbrows Engineering and Technologies)
 * (Highbrows Engineering and Technologies)

David Ibiyeomie


Rossifichio is a clear WP:SPA editor with a focus on David Ibiyeomie (a Nigerian pastor) and Salvation Ministries which Iniyeomie founded and is the senior pastor. They've added [poorly sourced and highly promotional material, overly detailed lists and just puts back removed material without discussion. I've asked politely on their talk page to declare their obvious COI, but no response.  Would appreciate some outside review and suggestions. [[User:Ravensfire| Ravensfire ]] (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I've noticed this too. I've reverted them before and I thought that I had given them a warning too but looking at the history of their talk page I see that I had not. They don't edit relentlessly but they have been at it for a while. I'm not sure if they are officially retained to edit on behalf of Ibiyeomie's organisation, or whether they are just a fan with a neutrality problem, but either way they need to stop. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Did a bit of digging. Previous SPI under Jack Nyong,think this guy will turn out to be his sock. Evidence of several other socks in revision history. Leave it to you for reporting, not sure how to do it Lyndaship (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

SPI report made. Not sure if I've done it right Lyndaship (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Just a heads up, I recently bumped into another likely sock on Salvation Ministries. I have already added them to the SPI report. I've also requested page protection due to socking HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspicious editing by RemoD007

 * User:

At the prompting of another editor, I recently looked into connections between the editing of the blocked User:SudhanshuKumar1 (talk) (a sock of User:Sudhanshu6454 (talk)) and User:RemoD007 (talk), a new editor who joined the project several weeks after SudhanshuKumar1 was banned. For convenience sake I will spit this comment into two parts.
 * To begin, both Sudhanshukumar1 (contributions ) and RemoD007 (contributions ) use similar editing descriptions, such as "linked X to article" or "X linked". Both editors also commonly edit the names of non-notable directors into articles; this was hardy surprising in Sudhanshukumar1's case, as per Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_129 they were a paid editor in the employ of Digital Sukoon, a marketing firm that specializes in the film industry. It should also be pointed out that RemoD007 recently recreated Abhishek Sharrma, an article that SudhanshuKumar1 had also created.


 * The above evidence for some sort of connection is decent, but I was able to do some off-wiki digging and uncover more. For example RemoD007 created 3 Dev (a film) and Ankoosh Bhatt (the director of 3 Dev). Interestingly enough, per these two sources  the movie's digital marketing is being handled by our old friends at... Digital Sukoon, the company that employed Sudhanshukumar1 to write Wikipedia articles.

With all of the above being said, a case of COI editing and likely undisclosed paid editing seems clear.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for looking at this case SamHolt6, pinging who blocked Sudhanshukumar1 and  who blocked his sock Sudhanshu6454 to take a look at this one. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 16:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It also should be noted that per this facebook post Digital Sukoon is an online marketer for Manmeet Singh, who RemoD007 recently uploaded an image of to the commons. Usually I am able to find that high-quality images have been taken from the internet without attribution, but in this case it seems the photo may have legitimately be RemoD007's own work. This would imply a further connection to them editing clients of Digital Sukoon.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked Clear cut case. Have blocked. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Mr Attempt - GISMA Business School - Head of Berlin Campus
Hi all.

I have made an Edit Request on the GISMA Business School page. I have requested the addition of the name of the Head of Berlin Campus. My COI is that I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns GISMA. With thanks, - MrAttempt (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be anything for the noticeboard here, so I'm going to close this case. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

pfSense


In the fall of 2017 we went through a huge load of crap around this open-sourced firewall and another one, OPNsense. See for example here and see ANI here and Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive970.

This user is edit warring to remove negative content and add promotional content; the WP:APPARENTCOI is very apparent. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This person is non responsive to the COI inquiry and is continuing to edit war badly sourced content into the page, and to remove sourced negative content. They should be indefinitely blocked as they are here to promote this product, and nothing more. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Blocked indefinitely for failure to declare a conflict of interest and advertising/promotion - TNT 💖 21:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! TNT Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Adding note of dislosure finally made here I'm Jim Thompson, I work at Netgate and am the only person here who can provide factual information about Netgate, ESF, pfSense or the OPNsense you seem to be very protective off. If you have any problem about my editing let me know.

Sarahclosefan12345
Editing on Sarah Close. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Simply being a fan of something doesn't mean you have a conflict of interest (although it may mean you have difficulty writing about the subject from a neutral point of view) - I don't think you've called this one correctly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  23:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Where should I put it? RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 23:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Michael S. Smith II again

 * accounts
 * blocked for socking then PROMO:
 * blocked sock --
 * blocked sock --
 * blocked sock --

See prior COIN filings
 * Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_100
 * Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_112.

The sockmaster had the chutzpah to ask someone else if they had a COI (diff).

Newest account is obvious sock; have filed SPI. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Horse and Rider


Can someone keep an eye on this article? The user, owner of a replica covered in the article, recently published a press release stating the thing to be worth millions, all the while editing the article to remove any criticism or doubt. He does not believe that there is a conflict of interest in any way. I'm at a loss. --Felcotiya (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have left a note on Jwpetty1951's talk page reminding them to start a discussion at Talk:Horse and Rider (Leonardo da Vinci) if they desire changes to the article (considering they have a clear COI), and reminded them to conform to both WP:CON and WP:COI. Hopefully this results in a productive discussion. I have also notified them of this discussion, and Felcotiya I will remind you that it is a courtesy (it may actually be a requirement) to notify another editor if they are mentioned here at COIN. Per your request, I have also added the article to my watchlist in case that an issue arises again.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This sounded familiar and voila: WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 116 same time last year ☆ Bri (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Jordan Fung
Jordan Fung, User:DragoJ, seems to be exclusively editing pages relating to himself, his school, and his awards/products.220.246.180.24 (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Also see User:Jordan Fung. 220.246.180.24 (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Brave (web_browser)


I have noticed that user Jonathansampson is constantly writing positive text about Brave. When investigating, I discovered that he is Marketing Manager at Brave (source: Google) - paid and undisclosed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jonathansampson

User is paid for and working for Brave marketing.

I have undone the changes until a neutral editor can come in. Thank you for your help, Basicbbr (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Please share any positive comments I've made about the Brave Browser; my edits have been objective and neutral. With all due respect, you have repeatedly unsupported claims (Brave is not adware, for instance). Your allegation that I am a Marketing Manager is also incorrect; I'm an engineer on the product (happy to disclose this, as I have on Reddit, Twitter, and elsewhere). I sincerely would appreciate a neutral third-party to consider the edits, and weigh in on the quality of our contributions.


 * I'll address specific faults with the article on the appropriate Talk page, and we can hash out the details there.


 * Jonathansampson (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Virtually every source in that article is either a sales promo, a press release, or an affiliated self-published source. I don't think it would survive AfD. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Guy, can you please share with me which of my edits were objectionable? I referenced two sources to my knowledge: one regarding history collection, and the other regarding the larger ads trials program. The first source I shared was the privacy policy for the program, and the second was the announcement. These seemed appropriate, since another editor was misrepresenting the topic. If details from the announcement aren't appropriate, and the privacy policy itself isn't appropriate, what type of source do you suggest is appropriate for accurately representing the topic? Jonathansampson (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is correct, what I found was Senior Developer Relations Specialist and Author @ Brave.com official blog. I interpreted (maybe incorrectly?) that you were responsible for the image of the company and that you could own investment into BATs. I do understand that it is important to keep a nice corporate image. When I saw the article it was really a big ad, with flowers everywhere, I tried to go more neutral, maybe it was too much of a shock. So I replaced Controversy with "The future of Brave", and used more positive words. I think it's fine and we can arrange this on the talk page. I would appreciate if we can take a more talk approach, rather than just delete statements.  Basicbbr (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Since Guy is away holding the place together, I will reply. This isn't really the place for discussion, but most if not all the reference are technical Churnalism, that don't satisfy WP:ORGIND nor WP:NCORP. There is no secondary source that discuss it independently of the product, and therefore indicate it is not notable. scope_creep (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's appropriate to delete the page; the Brave Browser is referenced all across the web, and merits a presence on Wikipedia. I am an engineer on the browser, that fact is in no way being obscured. My primary concern is with demonstrably-false information being added to the post by an individual who has only edited the Basic Attention Token and Brave Browser pages, and whose account appears to have only recently been created. Basicbbr, I would be more than happy to work out any issues on the Talk page, but you have yet to show any edit I made that wasn't neutral. I am not here to advertise Brave, I'm here only to represent it factually. If I fail to be neutral, I welcome the criticism and whatever may follow. With all due respect, your edits do not sound neutral (and your history here gives me some concern as to your motives). You created a Controversies category, and populated it with misleading information, for instance. Jonathansampson (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe to be impartial either; it is important to understand that computer software replacing ads may be perceived as controversial or even illegal in some countries. As you seem particularly worried by my edits, I will not do edits anymore on your page but I encourage you to talk with editors to reach NPOV. Thank you for disclosing the COI. Basicbbr (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I absolutely appreciate the NPOV interest; I sincerely don't wish to co-opt Wikipedia for marketing purposes. I have updated the Talk page, and will continue to do so. Please feel free to engage with me there, and we can work out the best, most neutral, explanation for what Brave is, and what it's doing. Jonathansampson (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Please be aware that special measures apply to Basic Attention Token. MER-C 19:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

California Institute for Regenerative Medicine


This is my first report to COIN, so I'm not totally sure how to handle this situation. An IP editor changed a figure in the article giving the edit summary "Updating the number of clinical trials we funded", which seems to imply some official representation of the company. The IP went on to remove a picture they considered outdated. Registered user Mkingsense also made large changes that they stated were "based on input from CIRM," but this does not necessarily indicate a COI. What are the next steps, particularly for the unregistered IP? What should be documented on the talk page? Thanks! MarginalCost (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have reverted their horrible edits. The IP is registered to the institute but needs to explicitly declare.  I have left the "mandatory paid editing disclosure" notice for both of them and will follow up on the COI process with both.  I am also listed the history of conflicted/paid editing on the article talk page...  Thanks for bringing this.  Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It is obvious that Mkingsense has some connection with CIRM due to the diff that MarginalCost cites above. I asked them to disclose and they have just thrown chaff instead of simply disclosing. I gave them the paid editing notice, and they said here I have zero COI with this. I am receiving zero compensation from CIRM. which is obviously untrue. They appear to be interpreting COI only as "paid" and I have no idea what they mean by that. (As we have seen people like interns and PR people for some reason often say they are not paid.) And there is obviously some external relationship under which they "received input" and came here to implement it.
 * Based on the sheer awfulness of their edits (completely hijacked the page into a proxy for CIRM's website) and their combativeness, I suggest that this person be indefinitely blocked. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There is also plagiarims; eg some was copy/pasted from here Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest Jytdog be permanently blocked as this person has clearly had many issues with many other editors, and has had some COI violations in the past. Jytdog is the one who copied and pasted information about financial COIs into Jytdog's accusation that I have a financial COI. I do not have a financial COI, or any other COI. I have read the COI Guideline, the FAQ for Organizations and the Paid Contribution Disclosure. No matter how much Jytdog wishes I had a COI, I do not. How can someone disclose something that does not exist? I am not an intern or a PR person. I'm a volunteer here, just like Jytdog supposedly is - though seems to have had trouble with in the past. I want the information about CIRM to be correct, which is, I would like to think, Wikipedia's goal as well. What is up there now is out of date and incorrect. Everything I included is publicly available on CIRM's web site or blog (or elsewhere, as I cited, various third party reports, etc.), and I added numerous citations in the edits I made, painstakingly going to those web sites to make sure the links worked. I can add more citations if required - happy to do this work as long as nobody is trying to bully me as I do it, especially someone who uses statements like this when trying to act like a pious guardian of something they themselves have besmirched in the past: "They appear to be interpreting COI only as "paid" and I have no idea what they mean by that. (As we have seen people like interns and PR people for some reason often say they are not paid.)...
 * Based on the sheer awfulness of their edits (completely hijacked the page into a proxy for CIRM's website) and their combativeness, I suggest that this person be indefinitely blocked."

Or someone else can update the page if you want to let false accusations of someone with a clear chip on their shoulder to keep me from being able to edit it. Up to you, but what is up there now is wrong. Old. In bad need of updating, as the page itself said long before I went in to edit it. I did some work on it, and verified it, based on what a public agency, funded by taxpayers, that gives money away instead of making any, says on it's own web site and blog. And yes, I want CIRM to continue succeeding as a public entity that funds medical research that could help everyone. And yes, I would prefer that the Wiki be up to date as that may help others seeking information on CIRM if they have a particular disease or something similar. As a cancer survivor, I would hope everyone felt the same way. But even if the Wiki isn't correct, CIRM's web site, as that of a public agency, will continue to be, and people can always go there if Wikipedia fails in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkingsense (talk • contribs) 23:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I will also note that MarginalCost's original post stated far more concern with other edits than mine:

"This is my first report to COIN, so I'm not totally sure how to handle this situation. An IP editor changed a figure in the article giving the edit summary "Updating the number of clinical trials we funded", which seems to imply some official representation of the company. The IP went on to remove a picture they considered outdated. Registered user Mkingsense also made large changes that they stated were "based on input from CIRM," but this does not necessarily indicate a COI. What are the next steps, particularly for the unregistered IP? What should be documented on the talk page? Thanks! MarginalCost (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)"

I am not the "IP editor" and I did not remove a picture. I don't know why you would not want those changes made, since they are accurate and verifiable, but OK. Either way, MarginalCost said "but this does not necessarily indicate a COI." And I read the policies and guidelines. And before I had a chance to respond to MarginalCost, Jytdog attacked me needlessly, overly aggressively and changing the story with every post Jytdog made. I thought perhaps they were the same person since MarginalCost doesn't have a user page, but I can see they are likely not the same person. MarginalCost was finally able to jump back in and try to mediate, and again, before I had a chance to respond, Jytdog, who had already said "I'm done...I'm reporting this...you're wasting my time," then took it upon Jytdog's self to continue harassing me. Far from being "done", Jytdog proceeded to spend quite a bit of time on this and personally attack me.

Perhaps Jytdog should step out of this and MarginalCost and I can go back to the original post, to which I never had a chance to respond, and go from there with no unnecessary aggression and nastiness like that brought in by Jytdog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkingsense (talk • contribs) 23:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Informing you that violating copyright in WP is not OK is not harassing you. You have still not explained what relationship you have with CIRM in which you edited here based on input from CIRM. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Adam Griffith (American football)
Can someone please create this article? I know the topic is notable, but I am too affiliated with this person to feel comfortable writing their article. Thank you. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Post your request at Requested articles/Biography/By profession. Be sure to list some reliable sources that will help an editor to write the article. - Donald Albury 17:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Native promotion?
There's a full paragraph on a save-the-bees campaign at Honey Nut Cheerios sourced to General Mills (reference #1). Plus their commercial on YouTube cited as a source (#6), more GM sourcing (#7), and a press release external link. Not surprisingly, there is a full section on "taglines" (that's new) and another on product advertising.

Haven't tracked down where it came from, maybe another person will want to. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I had a look. The General Mills saving Bees section, wtf? Removed it, sourced to a press release, and nothing to with a cereal. scope_creep (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to those who had a look at this. I'm closing the case out. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Handy Backup


This article, and its predecessor Novosoft Handy Backup, appear to have been mostly edited by COI editors (perhaps the same person.) --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 14:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Sydney Japanese International School
User:Sjis.marketing repeatedly removed academic citations from Sydney Japanese International School and replaced it with marketing info. This was done despite multiple talk page messages.

I would suggest sending an e-mail to the account holder's address telling them what's wrong with their edits. Automated stuff tends to be ignored, but I'm frustrated that my handwritten message in September 2017 had no response. It's time to send an e-mail... WhisperToMe (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The banhammer is a lot more difficult to ignore. MER-C 09:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

EOS Group // User:Atomiccocktail
I was paid by EOS Holding GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) for editing. Please see my sandbox/Draft. Atomiccocktail (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Spamming


This user is doing nothing but adding many links to the same couple of websites.
 * The editor is putting in a link in to [creativeawards] a company that makes and sell awards. About 24-26 articles have been affected. scope_creep (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And this
 * And this: The editor seems to think that WP is advertising platform. Left a disclosure message and reverted the edits. scope_creep (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is all shops their are linking to. scope_creep (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have blocked as a spam-only account.  DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks  DGG scope_creep (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Amb sib


Amb sib is linkspamming cellosaurus (web.expasy.org/cellosaurus/) and has been doing so for years. This is the editor's own database as stated here "(such as mine, the Cellosaurus)".

Some of the many, May 2018, April 2018 , March 2018 , Oct 2017 , March 2017 , Oct 2016 , Aug 2016 , July 2016 , Nov 2015  (a massive linkspam in nov 2015), Nov 2015  where it may have started.

Editor is the primary editor of Cellosaurus, and baring minor edits the only editor. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it link spamming, more a case of referencing but I do see your concerns. I don't think it is such problem though, Amb sib is indeed the PI for the database, it is part of a collection of databases maintained by the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, which gives it merit to source Wikipedia articles, don't you think? --Andrawaag (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The Cellosaurus is not a "personal" resource. As stated in its home page it is part of the neXtProt resource developed by the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics. It is one of the service offered by the SIB to the ELIXIR European life infrastructure:

https://www.elixir-europe.org/services

It is one of the resource key to the fight against cell line misidentification:

http://iclac.org/databases/

While, as a group leader at the SIB and a founder and developer of Uniprot], ENZYME, [[PROSITE, neXtProt and other resources I personally spend time on the Cellosaurus this is not "my" resource.

I am not sure if you are aware of the work being done in the life sciences in the last 30 years to establish core resources to help scientist carry out research. This is a key element of modern research and the contribution of databases such as Swiss-Prot or the Cellosaurus are recognized by the community as exemplified by the lastest ABRF award:

https://abrf.org/awards/abrf-award-outstanding-contributions-biomolecular-technologies

So linking Wikipedia pages representing biological objects to biomolecular resource is essential. This is also true of the integration of these resources in Wikidata. Recently all the Cellosaurus cell lines were entered in Wikidata as part of an effort to have life science resources contribute to a FAIR infrastructure.

Its true I added these links myself instead of asking another of my group member or other Wikipedia contributors to do it. If you prefer that it be done by someone else I will ask the community to do so. It seems to me a waste of time to delegate this task and took upon myself to contribute to the Wikimedia movement.

The Cellosaurus has now been described in a perr reviewed publication:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29805321

But I guess you will say that as I am the sole author it is conflict of interest :-)

As an example of the use of the Cellosaurus to authenticate cell lines and thus clean up experimental errors, see a very recent example published a few days ago:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29873307

On a personal note I resent your accusation of "linkspaming": cross-referencing to scientific resources is not only the reverse of spamming but one of the strength of modern biological sciences.Amb sib (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * These links are scientifically valuable and I support their inclusion in these pages. I could see the development of a specific InfoBox for Cell line articles and a link to Cellosaurus would be something to include in that. I think that Amb sib is working with the best of intentions and improving the quality of the encyclopaedia. I can see the reasons why this was raised as an issue but I think that no action is warranted. Alexbateman (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There is sadly a COI as Amb sib declared on his user page here that he is Amos Bairoch who is in charge of Cellosaurus. He has also edited his own page on Wikipedia occasionally and also that of his employer Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics. There is also evidence of throw away accounts with connected names editing these pages. To me as a lay person all these Cellosaurus links look like spam but I can accept professionals in that field might not agree however I'm not sure if Wikipedia is the place for such detailed links? I regard the COI edits elsewhere as fair NPOV edits and am ambivalent about any action.  Lyndaship (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Just two things to correct some incorrect statements above: 1) I am not employed by the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, but by the University of Geneva. 2) I did not create my page on wikidata and found out about it about a year after it was created. I did make some edits to correct errors and update data which was no longer applicable. I am not sure what you mean by "connected" names, but if this means other members of the SIB, then some of these edits are probably from members of that organisation. But then you must realize that almost all (currently 800) bioniformaticians in Switzerland are part of the SIB as it is a federation of research groups with totally different academic affiliations. So if anyone belonging the the SIB can no longer edit anything about bioinformatics in Switzerland there is a big problem. It would mean that belonging to a category of professionals preclude one from making edit on that particular subject of expertise. I also admit having edited two pages concerning towns in Switzerland and therefore in the same light this is is a COI as I am Swiss! Amb sib (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * What a major cop-out. I'm an earthling so any topic related to this planet is a COI too? You are supposedly an intelligent individual. Instead of skirting the issues with your strawmen you could instead stop insulting our intelligence. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There certainly is a *possible* COI, but I really do not see the actual COI or how this is not NPOV: linking to a research database (it's about natural facts) is not the same as linking to a commercial product website. If the goal of Wikipedia is to back facts with literature, how is this not doing exactly that? --Egon Willighagen (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

COI Edit Request - University of Canada West
Hi everyone. I have just made an Edit Request on the University of Canada West (UCW) wiki-page. I have requested for the inclusion of a sentence mentioning the 2018 launch of an Associate of arts degree - a notable fact of UCW. My COI is that I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns UCW.

With thanks, MrAttempt (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I will be closing and archiving MrAttempt's edit requests per agreement that they don't belong here. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

St Patrick's College - London - Course Changes
Hello everyone,

I've just made an Edit Request on the St Patrick's College - London - page, asking for a correction of courses from those now extinct. My COI is that I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns the college.

With thanks MrAttempt (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Sagi Hartov - Update of titles
Hello everyone,

I've just made an Edit Request on Sagi Harvost page - asking for an update of his academic and professional titles. My COI is that I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns the institutions Sagi works for and are of relevance to his updated titles.

With thanks - MrAttempt (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Abigail Spanberger
Hello everyone,

I've just made an Edit Request on the Abigail Spanberger page, asking for a link from this page to the GISMA busines school wiki-page (which is mentioned in the article). My COI is that I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns the GISMA Business School.

With thanks - MrAttempt (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

LCCM Partnership with brands - Edit Request
Hello everyone,

I've just made an Edit Request on the London College of Creative Media page - asking for the inclusion of a sentence regarding the sealing of a partnership with between LCCM and two brands of musical instruments (including sources). My COI is that I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns LCCM.

With thanks - MrAttempt (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

LCCM Student Accommodation Correction
I've just made an Edit Request on the London College of Creative Media page - asking for the removal/change to an incorrect statement regarding the college's campus as student accommodation. My COI is that I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns LCCM.

With thanks - MrAttempt (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Akhtaruzzamandu


Above user admits he works for the Pro Vice Chancellor (Administration)'s office of Dhaka University and hence there arises a COI when the user only edits the page of the Vice Chancellor of the aforementioned University. I am posting here as this page may need additional review. Kaisernahid (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The subject passes NPROF but the article will surely benefit from some culling and copy-edits.On it:) &#x222F; WBG converse 05:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Siolocke


Above user admits a COI for the above pages, where they are apparently an employee. I am posting here as the kind of work that is being done at Ottawa-Gatineau Art is so blatantly promotional of the area and the gallery. Said article cites a catalogue published by the gallery over 100 times! Yikes. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ottawa-Gatineau Art might be notable (no idea) but in light of the blatant ref-spamming, dispatched to draft-space.
 * The first subject is very-evidently notable but might need some cleanup. &#x222F; WBG converse 05:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well done, thanks.96.127.242.226 (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

UPE
Two SPA accounts, the first of which is certainly UPE, as is made patently clear. The article was moved to mainspace by a user who didn't know about the approval process for AfC reviewers, and was not one. I've moved it back and blanked it for the copyvios. Any further action needed? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing more unless the accounts choose to start editing without satisfactorily answering the COI notice and/or new activity at the draft is located. &#x222F; WBG converse 19:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Server lift
Will someone take a look at this please. I'm in the middle of nowhere with one bar. Thanks in advance. G M G talk  02:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Webhost for corp spam


Requested speedy delete on User:Rca institute as corp spam. Basically a corp article that would not have passed AFC. Just wondering if there's a way to detect more of this kind of thing. Maybe userpages containing certain heuristics such as an external links section. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if one just searched for the word "solutions" in the User: realm; all modern businesses seem to think they're in the solutions business. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Naked Group


I came across a page creation by the user Leeallenmack that smacked of COI and a very brief search on the web confirms without any doubt that there is a WP:PAID editing problem. I assumed good faith and templated them with a COI notice here as they made no reply I asked them several times about this COI here here here so as to give them the possibilty to declare their COI with Naked group and its owner which they have either ignored or skirted around here and here where they replied to my request for clarification with the following ...Whether you believe there is COI is immaterial.. In the beginning I thought they were acting in good faith but I am having trouble with that idea now. This user is now adding other pages that also smack of promotional content Le Bouchon and Element Fresh. When you do a search by combining the names of the owners of Le Bouchon and Naked group you come across this. . The other user is an inactive account that created Naked Group. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow that is terrible. I gave a ramped up paid editing notice. If they continue to be nonresponsive they should be indeffed.  The WP:APPARENTCOI is glaring. Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've draftified his latest creation. And, all the other stuff, he's touched with his spam-brush are already at Afd. And with Jyt giving the final warning about a disclosure, the next step will be an indef:) &#x222F; WBG converse 05:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, that guy is the worst. Must be a paid editor! Block him from wikipedia immediately! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeallenmack (talk • contribs) 09:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * paid editing and conflict of interest editing is not forbidden but what is against policy is not making the required disclosure. You have refused to make this disclosure despite that fact that I have let you know that I know without a shadow of a doubt that you have a COI. It took me all of 20 seconds using your user name and the name of the company to find this COI. It seems very odd not to reply to the different requirements as per WP:PAID. Mainly because the articles that you created could have been worked on in collaboration with other editors and may have found their place in Wikipedia. You are effectively shooting yourself in the foot by not replying and making frivolous remarks on a noticeboard that could be used to take a decision to block you. Very strange behaviour and not what one would expect from someone whose role maybe to improve the visibility of a company. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia,

Good morning! I thought now would be a good moment to respond to the rather serious accusations being leveled against me. And I'll apologize in advance for not using the wonderful Wikipedia markdown in penning this - I'm sorry but I just can't be bothered to look up all the references right now. If that disqualifies everything I am about to say, then that says more about WP than about me. I proceed.

First, there is no conflict of interest. None. No real conflict of interest, that is. Clearly there is appearance of conflict of interest. There must be otherwise your good selves would never have raised the possibility. But let me assure you right here right now and in no uncertain terms - I have never been offered financial reward or ANY KIND OF REWARD for publishing the content I have published on WP. Nor have I ever been threatened with punishment as a way of coercing me to publish what I have published on WP. My role is not to "raise the visibility" of ANY company on WP. That's the fact. No matter how many WP administrators you get to echo and amplify your suspicions, it won't EVER change the actual fact. 2+2 are never going to equal 5.

The real fact is that I am a person in Shanghai, China, who noticed a lamentable lack of quality entries on things in China and tried to rectify that. I can imagine you might say - "Go post in Chinese wikipedia". Well, Chinese wikipedia is blocked here and mainland Chinese people don't give a toss about Chinese wikipedia because Chinese wikipedia is edited almost entirely by non-Mainland-living Chinese people. It has it's own biases and predilections. In any event, these days more Chinese than Americans people speak and read English. That's another fact and a very interesting one at that.

So, I choose to put up some listings in English relating to notable things here in China. naked Retreats - very famous resorts in China. Element Fresh - the restaurant chain that kicked off the healthy food trend in China, it's served more people over the years than PF Chang, that shameful excuse of a Chinese restaurant chain in America which seems to have passed the notability criteria on WP with flying colors. Le Bouchon - the first French restaurant in Shanghai. It's been operating out of the same location for 20 years. Maybe you don't get how utterly unbelievable / improbable that is.

And there's more to come - YY Bar, the nightlife equivalent of Le Bouchon, operating in the same location for what 22 years now. The brand new AMAZING river walk park which has just opened in Pudong which now stretches some 11km - unbroken - which has given new life to derelict riverfront space. There are iconic Chinese films which are not on WP. There are Chinese writers who are not on WP. There are glaring problems with the existing pages for various Chinese artists. My friends, there are a lot of truly notable things happening in China right now which WP will be poorer without.

And if you say to yourself that you just don't want these listings put up by me, well that's fine. That's your right. Your loss, really, not mine.

I know you guys believe in what you are doing. I know you believe what you are doing is right. I won't presume to articulate the benefits which you receive from policing WP. Regardless, there must be benefits or else you wouldn't devote so much time doing it. Good for you. Good for you. You no doubt help shore up the edges of knowledge which are always threatening to unravel under the assault of the masses. In many cases you are right. But not this one. Not this one. In this one you are wrong.

Determining the worth of an WP entry based on the sources - fine. Having a reasonable discussion about reliability, objectivity, blah blah blah - all good. Hurling untrue accusations against me - not cool. Deleting pages because of suspected conflict of interest - not cool. Even your own WP administrators admit there is no consensus about what do to with a page that is suspected of being put up by some with a conflict of interest suspected or otherwise.

Anyway, enough of my time spent on this thread of discussion. Have a pleasant day! It is sunny here in Shanghai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeallenmack (talk • contribs) 01:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * A conflict of interest (COI)is not limited to being paid to edit Wikipedia, or being threatened with punishment for not editing Wikipedia. As far as Wikipedia's COI policy is concerned, you have a COI if you have a close personal connection to the subject of an article, and this includes being an employee of a company that is the subject of an article. You have made here what some might consider an overly specific denial - you denied being paid to do this. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * simple question ...do you or do you not work for Naked group? Maybe in a marketing role or something similar? Please remember before answering that it is very very very easy to use Google to find blogs professional social media profiles articles in magazines events that are taking place in September in Shanghai etc etc. For crying out loud man I can't be any clearer than that without "outing" you. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Thomas W. Valente


Ljugador admits to being Valente's assistant, and seems to be totally clueless about COI editing and why Valente should not be allowed to write his own article. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  21:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Arya Samaj


A new editor with a suspicious username is making suspicious and incompetent edits here. I do not speak any Indian languages, and this subject is so very controversial that I am uncomfortable dealing with it. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  16:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Hastings Center


The above two editors, and seemingly a few IPs, are single-purpose accounts, not disclosing an obvious COI (based on edits and the username), and are abusing multiple accounts and IPs under WP:SOCK. I cleaned up most of the article just now, will appreciate more help. Thanks, ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 22:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, the articles on the two center's two founders are evidently also linked to COI editing. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 22:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

JS Bank‎ and Ali Jehangir Siddiqui


It appears that COI editing has been happening with both of these related articles, and they are starting to resemble adverts. I'm a bit too busy with other tasks at the moment to sort out the content, but would appreciate some extra eyes on them. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've got JS Bank on my watchlist, as it's a perennial copyvio target. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . It seems that Ali Jehangir Siddiqui has some copyvio content as well, but on an initial look it's going to be more difficult to fix because it's mixed in with material that seems OK. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That said, the majority of the text could reasonably be deleted as promotional. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. Will keep my eyes peeled on them. Am surprised that he didn't bothered to edit JS Group article.--Biografer (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Author pak has edited JS Bank, . Cordless Larry (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood,, but I was surprised that Author pak didn't bothered to do the same edits to JS Group, since they are related. Usually, when COI occurs, COI editors tend to edit all related articles (that includes in this case JS Group), since Ali Jehangir Siddiqui is the founder of not only JS Bank but also of JS Group.--Biografer (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies, - I misread JS Group as JS Bank! Cordless Larry (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding potential copyvio on Ali Jehangir Siddiqui, he was only appointed as ambassador on May 29, 2018, so it's unlikely the page http://embassyofpakistanusa.org/biography/ existed much earlier than that date. No further overlap between the pages has occurred since that date. It's likely that the same person or PR team has written both. Is this another sock of Islooguy? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It did cross my mind, . I've since realised that there are significant matches with other sources, not just the embassy site (though good point about that). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My suspicions raised, I have filed an SPI report. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Unrelated, apparently. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Charlie Engle (marathoner)

 * sock:
 * sock:
 * sock:

Editor removes unflattering content from Charlie Engle (marathoner), and has stated that they "represent Charlie Engle": @magnolia677 Thanks for the feedback. I apologize if I have not understood protocol for Wikipedia. Please allow me to address some of these things.
 * - Removed sourced content about Engle's prison sentence.
 * - Removed "advert" template. Stated in edit summary "I removed the advert. I represent Charlie Engle. This page is factual and not promotional. All information can be referenced, thoroughly."
 * - Removed sourced content about Engle's prison sentence. Stated in edit summary "A user keeps changing things and commenting. Please stop editing a page that is not of your expertise. All of my edits and info are %100 factual. I represent Charlie Engle, and this is his wikipedia page." Magnolia677 (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I did not remove any unflattering content. Other people, however, have removed lots of referenced materials from this page. Yes, I wrote that I represent Charlie Engle. Perhaps that is a poor choice of words. I was simply trying to assert that I know that my information is factual. I did not think there was a conflict of interest.

The prison section that I deleted today was much shorter than the one that was already on his page. **The original one referenced two articles in the New York Times, an article in Outside Magazine, and a PBS special about Charlie's prison sentence. All of those sourced materials were removed by another editor. Therefore, I deleted their trimmed-down (and insufficient with respect to references) version to restore the previous, very well referenced section.

I felt like there was an onslaught of activity on this page as I was simply trying to add referenced information. Editors, such as yourself, started undoing not only my changes but content that was created several years ago by other parties. I did not know how else to respond to the onslaught of changes other than to "undo" them. In the end, none of that worked.

For example, why would a world-record setting run across the Sahara desert that was referenced in a myriad of ways be removed? Along with the people involved such as the other runners, the narrator of the documentary film, the name of the person who wrote the score to the film....? http://www.runningthesahara.com/about.html
 * These are all facts. Not opinions.

Examples of referenced materials that were removed today. This is a limited list: http://www.simonandschuster.com/authors/Charlie-Engle/464934587

Running the Sahara: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/extreme-athletes-run-length-of-sahara/ http://www.runningthesahara.com/about.html http://www.runningthesahara.com/science.html

Race results and running: http://dbase.adventurecorps.com/individualHistory.php?p=14 https://www.rockymountainultra.com/blogs/news-and-blog/38930305-10-questions-with-ultra-runner-charlie-engle http://www.thepilot.com/news/this-time-it-s-personal-charlie-engle-s-newest-cause/article_e9819b72-2745-11e6-8931-b35bc64dea63.html https://www.4deserts.com/past_results?page=&competitorsBiosNum=5&firstName=charles+engle&sex=&age=&nation=&residence=&team=&Select+Year=allyear# https://www.4deserts.com/past_results?page=&competitorsBiosNum=5&firstName=charles+engle&sex=&age=&nation=&residence=&team=&Select+Year=allyear# https://www.4deserts.com/past_results?page=&competitorsBiosNum=5&firstName=charles+engle&sex=&age=&nation=&residence=&team=&Select+Year=allyear#

Prison: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/opinion/nocera-the-mortgage-fraud-fraud.html

https://www.outsideonline.com/1915671/ultrarunners-long-road-back

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactsMatter (talk • contribs) 02:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * User:FactsMatter thanks for replying here. I have hatted the discussion of content, as this is not a board for discussing content.  This is a board for discussing conflicts of interest.
 * Your claim above about what you meant by "I represent Charlie Engle" isn't credible.
 * It is OK to be present in Wikipedia if you have a relationship with a subject that you want to be involved with. There is a process to manage this.  It has two steps -- disclosure, and prior review of edits.
 * The first step is disclosure.
 * Would you please explain your relationship with Charlie Engle? Thanks. (And please don't discuss content further here).  Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Noting that this person resorted to socking; the sock was indeffed and the master was blocked for 1 week, which expires 18 July. So I guess this matter will be quiet until then. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparent edit war between SoulPancake, Aviv Hadar, myself, and perhaps at least one other unknown party




I realize the potential for BOOMERANG here. I should not have never gotten involved in this edit war between these two parties, one of whom is my client Aviv Hadar. I was contacted by a former client who asked for assistance after his page was repeatedly and for months was being vandalized (see history of Aviv Hadar). I cleaned it up, upload a photo he sent me, and requested page protection which was granted by to expire on 6 July 2018. The exact moment protection expired yesterday, KillroyMichael came into the picture with the recent POV edits to Aviv Hadar. What I did not realize is that my former client was also doing POV editing of his own to SoulPancake with whom he has had a lengthy legal battle which you can read about here.

The most recent changes to Aviv Hadar are IMO precipitated following this edit most like by my client. Notice how KillroyMichael removes all wikilinks from Aviv Hadar to SoulPancake. All in all a very messy situation that will likely lead to me being deservedly blocked, topic banned, or permanently banned. I bring it to your attention because of the potential BLP ramifications. I truly apologize for my part in creating this dumpster fire. Consider me at the very least topic banned. I don't do paid editting on Wikipedia anymore and will likely never edit at all from this point forward.—አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh64) (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * --That you did not note anything over here, are you certain about the G11 deletions? &#x222F; WBG</b> converse 05:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I shall double-check. It may take me a day or two to think this through carefully. Thanks for asking me to have another look.  DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * btw I had nominated the pages for speedy per PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Flags of the Australian Defence Force


When I created the article on Flags of the Australian Defence Force I disclosed a potential conflict of interest in that I had an affiliation with the Flag Society of Australia which has now been severed. However on closer inspection it appears this would not have given rise to any conflict of interest in the first place. Not only does the FSA have no wikipedia page. It is a non political organisation dedicated to the study of flags in an entirely academic sort of way. Which as I read it means I'd only have some special expertise to bring to the subject as opposed to being too close to the Australian Defence Force itself. On the basis that I have been made aware of the need to use sources independent of this organisation would it now be possible and proper for me to remove the COI tag on my talk page given that there will still be a thread there which draws attention to the fact I was once an FSA member and where the issue has been discussed at length? Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Aussieflagfan, removal is not prohibited but archiving is preferred. See WP:REMOVED ☆ Bri (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Peter Lemongello


This is my first post to WP:COIN and I'm not really sure what to do in this situation:

An IP editor made several edits to this article that have since been reverted (not by me at first). In comments of one of the reverts they said "This is my page! I am Peter Lemongello. Stop trying to change it!." I was most concerned with the blanking of 2 sections that contained content that appears to be reliably sourced. I went ahead and reverted the edits and blanking and explained in the edit summary "Please see WP:COI and WP:BLPEDIT. Please obtain consensus on the talk page before removing sourced content." I then posted on this user's talk page a similar heads up.

Despite this, the user has gone ahead and reverted my (and other editors) reverts and continued to edit the article and another they may have COIs with.

I was hoping to seek help from WP:COIN on the appropriate course of action. Thanks  — Schistocyte  ( talk ) 01:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The anonymous editor should be notified of the procedures for remedying BLP issues. It's too bad they didn't register, because the odds of them seeing the notice aren't great. WP:AUTOBIOG says what they can do. Uw-autobiography is an appropriate talkpage notice. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:R. Raghunatha Reddy


This looks like an undisclosed paid editor as per a number of images he uploaded in commons and he's only here to promote Draft:R. Raghunatha Reddy and Rathan Linga which he also recreated under Rathan linga. I left a COI notice on and then also  but there is no reply. Thank you <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS (talk |c|em ) 08:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Video with advice and instructions on dealing with your own COI?
An editor with a COI recently asked me if there is a video that he or she could watch that has advice and instructions for dealing with a COI. Does such a thing exist? ElKevbo (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Notability of an attorney's claim of retention requested to be made in their WP article
Just placing this notice to attract other editors to weigh in on a COI edit request. The full discussion is at the talk page here. Thank you !  spintendo   12:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Eyes on this
Patrick J. O'Rahilly, edited by a former co worker of his. See his AFD JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Editor in question has promised to remain neutral and follow policy. Speedy close please. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Abobersky


My name is Andrea Bobersky, and I am an unpaid volunteer for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. I intend to use this account to provide neutral and reliably sourced improvements to the original article. I have read and understand Wikipedia's guidelines for potential conflict of interest and will adhere to those guidelines, as well as disclose my potential for conflict of interest whenever a contribution is proposed. As a user of Wikipedia with a potential conflict of interest, I will not act as a reviewer, nor edit an article directly. I promise to respect other editors and articles, and always remain neutral. Abobersky (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing; No actionable matter has been presented. This noticeboard is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Griffith/World Transformation Movment


I need help from a more experienced editor to fix this:

So Jeremy Griffith and his "World Transformation Movment" have been mentioned with regards to new sockpuppets of ErnestCarrot, who seems to have been hired by him.

The whole article is extremely WP:NPOV, and is laudatory in tone, so I added the template. I described the article's issues and my reasoning here, so please check it out. - Av &#61; λv (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Ma Long
Ma Long (Architect) was created by a account with the username Ma Long. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Speedy deleted as a WP:CSD. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Maxime Bernier
It looks like two editors, possibly the same person, with links to Canadian Member of Parliament Maxime Bernier's office in Ottawa may be editing the article on him. Please see User: Ottawa11 and User:63.92.233.153. 162.222.159.228 (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I am confused and concern by talk befuddled statement. I don't get what the user intentions with his/her request, people make edits on articles all the time. Also, the user never asked me what his/her issues are or why he accuses me of having links to Canadian Member of Parliament Maxime Bernier, which I can tell you is false. I have dealt by a similar accusation by a sockpuppet already.

If you want to check if talk, which I am not the same person, is part of Berniers' office, I suggest anyone to see if @gcaEdits found that the edits came from Bernier's office

Ottawa11 (talk) 3:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Your editing is overwhelming on Maxime Bernier and his main issue of Supply management (Canada) and seems to be always intended to promote Bernier and his views and mitigate or soften criticism of him. Since you admit being in Ottawa I think it's prudent to check the IPs you've used to see if any of them are linked to Parliament. 162.222.159.228 (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

So, I do not get why this has to be a conflict of interest. I never push Bernier on Supply management (Canada) that was talk and he/she has been overwhelming on the issue of Supply management (Canada). In addition, do you have proof that "I promote Bernier and his views and mitigate or soften criticism of him", because if he responded to an issue, should it not be on Wikipedia? As I stated I have no ties, Also, if you want to check the IPs, request a check user not add to the conflict of interest board. Ottawa11 (talk) 14:31 July 2018 (UTC)

Also,talk has is "postpone publication of the book indefinitely" and "He later told the Toronto Star in an email that he defended his comments and that "the book will be published one day and you have to be patient” softing criticsm.

Ottawa11 (talk) 14:47 July 2018 (UTC)

Languages used on the Internet


I am an expert on the referenced subject since many years (producing indicators and discussing biases) and I am logically involved in some of the references existing in the article prior to my contribution. Few months ago, I made a contribution, without hiding my identity (my Id is my name), trying to clarify a subject poorly treated in Wikipedia for years (two commercial linked sources are shown without any advice on biases and the historical controversy about the place of English in the Web is not covered, all that making this article misleading).

I edit my contribution with an extremely prudent attention in terms of neutrality and avoiding auto-promotion As a matter of fact I just added a pedagogic introduction removing the confusion between the 2 main indicators, presenting/comparing in a flat manner the main results of the existing 3 indicators (the third and new one being from my own researches, which was one year old and has not been mentioned so far) to warn about discrepancies and let the rest (the data from the other sources) as it was, avoiding to present my figures as a mark of respect for the existing sources. The important aspect of biases was mentioned with a clear reference to the source. Note that for the past years there were only 2 sources on the subject and this new third one covers both indicators and discuss extensively all the biases (including its own).

Recently I discovered the contribution was entirely scratched away. I am not an experimented wikipedian and i am trying to found my way in the rule, procedures an usages around. I entered in the corresponding talk page I read I was accused of having a "blatant conflict of interest" (which is the subject which deserve discussion here) and that I "should not assert in the article that my organisation's methodology is superior" which is absolutely false and really defaming. The referenced talk includes many value judgments which professionally are weak to say the least, but this is it out of scope here. I followed the opened thread and after explaining that the rules does not prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject and asking this editor to document the unethical claims, i concentrated on content which is what really matters to me.

In the following discussions (Talk:Languages used on the Internet#Lead is awful) I never managed to have this editor focusing back on content neither documenting the claim of conflict of interest beyond the fact that i am one of the researcher on that field. I tried very hard to keep my patience and avoid a revert war, but it was useless, this editor never accepted to discuss the content and kept accusing me of conflict of interest with no solid ground as a way to escape any discussion on content.

I requested a mediation and it was rejected due to the disrespectful manner to (not) agree from this editor.

I am now convinced that the only way out of this situation is to have a neutral party investigate if I there is really a conflict of interest on my contribution to this article (or if I had made controversial edits) or, in the opposite, if I am correct to see this a perfect example of an editor using COI allegations as a "trump card" to avoid discussing the article content. If I am correct, I expect this will permit to have this editor to comply to the following rules :

- refrain from further accusing me of having a conflict of interest

- focus on content

- stop playing gatekeeper of this article and stop blocking badly needed improvements (note that this article is classified high importance within the scope of WikiProject Internet.

Danielpimienta (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not currently have time to be involved in lengthy Wikipedia disputes. At the Talk page, the editor cited the COI page, "Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits", but the editor's changes to the article were neither discussed before they were made nor are they uncontroversial. The edits were nearly a year ago and I don't want to confuse the issue with vague memories of specific content that would only overshadow the inherent conflict of interest here. The claim of 'defamation' is quite odd, since it would ordinarily be expected that a professional who views other sources as "biased" would inherently view their own methodology as superior; it therefore seems that accusation has been inserted to elicit sympathy.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I was about to open a thread here but now see that it's already done. I just posted a standard COI notice on the user's page.  I see that there were previous attempts at creation of an article that appears related (the reason for deletion was copyvio so that doesn't assess its reliability as a source or its notability).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Selected diffs pointed out by Jeffro at the article's talk page:, . Article that was deleted: .  The first diff seems to give a lot of weight to this organization's results.  It seems to also be used to contest the results of other bodies.  It does not seem to be a random source from the internet however, here's an entry for them at the ITU website:  and a paper hosted at the Unesco website: .  What is clear is that this material was added by someone related to the project.  What is unclear is if the source can be used in that article.  If so, other editors with an interest in the article should deal with its representation in the article, with FUNREDES/MAAYA personel limiting themselves to suggestions at the article's talk page, or to minor updates that are unlikely to be contested.  Should I open a thread at WP:RSN to assess this, or is this discouraged while a COIN discussion is active?  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 15:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

As I am the "subject" of the request of the inquiry on COI I will from now let the discussion develops without interfering. When it reaches the conclusion step I may feel the need to express my views. I remain available to answer any question which could arise meanwhile. Danielpimienta (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Colonel Jon Ullman
I stumbled upon a draft of an article about Colonel Jon Ullmann being created by a user who also has that name. Obvious COI JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please link to the articles you're talking about. I can't find any drafts under that name. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume JC7V7DC5768 is referring to User:Colonel Jon Ullmann/sandbox. Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't be filing any more reports here unless all other avenues are exhausted. Yeah it's his sandbox, but sometimes WP:IAR is needed. COI is a serious problem here and the sooner we weed it out the better it wil be. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please properly indent when replying to other editors, as it makes the conversation easier to follow. I've tagged the page as CSD under the grounds that it's an autobiography. Striker force Talk 16:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is now ✅ resolved, as the page in question has been deleted under CSD guidelines. Striker force Talk 17:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Modani Furniture
Can I get some additional eyes on Modani Furniture. I came across the article a couple years ago. It was created by a blocked sock puppeteer/paid editor via two of his/her socks. As the article was created before he/she was caught (but well after the abuse started), it didn't qualify for CSD. There were no other substantial edits by other users when I tagged it for PROD, but it was removed by an IP with no explanation. I figured an AfD would be uncontroversial, but it attracted only one keep vote and closed as no consensus. Now it is a user with the name of the company stuffing it with promotional material. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 16:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sent to AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Bamullen

 * editor
 * editor
 * editor
 * editor
 * editor
 * editor

This person's edits are blatantly commercial and focused on one field, which is very typical of conflicted editors. They ignored my initial inquiry, and in response to the ramped up request for mandatory paid disclosure, they said they are not paid and are trying to learn, and in response to my request for a more credible answer, they wrote that they have no COI and are just trying to learn.

I do not find this person's responses credible. We cannot manage COI when someone will not disclose and from this person's editing it is obvious they have something to disclose. Their initial userpage said Bamullen is a Wikipedia user with educational and professional backgrounds in healthcare, life science research, and scientific marketing and communications and they have subsequently changed that. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * They have blanked jytdog's notification of this discussion but decided not to participate for some reason. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * L3 warned, pending which the trigger ought be pulled. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Coast Digital

 * accounts


 * pages
 * Was a client per this along with CAFOD, Wiltshire Farm Foods, Essex County Council.
 * see for example this version of Waterscape (now a diambig page, content was merged to parent). Was spammed into a bunch of pages.
 * Was a client per this along with CAFOD, Wiltshire Farm Foods, Essex County Council.
 * see for example this version of Waterscape (now a diambig page, content was merged to parent). Was spammed into a bunch of pages.
 * Was a client per this along with CAFOD, Wiltshire Farm Foods, Essex County Council.
 * see for example this version of Waterscape (now a diambig page, content was merged to parent). Was spammed into a bunch of pages.


 * (cleaned)
 * (cleaned)
 * note, the person added blatant advertising copy with spam "ref" like this. I've searched for the link and deleted them.
 * Page has a history of paid editing - see also User talk:Anastasiageva, as well as this and User:Becsmorice/sandbox
 * have not cleaned current page...needs looking at. See also User:Rathfelder/Audley Retirement
 * note, the person added blatant advertising copy with spam "ref" like this. I've searched for the link and deleted them.
 * Page has a history of paid editing - see also User talk:Anastasiageva, as well as this and User:Becsmorice/sandbox
 * have not cleaned current page...needs looking at. See also User:Rathfelder/Audley Retirement


 * (PROD - Bri)
 * (cleaned)
 * (cleaned)
 * (cleaned)

Black hat paid editing. Have added to PAIDLIST. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note also SPI here Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * They apparently started in 2010, yikes. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Valleyhollandman


User appears to have long-time undisclosed WP:COI relating to The Raw Story, Alternet and its co-owners Michael Rogers (publisher) and John K. Byrne. FlamesElite (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Brian Tarquin
Postings by User talk:Jungleboy65 on his Talkpage and on that of another editor, lead me to think he has a clear, but undeclared connection with Brian Tarquin, and with the many pages associated with Mr Tarquin and his music. Many of the articles are unsourced, e.g. Soft Touch (album), and he is the main contributor to all of them. The full list can be found here, Brian Tarquin discography. I have raised the issue on his Talkpage, but he hasn't replied. I shall also let him know I've posted here. I'd be grateful if somebody could have a look. At the very least, I think a COI declaration is required. KJP1 (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, I've had a go at initial editing the article - some of the worst WP:PUFFERY I've seen including lists of people he went to school with and which museums he visited as a child. Definitely needs further investigation into other articles if they are anything like this. Melcous (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * - Many thanks for having a look. I do think there may be quite a serious COI issue here but we'll see what the reviewers say. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have also left a note and the COI guidelines on the user's talk page. Assuming good faith, they may not have been aware of these, but it does seem clear from comments about another article that it is the subject themselves. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry to nag, but the editor's still not responding. Would it be possible for someone to have a look at it. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I had a look and the article is pretty horrible a mass of self promotion and very poorly sourced. The claims about being a multi emmy winner are dubious as he was one of the composers on soap that won a couple of daytime emmy awards for music but he was only one of a list of about ten people. Also there are some dubious credits notably for films as they do not say exactly what he did and when you check out the cast and crew list on IMDb he is not listed. I would be tempted to WP:STUBIFY and ensure that any edit he wishes to do goes through an edit request. I doubt very much that he meets WP:NMUSIC. He has been editing about himself for over 10 years now and has passed under the radar until now. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for having a look and for the suggestion. Given there's no inline sourcing, I might take a very vigorous scythe. I think that may prompt a response. That kind of sickening undeclared self-promotion really is the pits. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Taylor Swift


This account appears to solely exist to promote Taylor Swift and her commercial empire. FlamesElite (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe fan cruft, but I don't really see conflict of interest. Alex Shih (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy




This is more academic self-promotion. I think there is more but I don't have time to dig the rest up now. Am filing at SPI as well.Jytdog (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog these are articles on a variety of topics that just so happen to be areas related to UNC SOP. According to you, any mention of the program at all is academic self-promotion. This seems over zealous regarding the definition of COI. SithLordSparklePants (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no more to say to you at this point in time. The pages above are abuse of Wikipedia for promotion.  We have a bunch of clean up.  The Acetalated dextran page is a blatant advertisement for work by Ainslie and Bachelder., even citing a patent application by them.  This is not what editing privileges are for and this is not the first time WP has been abused in precisely this way. Jytdog (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Plenty of apparent SELFCITE refspam like this as well. Jytdog (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Or they are the main contributors to the field. A patent is patents can be used as citations, and even have a template in wiki. This argument is not well substantiated. SithLordSparklePants (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Patents are the paradimatic example of self-published sources and are not used in Wikipedia by policy. They are a telltale sign of conflicted, promotional editing. Yet another patent application was cited here.  Pure abuse of Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So by Jytdog's definition no references to patents or scientific peer reviewed publications can be included in scientific wiki articles because they are considered promotional editing. I just want to be clear where it is 'promotional editing' over proper citations. The COI is being handled, I am uncertain why other standing pages are being brought into this SithLordSparklePants (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not what I am saying. Nope. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Jytdog and SithLordSparklePants. My articles Kristy Ainslie,Pharmacoengineering,Host-directed therapeutics and Acetalated dextran are all cited in the bounds of wiki and went under review once posted. I have knowledge in these areas I posted and therefore posted them. I see most of them have now been flagged for increased referencing or even removed in the case of Pharmacoengineering, so now I have more work to do apparently. Just FYI Jytdog, PE and DD are not the same thing, so the redirect should be removed. As I stated before to Jytdog, there is no conflict here, I am not an agent of UNC, I am just trying to expand what is out there in these areas. Thanks for rewarding my hard work with this BS, I am sure that is not in the spirit of Wiki.Spartan1977 (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * the two editors have been indeffed for socking. Now for the cleanup. Some days it seems there is no end to the ick. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Cap2201's paid contributions


Cap2201 (talk) recently disclosed that they have editing for pay on behalf of various unnamed clients via Upwork. They made their disclosure after Jake Brockman (talk) notified  them that their edits seemed to be a possible conflict of interest. Since this first disclosure (noting that by this point Cap2201 had been editing for over a year), Cap2201 disclosed they were paid to create Draft:Anthony Esposito (musician). However, they did not reply to Jake Brockman's ask for them to disclose any other articles they created for pay; I seconded this question, and then later started a new thread asking the same thing. None of these questions have received a response, and Cap2201 has ceased editing.

In light of this, some sort of action should be taken. The best evidence for another article created by Cap2201 for pay is Joanne Wilson, which contains promotional language and an image that (per its WM commons page ) was given to Cap2201 by Joanne Wilson's husband, Fred Wilson, indicating a clear COI. Other articles created by Cap2201 could also be forms of effectivly placed native advertising.

My solution would be to tag all of Cap2201's work with UDP tags and quarantine them in the draftspace until they respond. Would anyone be opposed to this (some article subjects seem notable), or offer an alternative?--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'd say, go ahead. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In the disclosure on their userpage they effectively admit having made other paid edits in the past without giving details. Tagging and draftifying is a good solution. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ all articles now moved to the draftspace, categories removed, and UDP tags added. I will leave an additional note on Cap2201's talk page.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Sincerest apologies for the long delay. The only pages that I received payment to create were for Srikant Chellappa and Joanne Wilson. I'm happy to update the pages with all the necessary disclosures and information. The rest of my contributions were either page creations or page edits for artists and works that I personally admire. I'm very sorry for all the confusion and uncertainty. Please accept my apologies again! Cap2201 (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Cap2201 (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC) cap2201

Medicalchain


Of concern as an article basically created by two editors in a few days, and at the nexus of two frequent COI targets: cryptocurrency and new medical tech. I'm concerned firstly about sourcing: it's largely self-sourced or sourced to low-quality cryptocurrency online media/blogs like Coincentral, CoinJournal, ICObench, cryptocoinmastery.com and CryptoSlate. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources are rank and for the most part are whitepapers and press releases. Its for the bin. scope_creep (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Which users are you talking about? is pretty active, did you try talking to them? Natureium (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Natureium. Yip left his a delete rationale. scope_creep (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Notified of WP:GS/Crypto. MER-C 08:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Noona Noona




Another covert advertiser. Diffs like are condemning. Indeffed. MER-C 15:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Bill Hicks Jr.


This user only seems to add links to promote Allgame, Allmusic, and All Media Network (the parent company). Nearly every single one of this user's edits are an addition to a review of a video game linking to Allgame. They've added allgame reviews to hundreds of game articles, and several allmusic scores to music album articles. This user could be an SPA for the promotion of Allgame via astroturfing.

Several times the user also links to Gamespot reviews as well. Example. However, in another edit, the publisher of Allgame is listed as Gamespot. Example.

This user has taken a break since March, and has only made two edits. In both cases, the edits were to re-insert Allgame reviews after they had been removed by other users. Here and Here.

In June 2014, User_talk:Bill_Hicks_Jr., notified this user that they are planning to remove several Allgame review scores. I agree with NathanWubs issues with Allgame.

Allgame has since folded, and the site is now available only through archives. This user seems to have no issue finding and adding these reviews even though the site is dead. I would personally have difficulty finding a specific Allgame archived review without first having the old url. I find archive.org hard to search for old sites unless you have the url. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Tabuhart

 * CU confirmed sock
 * CU confirmed sock
 * Israeli musician
 * Israeli singer
 * Ugandan film
 * Ugandan film
 * Ugandan radio personality
 * Kenyan TV presenter
 * Ugandan film actor
 * Ugandan album
 * Ugandan
 * Ugandan social entrepreneur, businesswoman and educator
 * Ugandan fashion designer; weirdly similar to User:Fonderstone/sandbox
 * Ugandan radio and television personality
 * Ugandan social entrepreneur
 * Ugandan group
 * Ugandan film
 * Ugandan film
 * Ugandan radio personality
 * Kenyan TV presenter
 * Ugandan film actor
 * Ugandan album
 * Ugandan
 * Ugandan social entrepreneur, businesswoman and educator
 * Ugandan fashion designer; weirdly similar to User:Fonderstone/sandbox
 * Ugandan radio and television personality
 * Ugandan social entrepreneur
 * Ugandan group
 * Ugandan radio and television personality
 * Ugandan social entrepreneur
 * Ugandan group

Looks like Kenya/Uganda iteration of the above UPE. All articles listed above were created by him/them.

I'm asking to explain why Draft:Brian Ahumuza, which he created in 2018, looks so much like User:Fonderstone/sandbox, created in 2017. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, Tabuhart is about to be indeffed for socking with the other accounts here. The IPs are only suspected obviously, since the checkuser does not comment on them. I'm not sure whether they are part of this group or not. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Ugandan TV presenter
 * Kenyan radio personality
 * Ugandan musician
 * Ugandan (suspended) academic
 * Ugandan model

More articles they are involved in. I saw the username come up a lot in these. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I doubt if this group is related to FFHypeTeam. Perhaps give them their own section here? Voceditenore (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * They have been indeffed and I put this in a separate section on the page. Now would it be appropriate for g5/g11 ToU deletions on stuff like Morning @ NTV with few or no other editors? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Gharee




This is obvious covert advertising, so I've indeffed this account. MER-C 12:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * felt the need to remove the covert advertising tag on Rick Charls (diver). MER-C 15:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yoshree blocked as a sockpuppet. MER-C 06:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Streaming television articles
We seem to have a group of IPs editing only articles related to streaming television for an extended amount of time. Due to the number, I don't think this is a personal interest.

Articles such as, but not limited to:
 * List of original films distributed by Netflix
 * List of original stand-up comedy specials distributed by Netflix
 * List of original programs distributed by Amazon
 * List of programs broadcast by HBO
 * List of programs broadcast by Showtime
 * List of programs broadcast by TBS

IPs identified so far include:

At least some of these IPs are registered to Citigroup. What should be done about this? Natureium (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I originally noticed this after someone came to #wikipedia-en-help asking for advice for a "client." Looking closer, I noticed a number of IP's that have similar editing patterns and most seem to be from the same place. Not too sure what we can do about this, but they need to disclose their COI's, either through autoconfirmed page protection or some other method... TJH2018 talk  19:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why it should necessarily be COI, rather than a fan interest in someone working there Thery're just lists.  DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

FFHypeTEAM sockring

 * Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr

Just getting this started. At SPI, described the Ghanaian paid editing/PR company FFHypeTEAM which was founded in 2015.... Its founder and CEO is the multiply deleted and now salted Kwao Lezzes-Tyt. They specialize in hyping Ghanaian pop musicians, DJs, music companies, record labels, radio and internet "personalities" etc. However, they have also created articles on Ghanaian football players. One of their members even advertises his services on the internet in that respect and provides two examples of his footballer creations on Wikipedia: Kwame Kizito and the now deleted Mintah Jordan. I will return and fill in some of the known accounts and articles. They ought to be added to WP:PAIDLIST as well. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've deleted a bunch of stuff from the SPI archive under G5. MER-C 18:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Bri, I've started making a list as well, in preparation for an LTA page, but it will probably be mid-September before I'm done as I'm going to away for all of August. In the meantime, I would suggest you start by methodically going through Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr and using this tool to check for all the articles they've created. The tool will tell you which ones remain, which ones have been deleted, and which ones have been deleted and later recreated. Deleted ones should be put on watch for recreation. It's pretty laborious because: (a) There are 140 accounts in that category plus another 23 blocked as socks but not checkuser-ed. (b) Many articles are recreated either in article space or as drafts under several different versions of the names by other socks and can be hard to track down. This sockfarm is relentless. (c) Since this mess started back in early 2016, there are many obvious socks who escaped detection, e.g. this one and/or are now stale., e.g  this one. Note also that while the vast majority of articles are on Ghanaians, they have occasionally branched out to people from Nigeria and Liberia in their favoured occupations. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Fetching the list of live page creations is rather easy. MER-C 18:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

MER-C, what tool did you use? It looks very useful, although manual checking of the results may still be needed. The tool doesn't show pages that have been moved to draft space w/out a redirect. For example, Emmanuel Lion Udemezue, Prince Kofi Amoabeng. and DJ Blue listed above are now Draft:Emmanuel Lion Udemezue, Draft:Prince Kofi Amoabeng, and Draft:DJ Blue. Voceditenore (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The pages were in mainspace when I made that list, they've since been draftified. As for the tool: none. I maintain my own bot framework, and queries like this can be dealt with on an ad-hoc basis using, say, the Python interpreter or (in my case) JShell. MER-C 10:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * any chance you could email your JShell script to me? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

MBK Rental Living
Promotional article was created in ways that indicate COI and collaboration between the two editors. Hi Daniel, I see your comments. Not sure why you are harassing me. Not sure what I did to you. To answer some of your questions, this is a group project assigned for an Executive MBA class at UCLA Summer Session II. Both my partner, RenterGuru and I RaddatzD, are working on this project. I have had an account setup for the past 10 years plus. In addition, I have donated to wikipedia with money and contributions. My partner said she didn't have an account so she had to set one up. This article is similar to other apartment projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irvine_Company and  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_Residential   Not sure who you are to say if it is notable or not. Do you follow the rental industry? Are you an expert in the industry? I am not an expert, but my professor is and he assigned the companies to us. My partner took the picture of the two buildings. Not sure what is promotional about the article. We are not posting phone numbers or come rent with us. We have followed similar apartment builders wikipedia articles. I think the founders of wikipedia would want more articles, not less and not sure who you are to be the judge. On your page, it says you are a deletionist and This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans. Not sure what that all means but it doesn't sound good and it sounds like you are out to harass other people who are trying to add something legitimate and contribute to the community. I would appreciate it if you stop sending me side emails and deleting our project. Why are you marking the article for deletion? Can you tell me what makes it look like an advertisement? When I look at an article for Facebook, or Amazon, or Google, they look more like an advertisement. I have followed the guidelines of wikipedia and made it similar to any other company page of its size. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaddatzD (talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Promotional tone and non-notable subject.
 * RenterGuru made the article as a draft and it was rejected by as promotional ("Declining submission: adv - Submission reads like an advertisement").
 * Despite this rejection, RaddatzD comes along and promotes the draft to the main space. How likely is it that an independent editor would be aware of the draft's existence?
 * RenterGuru has uploaded all the images for the article as "own work" which suggests an insider with access to the images.
 * RaddatzD has added an extra image to the article which was uploaded by RenterGuru and strongly suggests collaboration (diff). How likely is it that an independent editor would be aware that RenterGuru had uploaded that file?
 * Both editors have provided edit summaries claiming that they have been assigned this article as a part of an MBA ((1), (2)). I didn't know that you could do an MBA in Spamming but I guess we learn something new every day. They don't say what the institution is, which is a pity as they need to be told to stop issuing such assignments, assuming that this really is the case.--DanielRigal (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a few questions and comments. To begin, assuming that editors are acting in good faith is a key principal of Wikipedia, and while I can understand it is difficult to face an accusation lodged by another editor, this principle should be kept in mind. Also, though you and User:RenterGuru are students you still must comply with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guide (WP:COI) as you are in some way deriving off-wiki benefits from an article you are creating. You may also want to disclose what educational program you are participating in, as it could provide context for other editors. As for more advice, appealing to the authority (in this case your professor) of an off-wiki actor is not likely to ingratiate yourself with other editors, nor is labeling DanielRigal's post as harassment. For future reference, you may want to take a look at WP:BOOMERANG, though you are not quite to that level yet.


 * My somewhat silk-gloved approach is done, now for the tough questions. To begin, you stated that RenterGuru (pinging ) took the pictures on the MBK Rental Living article, but I have found the image online from sites that predate RenterGuru's commons uploads (images on the commons are  and ), and note that neither commons upload included camera details, which is an abnormality for images that were taken with a Sony A58, as RenterGuru stated. This implies a copyright violation. Considering this, I think the other participants at COIN would like some further clarification and answers to the questions DanielRigal posted above.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , as I understand COI, if there is a genuine class assignment, the benefit that a student gets from taking the course does not constitute a conflict of interest in the sense WP uses it. That's because the interest of the student is only in writing an acceptable WP article so they can pass the course, which is not only  compatible with the interest of the encyclopedia, but supports it.   (If a student makes use of a class assignment to promote his business, that's a conflict of interest)   DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * User:DGG about student editing -- in my view the external relationship each student has with the class and their desire to get a good grade (the benefit) as well as instructors' external relationships with "their" students, unambiguously creates a conflict of interest. The external interests are clear. Like any GLAM editor has with their host institution.  I wish the community were comfortable stating that as part of the guideline in a way similar to how we describe GLAM, and in the ED materials, but people have had major cows when I have said that before. Our project is worse off, for the lack of clarity about this.
 * Like GLAM there is a major risk that individual projects will crash and burn if the conflicted individual doesn't self-manage well. Unlike GLAM, student projects do often crash and burn; many students come here just to get their assignment done, and at the last minute. I can't tell you how many times students have written to me "Get out of my way; this is due and I need my grade". Pure unmanaged, un-self-aware COI.  Far too often I have had instructors tell me "Let my student's work be" and even revert me in true MEAT fashion, aligned to the external interest.
 * Academics have their own set of external interests - their own legitimate business namely - education, increasing the status of the institution, and getting research grants (as has been recognized in Madey v Duke) and WP been abused many times by academics - professors self-promoting, BOOSTER edits by alum as well as university employees, and students and instructors in classes.
 * There are of course many academics who self-manage COI well and aim at the mission, in all those areas (academics who avoid writing about themselves and SELFCITE rarely and appropriately; people who work in universities and alum who avoid boosting their institution, and classes that improve WP without disruption)
 * And then there are people who say they are student editors... Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your understanding of WP:COI This noticeboard is intended to deal not with all problematic editing,  with COI involving specific articles, by people having a COI with the specific topic. There are indeed problems with some class edits; there are even some problems that rather frequently occur with class edits (such as the impossibility of revising articles that are almost always submitted right at the deadline, and where the editor is unlikely to ever return.) There have been true COI problems with class edits where the class has been deliberately assigned topics representing a particular political POV. There are COI problems when students or  enthusiastic alumni write about their university, but that's not paid COI--it's the same as when I write about a city I love, like NYC.  There can be true  financial COI in the direct sense when a department's press agent writes about its faculty.  There can be problems with autobiography. There can be problems with a student writing about his advisor. (I wrote about my doctoral advisor, by the way, but I waited till the wikiproject listed him as a wanted article, and I declared it)  There are potential problems where a class may be working on organizations or people in a field where notability is very dubious, but this is not really COI in the usual sense.   The desire of a student to pass a course by fulfilling an assignment is not a COI with respect to the topic. It may cause problems for WP by encouraging hasty work, or encouraging sloppy use of references or even plagiarism in ways not unusual with course work  in general.  But it would not cause a POV about the subject itself. The student, even once committed to a specific topic,  has no reason to adopt a  positive  POV, as would an editor writing for pay who must satisfy the subject. N All he need do is create an article that will stay in WP long enough for the course. .  ::Sometimes the article may look promotional  , but there can be promotional  writing without a COI:  peoplewrite about certain topics in a promotional  manner because most of the material they see about topics like companies or products or charities or entertainers is promotional  ; They even write in a promotional  manner because they think that's what  is wanted at WP, because of the amount of promotional  writing that still permeates the encyclopedia .  We need to remove such writing as we would any bad writing, but that's not the same as assigning an improper motive to the editor.
 * We have enough problems dealing with COI not to fit everything wrong with WP into it. There are other places for other problems.  DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not about "trying to fit things in" but rather naming things that do fit in. For students the grade is pay. Its as much "pay" as money, and the behavior can be as nakedly driven by that as any paid editor is by money. Students should get the same classification and orientation as GLAM editors.  I don't see that happening any time soon.  Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion (Articles for deletion/MBK Rental Living), mostly for failing to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The contributions history of User:RaddatzD is... interesting. There appears to be a history of creating articles on non-notable topics. It is also interesting that someone who asserts that they are student in a well-regarded and selective MBA program would display the temperament and writing skills evidenced by this remark. Comparing their contributions and writing style, it's also possible that a CU of User:RaddatzD and User:RenterGuru could prove interesting. The world is such an interesting place. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * what is even more interesting is that the "roommate" mentioned earlier is just what someone with a little knowledge here would say to defend against the usual sockpuppet accusation based on what they think to be checkuser data  DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC).

The company has over a billion dollars in revenue. Just take the number of units produced in California times $800k each. That seems pretty significant. Seems like there is this push for less content on Wikipedia. Seems like there would be a want for more information, not less. The information is factual. We give up. It's 4 on 2 now. 4 super users against 2 new ones. Way to treat new comers. And I think you mentioned ip addresses. We are roomates, so I would think we would have the same ip address. There's no conspiracy here. Just a stupid homework assignment we were given. We've already printed it out and submitted it. You can delete the article and our accounts for that matter. My roomate says he will never donate money to wikipedia again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RenterGuru (talk • contribs) 04:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * a question about that assignment. Did you professor instruct you to edit/create a Wikipedia article, or was it a suggestion?--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to say some things to RaddatzD and RenterGuru here. First up, I am assuming good faith on your part. I am assuming that what you say is true. Secondly, I understand why you would feel angry, and even abused, by your unexpected treatment here. If a prof assigns you a task then you have a right to assume that it will be some legitimate educational activity, not using you as unpaid copywriters for who knows what reason. You have a right to be feeling trapped between an assignment that you can not complete and an organisation that is not here to facilitate your assignment. I understand why you felt harassed even though what I am doing here is nothing remotely like harassment. Your current problem is that you are pushing back in the wrong direction. The assignment, as you have characterised it, is not a legitimate use of Wikipedia and your college should know this. Something is clearly very wrong with your professor's understanding of Wikipedia and this is something we can help with. Please help us to help you by answering the questions above about the assignment. At the very least we can give you a list of policies that you can take back to the college to back you up when you say "This assignment is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia and it is not our fault that we could not complete it." I am also concerned that, if this pattern continues, then other students will suffer the same problems in the future due to the same professor. Please help us to shut this down and draw a line under it. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The article is good. It is a billion dollar company. It seems you guys are more interested in getting deletion badges and points from wikipedia than actually contributing to the community. I believe our instructor was trying to do a good thing and help improve wikipedia by adding relevant articles that can help other real estate students in the future. As we stated, please go ahead and delete the article. Make future students lives more difficult. We are unwatching this page so we don't get any more emails regarding this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaddatzD (talk • contribs) 18:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't find the claim, that these accounts are two people who are room-mates and in an MBA program, to be credible. Both accounts should be indefinitely blocked for violating PROMO and SOCK (it doesn't matter if they are MEAT or SOCK as SOCK covers both). The two accounts also colluded to bypass AfC.  All that the "RentalGuru" account has done is spam about one company and its parent; RaddatzD's contributions outside of that are abyssmal (see this for example)  Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indef'd. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I should have pointed this out several days ago, but students at university don't do homework, they do Coursework. It may be late in the day, but often the wrong language, as in this case, can indicate a clear COI. scope_creep (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In what country? In the US, where the company in this article is based, students at university do homework. Natureium (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Potato, potato. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The UK. I thought it was coursework. Please ignore the comment. scope_creep (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)