Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 134

COI at District of Columbia National Guard and associated articles


Avowed conflict of interest, with WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:SELFCITE concerns. Appreciating the knowledge this editor has of the subject, I initially approached respectfully. Please see discussion here. At this point, I'd appreciate more eyes and the involvement of others. Thanks. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And there are a host of problems with edits like this ; off-topic, essay-like and self-citing. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I cut out the worst of it. Unfortunately, stuff like the DCARNG article just needs to be entirely rewritten. There isn't really any better version to revert to as far as sources go. (I have a COI also if you want to get super nit picky. But I don't consider myself to have a COI in any meaningful sense.)  G M G  talk  17:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much,, for your edits and explanation to BMB. Not that he's inclined to accept policy. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We're working on it. I don't know that I'm totally on board with the notion that everyone who has ever served in a particular military unit necessarily has a bona fide COI. Anyone who's ever served in the 101ST Airborne can probably tell you half the unit history by heart. So obviously they're going to be the types of people who edit in those subjects. Hopefully it's just a case of a niche history interest that needs to conform a little better to the way Wikipedia works.  G M G  talk  21:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that COI is not an automatic disqualifier, and I began with a relatively light touch. But in such cases article ownership can be a problem, and becomes aggravated if someone has made numerous edits without being counseled, and finds outside assistance an intrusion. The reorientation to encyclopedic guidelines can be a bitch, but you're doing a great service in your correspondence. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, service in a unit is a reason to be more open to deferring to others in disputes but it's not disqualifying per se. Thanks for your patience here, I hope you can get the articles cleaned up. It's not like this is some startup abusing Wikipedia to pitch for VC funding, so this one can wait for the WP:DEADLINE. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Query about paid editing
Please see Administrators%27_noticeboard. Some opinions from COIN regulars would be appreciated. ~ Rob 13 Talk 14:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Secure Swiss Data


The author states that there is no conflict of interest, but, according to LinkedIn, the head of marketing for Secure Swiss Data is a Kateryna. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * well spotted. scope_creep (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have checked following Robert's lead. Don't want to violate WP:OUTING, but in my mind there is no possibility whatsoever that her denial is credible. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Knock Knock

 * Articles


 * Users
 * (partially disclosed COI)
 * (Google the name, Knock Knock employee)
 * (Google the name, Knock Knock employee, partial disclosure)
 * (Google the name, Knock Knock employee, partial disclosure)

--MarioGom (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that is taking steps for compliant disclosure, both of COI/paid editing as well as possibly multiple accounts . --MarioGom (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No further steps were taken towards proper COI disclosure. likely sockpuppet of, not disclosed either. --MarioGom (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Osvaldo valdes 165443


This is clearly a COI editor and probably a UPE (given what he wrote on Drmies talkpage: "Eva Buchmuller and Klara Palotai of Squat Theatre are aware of this page and of the External Links, they approved them!"). All of these articles are massively promotional, have masses of bolding, and masses of ELs. They all need major cleanup. Softlavender (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Racial insults not COI
Softlavender, please list all the pages I have worked on, you have omitted several. Wikipedia states: "Conflict of interest is one of Wikipedia's least understood and yet most cited behavioral guidelines." It further states: "Conflicted editors can be an extremely valuable and largely untapped resource as they are often the most equipped and motivated to report on a given subject." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:An_interest_is_not_a_conflict_of_interest) Keeping in mind that COI are the "least understood and yet most cited behavioral guidelines," I ask Softlavender what your credentials are in dealing with COI issues that elevates your common opinion to that of expert? Please show how "All of these articles are massively promotional" Saying it is COI does not make it so...

Every page shows my Spanish name Osvaldo valdes 165443. The issue are the insults by Drmies;; I was personally attacked in contravention of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy and Federal law. ovA_165443 12:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osvaldo valdes 165443 (talk • contribs)


 * Osvaldo valdes warned that any more spurious attacks of this kind will result in sanctions.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't you have to follow Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy? ovA_165443 12:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osvaldo valdes 165443 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, if an editor is making a personal attack. But the editor did not make a personal attack against you. He followed the rules exactly, by reporting an editor who seems to be using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. scope_creep (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've left a personnel disclosure message. scope_creep (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * " Your English is not good enough to ask and answer questions.." This is not directed at me? Do you have problems understanding what I write in English? ovA_165443 14:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osvaldo valdes 165443 (talk • contribs)


 * I think the point is that you appear to be demonstrating some resistance to the suggestion that you have a COI, when all of the evidence (both on-Wiki and off-Wiki) would clearly indicate that you do. Attempting to deflect the argument by spurious accusations against other editors will not help your case. I strongly suggest that you withdraw your ridiculous claims against Drmies and address the issue at hand. Shritwod (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * For those trying to follow along, Drmies statement was made in a now-hatted conversation at User_talk:Drmies, where Osvaldo had just said that he did not understand a question, and where he did not seem to be understanding Drmies response to his somewhat odd inquiry "How do you fit in????" Communication problems were happening. And in any case, this is the Conflicts of Interest noticeboard, not the place to address the question of personal attacks, so I recommend Osvaldo address here the concern that he may have conflicts of interest with regard to the listed articles. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with race and everything with competency. The editor asked me that same question three times and I still don't know what he meant, so I just took it as "how does a person like you fit in a community" or so. It gets tedious after a while. Note also that the user kept saying "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link", as if they wanted me to answer to that--when of course they wanted to include the link and didn't provide a justification. Twice. So I hatted it because I got tired of it. And now I am again tired of it; yes I have problems understanding what this user writes in English. The simplest thing--they seem to be here creating Wikipedia articles with a conflict of interest, and they still can't manage to sign their messages, not even here. And now they're throwing policy in Softlavender's face. Good luck y'all. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Shit, "federal law"? Drmies (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I've asked him about that. And other issues. Doug Weller  talk 16:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Gotta be careful. You don't want to run afoul of the USDA. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * He should be afraid of USDA-APHIS, have you seen the size of the ostrich on his user page? Pretty sure those birds run a-fowl of a number of import regulations.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Update
The articles in question have been relieved of their bolding, their excess ELs, and their massive images. That takes care of a large portion of the cleanup. But it does not solve the COI, so I think this editor needs watching. Softlavender (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Osvaldo valdes 165443 is still inflating these articles
I'm not sure what to do at this point. If nothing can be achieved here. bring it up at ANI? Softlavender (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I proposed Andrea Ponsi for deletion. The others seem ok. I guess that before bringing this up at ANI you should try to discuss specific issues on the article's talk pages. --MarioGom (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ranadeep Bhattacharyya

 * Articles
 * User
 * User
 * User
 * User

The suspected user is only here to promote a couple of filmmakers and their work. He first created Judhajit Bagchi and Ranadeep Bhattacharyya founders of Passion film and both articles are very similar to each other (see here) and then Sandeep Singh Bedi CEO of Passion film. I applied some maintenance tags on Ranadeep Bhattacharyya and left COI notice on Aritrasanyal's talk page but instead of replying to my message he removed the maintenance tags from the article. GSS (talk |c|em ) 07:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Draftified as in direct contravention of our Paid-editing-guidelines. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion on my talk page with user Aritrasanyal regarding certain things such as how he knows the date of birth of all three subjects or how he knew when and where this image was taken which he downloaded from Bhattacharyya's WhatsApp profile but he failed to provide any evidence and each time I ask something he only reply that "I saw this on their Facebook but now they have removed it" which is a good excuse in my view. GSS (talk |c|em ) 15:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for allowing me to discuss the matter. I have given my explanations against the COI notice for the pages that I have created and have given all the possible proofs regarding how I got to know about their early life. Regarding the images I have given proof for two of them but failed in one circumstance. As mentioned earlier, the director-duo are the first ever from India to win the prestigious Cannes Dolphin twice in a row 2015 & 2016 for their brand image films and because this is an achievement available to none they deserve a wikipedia page. I have made these pages two years ago and some of the proofs that I fail to provide were based on their social media details, especially their date of birth and place of birth. It's absolutely not under my control if they change their privacy settings. And this is no excuse but fact. Delving into the matter now I think it would have been better if I wouldn't have made two separate pages for Ranadeep Bhattacharyya & Judhajit Bagchi with overlapping details. Being a director-duo they are one entity in the likes of other director-duos mentioned in Category:Indian filmmaking duos & Category:Screenwriting duos. Kindly allow me to make a single page for them with the informations available. Regarding Sandeep Singh Bedi, please note that I haven't updated his page since I have created it as whatsoever no information is available on him. Thanks Aritrasanyal (talk)
 * A quick review of your edits, indicates you are only here to promote these filmmakers and their work and again do you use, or have you used, any other accounts on Wikipedia? Thank you. GSS (talk |c|em ) 16:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I have mentioned about their films and achievements. How can that be their promotion? In that respect any wiki article about anybody mentioning their achievements will be a promotion. But that is not the case. Also please explain this question of yours - "do you use, or have you used, any other accounts on Wikipedia?". Because I am unable to understand how will I use any other accounts. Thanks Aritrasanyal
 * Since you were registered back in August 2016, you made 300+ edits which suggest that you are a single purpose account who appear to be on Wikipedia for no other purpose than to promote these filmmakers and their work and in regards to my question, I meant do you know user who was registered two months before you, and was editing in the same area? GSS  (talk |c|em ) 08:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes you are correct. As mentioned before I have been following their work and after reading about their Cannes win I decided to make a page for them. In that case I will fall into the category of single purpose account. User must be Judhajit Bagchi himself.

Lake Forest College


There appears to be a conflict of interest involving two editors regarding these articles. I have undone some of the edits: Regarding "undo 2": One example: The "10-minute walk" is a promotional modification not given by the source. Permanent link:
 * undo 1
 * undo 2

(That said, it might not even be a reliable source for the statement.)

Regarding the IP address, I believe that the WHOIS record strongly confirms my intuition. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

New user drafting an AFC on his employer
See this:. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * AFC routinely deals with COI and PAID drafts, there's nothing here to get excited about. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Dodger67, the user has not declared his COI/UPE to AfC. Softlavender (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I assisted User:Jad.nsouli in declaring their conflict of interest after they came in to the IRC help channel asking for assistance with their draft. I want to explain first that I'm really not impressed with their draft as it's promotional and not sourced to any reliable sources. However, this isn't a noticeboard about crappy drafts, it's a noticeboard for investigating possible COI. Per the TOU (emphasis added):
 * "You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:
 * a statement on your user page,
 * a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions,
 * or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions."
 * They have met the requirements of the Terms of Use for a COI declaration with a clear and concise declaration of their COI. They state "I'm Jad Nsouli and I work for Wael Seifeddine, I've been asked to create an article for him as part of my job responsibilities . I'am a Lebanese journalist-director" I'm not sure what is to be investigated or discussed here, or if any action is really necessary at this time. Out of curiosity, what exactly are you asking for here? I'm not aware of any requirement to "declare to AfC", could you link me to this requirement? Waggie (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * As far as I was aware, the user posted his COI declaration well after he had submitted to AfC, so I did not know that AfC was aware of the COI declaration. Now that that has been confirmed, there is no more action necessary. Softlavender (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, WP:Paid says "A paid contribution is one that involves contributing to Wikipedia in exchange for money or other inducements. It includes adding or removing content from any page, including articles and talk pages."


 * any page includes AfC. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 13:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Pratibha Sharma


SPA user with no edits outside Pratibha Sharma. Basant3456 also uploaded this image as his own work in commons, and I can't find the image online. I left a CoI notice on his talk page after moving the article to draftsapce but, instead of replying to my message he recreated the same article in mainsapce. GSS (talk |c|em ) 05:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Scott Perlman


See parallel SPI. --MarioGom (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Endcuts and Mrwitty5000 were blocked for sockpuppetry. Now comes in and insists on removing COI tags on both articles. I'll avoid WP:OUTING here, but googling the username leads to clear evidence of Cyberdan2002 being an individual with a very strong conflict of interest with the film (actually a different person, so it looks like MEAT, not SOCK). After I added the COI warning to his user talk page,  continues editing both. It looks like the Andover crew is determined to edit these pages regardless of any Wikipedia policy (COI, MEAT, SOCK). --MarioGom (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course they will not cooperate. continues, including repeated addition of copyvio material . I requested semi-protection of both pages. --MarioGom (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Donna.kakonge1


Seems to be making spam and promotional edits. Some of them relate to a magazine named "Donna Magazine". I reported this user to WP:UAA, but the admin suggested I bring this up here. funplussmart (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hotel chains, again

 * Tata subsidiaries


 * Oberoi Group


 * Alila Hotels and Resorts


 * InterContinental Hotels Group


 * Accor
 * self-identified as being or representing Novotel's communication manager
 * see Sockpuppet investigations/Lego - Bloom
 * self-identified as being or representing Novotel's communication manager
 * see Sockpuppet investigations/Lego - Bloom
 * see Sockpuppet investigations/Lego - Bloom

Fairly substantial history of promotion on hotel articles; see archived SEO and PR on hotels articles. More eyes on these several chains and their subsidiaries would be welcome. I've asked recent SPAs to disclose their connection. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * InterContinental could use some help too. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * After seeing that Hyatt and Marriott were Go Fish Digital clients, I checked histories of a few of their articles. I couldn't find any strong link to known UPE operations, but it felt like most international hotel chains use UPE. I'll keep an eye on these too. --MarioGom (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Versace

Could do with a look at too Lyndaship (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I fixed these. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Tim Flach


Would someone like to take a look at Tim Flach, where an apparently connected editor has (twice) added a fairly large amount of more or less inappropriate material, over-writing some of the previous referenced content – the second time after I'd already left a COI note on his/her talk. The editor registered the account yesterday afternoon, but already knows all about edit-warring. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this still needs more eyes. There's been a good deal of back-and-forth, but the principal problem is that the editor's denial of any connection is contradicted by his/her edit history, which is typical of a conflicted editor (67 edits, none to any other page). Of course good faith demands that we accept the former, but good faith is not a suicide pact, and is being seriously tested here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This has now been resolved (suicide by edit-war); thanks to all those who took an interest in it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Soumyadigitale
Appears to have a history of promoting products and websites with some copyright infringement, and has never used a talk page to answer other editor's concerns. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 18:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This is plain spam. "Soumya Digitale" is an author name at drvaidyas.com blog. The same blog this user posted a link to . --MarioGom (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Last edit: Give details where people can find good ayurvedic medicine online. scope_creep (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A spam report might be helpful. I found . Looks like there's more going on too.--Ronz (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, . --Ronz (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * seems unrelated, but adding for completeness. --Ronz (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Drvaidyas/sandbox — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * . I'm leaning to a checkuser at this point. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * — Paleo Neonate  – 11:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * — Paleo Neonate  – 11:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * — Paleo Neonate  – 11:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * — Paleo Neonate  – 11:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Ubron

 * User


 * Articles

About 5 years editing almost exclusively articles related to Poju Zabludowicz, his family, companies and properties. Repeated addition of copypasted material from their official websites. --MarioGom (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Bumping this for it to stay a little bit more. There is a lot of copyvio here, so it would be good to have some additional review. --MarioGom (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

4ocean


Both users are very new. Iqbalmarium has edited only his own user page and the 4ocean article, which he started. Dodgerman99 then started editing 4ocean (and Iqbalmarium has not edited anything since Dodgerman99 took over). Dodgerman99 has tried to create some other articles, that have been deleted. The article has a lot of references, but they look pretty flimsy. I have very recently asked both editors what their connection is to 4ocean. I'll go back and notify them of this discussion. Donald Albury 16:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're saying this article is... fishy? Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)c
 * Seriously though, the organization does look notable; but it would probably be a good idea for and  to disclose any CoIs they have. Because it does also look like the article is kind of promotional. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone looking into this. I do not have any other affiliation than being a fan and a follower. The other editors were people I met online when I went on a forum looking for formatting help. I needed help, I didn't want to impact a company by my lack of wikipedia skills.Dodgerman99 (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Honestly, the sequence of events looks quite the opposite. Iqbalmarium created the article copy-pasting a lot of material (see Copyright violations). Half an hour after his/her last edit, you registered and continued editing the article (see WP:MEAT). This kind of coordinated editing on articles about companies usually rise a lot of suspicions about conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editing. Anyway, I'm reviewing the article to remove PR puffery. --MarioGom (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * thank you Dodgerman99 (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The level of PR puffery of the article is really high. I have a hard time believing this is not COI. Although whether COI or not, I'm leaning towards requesting deletion, since it looks there is no significant coverage of reliable sources. --MarioGom (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I respect whatever decision is made, I would like to point out the articles written in mainstream sources like Forbes about this company and new stories on major news programs like The Today Show indicate this group is doing something of note. My only request is that you consider helping with this page instead of deleting because this company shouldn't suffer because I am a bad writer. Dodgerman99 (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hathorra1515 and Ecokidd on Nick Gentry


Hathorra1515 has a long history of solely editing Nick Gentry and related articles, typically improperly marking edits as minor and not using summaries. I reverted one of their recent additions as unsourced. It also seemed promotional (language such as 'unique', 'internationally renowned artists' etc.). I asked them on their talk page about their editing behaviours and whether they had any conflict of interest. Half an hour later, the account Ecokidd is created and immediately re-adds the same paragraph.  Tera TIX  10:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone there?  Tera TIX  02:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither user has edited since you notified them 20 August of this discussion. I just went through the article and removed some puffery and a couple of redundant paragraphs. Let us see if anything happens. - Donald Albury 12:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Rocky Verma


Appears relatively benign, but at the least could use some help with guidelines and editing. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Govdelivery
This article was created by a disclosed paid editor. It was created directly in the main namespace instead of being submitted as a draft. Is it possible to move it to the Draft namespace so that it follows the usual AfC process? Thanks. MarioGom (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Moved to Draft:Govdelivery.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

New crop of UPE

 * (sock of Gharee)
 * - possibly independent creation, not sure
 * "food stylist"
 * ( I think ... sandboxed )
 * (sock of Gharee)
 * - possibly independent creation, not sure
 * "food stylist"
 * ( I think ... sandboxed )
 * (sock of Gharee)
 * - possibly independent creation, not sure
 * "food stylist"
 * ( I think ... sandboxed )
 * - possibly independent creation, not sure
 * "food stylist"
 * ( I think ... sandboxed )
 * - possibly independent creation, not sure
 * "food stylist"
 * ( I think ... sandboxed )
 * - possibly independent creation, not sure
 * "food stylist"
 * ( I think ... sandboxed )
 * - possibly independent creation, not sure
 * "food stylist"
 * ( I think ... sandboxed )
 * - possibly independent creation, not sure
 * "food stylist"
 * ( I think ... sandboxed )
 * "food stylist"
 * ( I think ... sandboxed )
 * "food stylist"
 * ( I think ... sandboxed )
 * "food stylist"
 * ( I think ... sandboxed )
 * "food stylist"
 * ( I think ... sandboxed )
 * "food stylist"
 * ( I think ... sandboxed )
 * "food stylist"
 * ( I think ... sandboxed )
 * ( I think ... sandboxed )
 * ( I think ... sandboxed )
 * ( I think ... sandboxed )
 * ( I think ... sandboxed )

WP: Sockpuppet investigations/Anatha Gulati uncovered several suspected UPEs. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * are some of these being treated as Anatha Gulati? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I still didn't get your ping... but here I am. I'll have to pass on that I'm afraid - as I said at the SPI, there looked to be distinct groups amongst the users. It does seem very likely though that they are all previously blocked users though so should be treated as such. SmartSE (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I ask specifically because of the outcome of Joseph K. Taussig Jr. G5 speedied by, maybe it's better directed to Bilby. I'd like to try to rehabilitate from Draft:Joseph K. Taussig Jr. which seems to be the work of an independent creator (I hope). Bottom line, I'm confused about G5 if they aren't Anatha Gulati socks. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

London Conference on Intelligence
Emil Kirkegaard Deleet an individual associated with the far-right has been editing the London Conference on Intelligence article adding dubious sources. He attended this controversial conference and was heavily involved until it was banned. I have raised this issue on the talk-page. What can be done here? Vihaan Khatri (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this constitutes a conflict of interest. Mere attendance to the event could not be considered conflict of interest alone, but he has been subject to news coverage in connection to the event, which definitely turns this into conflict of interest . --MarioGom (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Emil Kirkegaard should not be editing articles related to race, he is associated with the alt-right and has racist views. He works for the white supremacist Richard Lynn's institute, he has been editing Lynn's Wikipedia article. Also possible conflict of interest in that area. He should be topic-banned. 82.132.187.124 (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think a topic-ban should be applied, but even if it should, this is not the place to ask for it. The possible conflict of interest with and other articles should be considered though. On a side note: if you are Vihaan Khatri, note that evading a block is not allowed. --MarioGom (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I've struck through comments from a recently blocked sockpuppet. --Godotskimp (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

User Tomas Steiner and Smarmore Castle Private Clinic
It looks like Tomas Steiner is trying to insert link to Smarmore Castle Private Clinic website into the Smarmore Castle‎ article by all means. I have left COI notice at their talk page but got no clear answer. I think the article has enough info about the clinic well referenced by publications at independent reliable source, so there is no need to have a link to the clinic's website. I suggest some senior admin to handle this case. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Justin Schwartz


Autobiography, needs significant cleanup. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Copyright investigation. scope_creep (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Asim Duttaroy


I think this is an autobiography. It's the work of an SPA with little other input. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not an autobiography, but the editor is a student of the subject: Editor already has a COI warning, maybe needs another or a short block. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Precision Group, again
See Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_98.
 * articles
 * articles

This user has been going back over the Precision suite of articles and doing some light touches and removing COI tags and the like. Appears to be proxying for a banned editor or renewed undisclosed paid editing. I asked them to explain, and received a dodge. Asked again, received another dodge.

The Precision Group pages have been infested with UPE and socking, and 1990sguy has offered no credible explanation for their light cosmetic touches then de-tagging on this set of articles. I don't know why people imagine that other people would find this kind of tight pattern unremarkable. It is obvious. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Of interest may be Special:Diff/853958200 but that was disclosed and appears unrelated to the above. — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I removed it because I finished interning for PMML. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Interning for what appears to me to be a legitimate mainstream museum only raises COI concerns if you write about the museum or its people, IMO. Writing about people featured in the museum, not so much. I am much more concerned about the prevalence of churnalism in the sources in this walled garden of articles. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous -- I fully explained why I made those changes, and I did not "dodge" Jytdog's incomprehensible comments on "going behind" someone's edits. As I explained on my talk page, the pages I edited were stable (virtually untouched) since early 2016, and this lack of editing came after Jytdog and several other editors closely examined the articles and removed the banned user's promotional garbage. If those articles have been untouched for two-and-a-half years, and if Jytdog and the multiple other editors had no problem with the content of those articles during that time, I think (or, thought) we can safely say that a consensus exists for that version and that a COI tag at the top of the article is unnecessary (after all, after over two years, it doesn't seem to be a problem anymore). Keep in mind that I never challenged, and never intended to challenge, the COI tags on the talk page (and I fully support keeping them). But, it's undue to leave the tags at the top of the mainspace pages, and they should be removed from the other articles as well.
 * As for the "light touches", that's exactly what they were -- updating and improving the articles, like I've done with every other article I've edited. Nothing more to add.
 * Keep in mind, this isn't the first time Jytdog has (falsely) accused me of COI editing/POV-pushing. He's done so before on completely unrelated articles -- the accusations are false, and he needs to WP:AGF. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We will, I imagine, be dealing with the Christian-oriented stuff in a different forum.
 * This thread, is very much about this set of pages; your additional effort to distract from the very obvious pattern here, is harmful to you. And you still have not actually addressed this focus on Precision-related articles, that McCosker also worked on. Steadfastly dodging that, you are. I won't respond further here, as other folks at COIN will be responding  in good time here. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly accusing me of "dodging" and "distracting" is unhelpful, because I'm not doing those things, and your behavior is treading close to WP:HARASSment, similar to our past interactions. I edited those articles in addition to probably a dozen other pages within the last week. Also, I wouldn't have edited the other three articles if I didn't originally come accross the Precision Group article in the first place, and before your intervention, I was planning on removing the tags from the other related articles linked to the Precision Group page (for the same reasons explained above and my talk page). Not everything is as sinister as you apparently believe. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it was clear that you were targeting the Precision pages; thanks for making that explicit and for saying you intended to address all of them. You have not explained why.Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Another WP:ICANTHEARYOU statement on your part, and total lack of AGF. I did not inappropriately "target" those pages, and I intended (and still intend) to fix the real problem of unnecessary years-old scare tags on those pages, just as I fixed the real (though less glaring) issues on the several other pages this week -- there's no difference between my edits on the pages you're mentioning here and any of the others I've edited (Matteo Salvini, Ryan Patrick, Lajos Simicska, etc.). If the unnecessary years-old scare tags did not exist on the pages (that you and others edited in depth in early 2016 to rid of promotional info) all linked to the Precision Group article, I wouldn't have edited them. To interpret that as somehow being proof of COI editing is ridiculous and shows a lack of AGF on your part. Statements like this are wrong. And whatever happened to your statement to not "respond further here"? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Tags can stay for years if needed. They do not expire. So either the problem still exist or not, but it does not matter if these tags have been there for a long time. --MarioGom (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is, I don't think the problem exists anymore. Several editors, including Jytdog, got involved in the articles in question in early 2016 and removed the promotional edits of the socking user, who is now banned. After the heavy (and good, I'm sure) intervention by Jytdog and the other editors, the articles literally received no edits for two-and-a-half years. COI isn't an issue anymore, since the sock hasn't come back in that time (and no, I'm not one of them), and the promotional edits have presumably been removed (any examples of how I'm wrong?). The tags are unnecessary, and if I'm wrong, why (Jytdog) not explain to me first rather than drag me here and make all sorts of false accusations? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I responded because you provided valuable information that you intended to work through the whole suite. That was worth acknowledging. One wonders, how did you even know, that there was a whole suite of tagged articles. Hm.
 * I also briefly stated, as I will again, that you have given no reason for your focus on these articles. This is not like any topic you normally edit. It sticks out like a sore thumb in your contribs. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If I see a blatant problem on an article (like the scare tags), I will fix it if I can, and I don't require an article to be of a topic I'm passionate about in order to improve it (duh!). Besides, I've edited over 3,300 articles as of today (many of them are "not like any topic [I] normally edit"), and a few days ago, I made a couple of Star Wars-related edits (not a topic I normally edit). Stop searching for crimes, especially if I didn't commit them. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is going nowhere. It is unusual the amount of overlap in articles for James mccosker and 1990&#39;sguy. They are the only users that ever edited these 4 articles other than AnomieBOT and Jytdog, who obviously are not socks/meatpuppets or have COI here. That being said, we are not talking about a single-purpose account. I do not see any strong evidence of sockpuppetry either (see editor interactions). Could be meatpuppetry, could be COI or could be nothing. I think it would be preferable to let this go and continue watching the articles. --MarioGom (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * quick note - I misidentified which socking paid editor I thought 1990'sguy might be following -- I meant . Again, my apologies. So many lying, socking paid editors on the Precision Group stuff.  1990'sguy, does that change your answer at  all? Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, my answer is the same. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And to elaborate, once again, I have no connection with him -- I never communicated or canvassed with him. He edited many articles, based on his history, and I edited thousands, and we only edited two of the same pages. If your goal is to make me tired, you're succeeding, because I'm sick of defending myself against these accusations that I'm some sock or meatpuppet. They're false, and if you don't believe me, file an SPI. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Add:
 * I don't think you are socking. There is no point to an SPI. Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think these accusations are accurate. See Talk:Is_Genesis_History%3F, for example. 1990'sguy is a long time editor here and to accuse 1990'sguy of paid editing based on speculation is inaccurate and would require solid evidence. Rzvas (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not accusing. I am asking a question and not getting a clear answer. Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Bri, thanks for asking. This is the board for resolving issues with user behavior around conflict of interest issues. What I am looking for help with, from the community is: That's all.Thanks for asking. Jytdog (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am still looking for independent input on this. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you concisely describe the behavioral problem and what you want COIN to do about it. I'm not sure even if this is about consensus to and restore the COI tag on Precision Group, or something else. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * with respect to 1990's guy, please evaluate if their responses are credible. There might be consensus that the responses are credible; there might be consensus that they are not. We decide what to do next, based on the evaluation of that.
 * with respect to the pages, please review their edits to these pages and ensure the pages are OK.

the Context
So, there are lots of small groups of people who are interested in similar things. That is no big deal, per se. One such group is people who identify as Christian and are somewhat ... muscular in their editing about that. You can see these folks showing up together, for example at ANI or other drama boards. See for example
 * 3RR thread where we have
 * (now indeffed for socking
 * (paid editor)


 * Standard offer (declined), but supported by


 * Jobas unblock request at their talk page related to the above (which was denied)
 * argues to unblock
 * argues to unblock
 * argues to unblock
 * argues to unblock


 * ANI on Xenophrenic (fierce atheist person who often fought with Jobas over categories) - was warned
 * argued fiercely for TBAN
 * (what is the deal with that "1990" thing I wonder) argued fiercely for TBAN
 * voted TBAN


 * [|ANI thread on Xenophrenic]
 * voted TBAN
 * (what is the deal with that "1990" thing I wonder) argued fiercely for TBAN
 * voted TBAN

Are you getting the pattern? This is a sort of clique, making similar arguments against community consensus. That is a thing, but that is not my focus here. (this is not the board for that)

But things got weird with respect to this group activity, on two related AfDs Both resulted in deletion as PROMO/spammy. Here are the !keepers that overlap with the above.
 * Articles_for_deletion/Tomas_Gorny_(4th_nomination) and the related
 * Articles for deletion/Nextiva (4th nomination)
 * (both)
 * (strong keep) (both)
 * (both)
 * (strong keep) (both)
 * (Gorney only)
 * (both)
 * and.... (paid editor, blocked for socking) only !voted on Gorney

That is kind of weird, right? There is nothing particularly Christian about this person or the company. But there are at least two paid editors in the "clique" (Jonathan Bentz very specifically self-identified as "a follower of the Son" on their userpage...) and Renzoy16 per their !votes above.

I just went hm. And let it go at that.

Then this Precision Group thing. Do see the sordid history of undisclosed COI/paid editing on this suite of pages. Of the group above, here are the folks who have edited about this Australian real estate company.
 * -- Precision Group (bizarrely removing reference to "Ross Makris" for some reason
 * -- Shaun Bonétt (stripped COI tag, twice actually.
 * -- Precision Group, Shaun Bonétt, Adelaide Central Plaza (also stripped COI tag] and argued to take COI tags off)
 * -- Precision Group, Shaun Bonétt, Adelaide Central Plaza, MacArthur Central (stripping COI tags) Also removed reference to "Ross Makris", exactly like JonathanBentz did.

So the recent spate of editing on the cesspool that is the Precision Group is just.. weird. I have reviewed 1990'sguy's edits, and they have no interest in Australian real estate that I could see (I perhaps missed something).

So - how to explain 1990'sguy's behavior here? It is weird. I was ready to hear some reasonable answer. The dodging and attacking only sharpens the question. Jytdog (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC) (add detail, shown w redaction Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC))


 * Thanks for laying out the context. It begins to make sense now.
 * Basically, you got 99% of the way there. A small group of editors formed a loose association (I hesitate to call it a "clique") based on their religious views. As often happens, their group identity led them to support one another on other matters, things not obviously related to religion. Most likely they checked out one another's contribs and helped each other on articles, ANI cases, and so on. If some members turned out to have COIs, well, the important thing is to protect the group. Not too different from what goes on in real life. See for example Identity politics.
 * That's how I see it, anyway. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment here, User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. Yep.  Whether it is this sort of loose common interest/contrib-checking or off-WP networking, I don't know and the general matter is not relevant here.
 * What is relevant here, is when that behavior leads people into pages that have been abused for promotion. GANG, MEAT, or UPE are all not OK when it comes to cosmetically cleaning up pages infested with UPE or trying to retain promotional dreck in WP. It takes a lot more work that adding some more press-release-driven fluff and then stripping the tag. And as I noted in the diff prior to this one, 1990sguy actually replicated what JonathanBentz did on one of the pages. So -- what's going on?  Am looking for disclosure. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * More ridiculous accusations from Jytdog (these are getting more and more crazy -- what's next?). I'm flattered that you're painting me as the ringleader of some big conspiracy, but unfortunately, I'm not and your claims are false. And, yes, I gave a completely reasonable answer to your previous accusations. Also, accusing all these editors above of being a cabal without actually pinging them (you used the "noping" code) so they can defend themselves against your absurd claims is suspect. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the context (and further checking interactions ) I don't think accusations are ridiculous at all. There is obviously some close collaboration going on beyond the shared interest of some of these users. When there are critical issues, they help each other in surprising close time frames. While it would be possible to reach this scenario the way Shock Brigade Harvester Boris described, there seems to be enough synchronization to believe these happen with some sort of off-wiki canvassing. --MarioGom (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's looking pretty quacky to me now but may still just be some like minded individuals who follow each other around to protect their shared interests in very much the same way that the GLAM community or heavy metal fans pile on if anyone dares suggest that someone from their sphere might not be notable. That said some of the above mentioned articles look very weak such as the 160 Ann Street, Brisbane that seems not to meet WP:GEOFEAT. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting that none of the accused editors have actually been pinged/notified of these accusations.
 * The links above don't show "enough synchronization to believe these happen with some sort of off-wiki canvassing," and the "surprising close time frames" are not surprising if you examine it closely. Keep in mind that I've edited thousands of different articles and participated in numerous AfDs, RfCs, etc., and so have the other accused editors. We have commented on the same discussions only a fraction of the time (including the Christianity/conservatism-related ones). The fact that the accused editors including myself have participated in the same discussions every now and then (and the fact that many of them are time-sensitive by definition means that the "close time frames" are not surprising, especially if there's a "dominent" editor who is commenting from start to end).
 * I should also note that Jytdog is being very selective in presenting his "evidence." For example, he didn't mention that there are also AfDs where some of the accused editors argue with one another (e.g. ) or outright oppose one another (e.g. ). Just because some users have an interest in Christianity (the dominant religion in the Americas and Europe) does not mean that there is a cabal. This is ridiculous and insulting, and I'm not surprised that Jytdog was topic banned from the COI noticeboard earlier. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You continue to distract and throw up chaff. The thread is about your recent focus on the UPE-infested Precision Group; not about other people. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Then why did you bring up the other people? I pointed out that two of the other editors (Knox490 and Desmay) who are clearly Christians who have edited corporate articles, and on the AfDs of topics having nothing to do with their general topic interest, have taken different positions. And no, my answer remains the same. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have made no claims that anybody is a "ringleader", and this thread is about your editing of the Precision Group pages. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been crystal clear as to why I edited those pages -- the COI tags are unnecessary, considering it's been two-and-a-half years since the PROM editing and since you and other editors examined the pages very closely during that time. After you went through all those articles, you were apparently content and left them alone. If the articles don't have anymore problems, the tags are not needed. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a) not explaining why you came to the page in the first place or b) why you intend to clean up this entire suite of articles, as you noted above. I intended (and still intend) to fix the real problem of unnecessary years-old scare tags on those pages (emphasis added) Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See below for why, exactly, I found the page. As for why I said "I intended (and still intend) to fix the real problem of unnecessary years-old scare tags" (and keep in mind that I'm very open about it), I clearly explained it on my talk page and here. The tags are unnecessary, considering they're almost three years old, and since the article was very stable after a lot of examination by you. The problem of COI is over, and once again, I am not a COI editor. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update . That's definitely too much quacking by now. This is clearly not about casually removing outdated COI tags. Trying to do the same clarifications about Ross Makris as other COI editors and which the company is trying hard to rectify (see the corporate press release reference in the diff) is beyond any justification given here. The edit might be correct, but we cannot ignore that the user is trying to convince us that his edits here were something like a drive-by, and they are not. I am quite sure there is undisclosed COI here, if not block evasion. Sorry, but by now, I think there is just too much evidence here to continue assuming good faith. --MarioGom (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note and am glad you are seeing why I am calling shenanigans. Am looking for disclosure of the relationships that are driving this behavior - as I said at their talk page, it looks like MEAT or UPE. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't be fooled by what Jytdog says without looking at the whole picture. Look at this edit by User:CerealKillerYum, a non-COI editor who laid forth the basis of excising the false statements. He made good points -- all the JonathanBentz guy did was provide the company's link, which meets WP:PRIMARY. The reason I removed Makris (though keep in mind that I still left him in the article and did not remove any references) was because I saw that the information Jytdog kept restoring was factually inaccurate -- and as the same editor who had made several ridiculous errors/POV edits on the IGH article where I encountered him before, I was extra suspicious. If anyone here has a COI, it is Jytdog attempting to restore inaccurate information for Makris.
 * The reason why I found the Precision Group article is like how I found most of the 3,350 articles I've edited -- surfing WP, looking at other users' contributions, reading things that I'm interested in. Bonett's a member of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (, see refs 17, 18, and 19), a Christian organization which I read about recently (and I personally know some other people in that order with connections), and I was interested. No other reason, and this is just ridiculous that I even have to go into such detail.
 * If you think I'm a sock, or evading a block, go start an SPI (seriously). All the other allegations are also BS. Jytdog claims that my answers are "dodging" and the like, but he clearly won't accept any answer other than "oh, I'm guilty as charged" (and I'm being accused of a lot of different crimes by now), which won't happen, since I am not guilty of any of this. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We are not arguing content here; that objection was addressed by discussing what independent sources say, on the talk page. That is, however, a very typical conflicted editor's argument - that we should use a company's own documents to support changing the article to reflect a company's preferred presentation of its history. Why you would choose to take the company line, as did CerealKiller and JonathanBentz, is ...weird. With regard to the rather weak nod toward a "reason"; a) you've never edited the Sovereign Military Order of Malta page so it is hard to see how that could have led you there, b) it doesn't explain why would even be aware of "those pages" related to Precision, must less why you intended (and still intend) to fix the real problem of unnecessary years-old scare tags on those pages.
 * And as I already noted above; I have never asked if you were a sockpuppet per se nor thought you were. That is continued distraction and chaff-throwing.
 * It ~looks like~ MEAT or your own UPE or following what SBHB said, some kind of GANGish activity.
 * I'll be looking for more independent input from the regulars here, and will consider what kind of community action to recommend, once others weigh in. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * More dishonesty from Jytdog. I'm beginning to suspect that you wish to form a LYNCHMOB around me after our encounters at Is Genesis History? and Answers in Genesis, where I opposed your unconstructive edits. You'll note that it isn't me who is touting the company line--my statement is supported by independent sources like The Australian, which says "The big risks, the background as a commercial lawyer and the confidence to go it alone at the age of 24 and start his property company, Precision Group, helped propel Bonett..." From looking at the edit history, you seem awfully invested in the Precision Group article, reverting anyone who tries to alter your version of the article. Do you care to explain what's going on? Do you deliberately edit the COI area on Wikipedia so you won't be suspected when you make paid edits for companies? I (a non-COI editor) am definitely getting the impression of that. Is it not allowed to co-opt good arguments made by other editors (irrespective of whether they have conflicts) on a talk page? That's what I'm doing.
 * About the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, I said that I'm interested in the topic (as I said, I personally know someone deeply involved in the organization who has connections--and no, I'm not going to tell you who), not the Wikipedia article (I linked it for convenience). BTW, there are several articles that I frequently read and am very interested in, but that I rarely or never edit (List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump, Kingdom of Hungary (1920–46), etc.). But this shouldn't be something that I have to tell you -- like virtually every other article I've visited, it's directly or indirectly because of interest. Whether or not I edit the article in question depends on whether they have problems that I can fix. Also, as I said above, the Precision Group article links to several articles related to it. Is it a crime to click the linked articles? That's what I did, and I was going to remove the tags on the other articles before you messaged me. But, the tags should be removed (you don't need a COI to think that), and thus, I still intend on removing them, just as I intend on reorganizing and adding additional citations to the Viktor Orbán article. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. This board is not a place to resolve content disputes. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like CerealKillerYum is a paid editor but actually one who nominates for deletion and attempts to correct promotionalism in articles so to accuse 1990'sguy of making same edits like a paid user could be well inaccurate. Some editors are right with saying that some editors watch others contributions and find what they are doing. 1990'sguy is contributing for years and has 10,000 edits and this is pretty much the only intersection between these two editors. Because of 1990'sguy's interest in articles about Christian figures in the public sphere, it actually does make sense that he would edit articles related to Shaun Bonétt if he felt that the current revisions were damaging to that individual (whether that be true of not). Rzvas (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog and 1990'sguy have various religion related-disputes going on. The COI angle represents a additional front in that war. 1990'sguy is an established editor, not a likely COI suspect. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * COI has nothing to do with the length of time that someone has been on Wikipedia. Admittedly most COI editors are new but not all. I had a bit of a run in with an editor who had been adding stuff about a cabaret he was involved in and various friends and acquaintances for over 10 years on various projects and had nearly 20k edits to his name. Most of his edits were not COI but often linked to the universe of the cabaret. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Idaho Republican Party

 * Articles
 * and many more related to Idaho Republican Party...
 * and many more related to Idaho Republican Party...
 * and many more related to Idaho Republican Party...
 * and many more related to Idaho Republican Party...
 * and many more related to Idaho Republican Party...
 * and many more related to Idaho Republican Party...
 * and many more related to Idaho Republican Party...
 * and many more related to Idaho Republican Party...
 * and many more related to Idaho Republican Party...
 * and many more related to Idaho Republican Party...
 * and many more related to Idaho Republican Party...
 * and many more related to Idaho Republican Party...
 * and many more related to Idaho Republican Party...
 * and many more related to Idaho Republican Party...
 * and many more related to Idaho Republican Party...


 * Users
 * (possibly NickGOP?)
 * (obvious COI, possibly the reincarnation of IDGOP2017)


 * Blocked users
 * (per COI username)
 * (obvious COI, per off-wiki) and its sockpuppets:

See editor interaction report.

Usage of sockpuppets by people connected to the Idaho Republican Party was already discovered in 2017, blocking a few sockpuppets of Tyler Ricks. But it continues today, possibly by other people. Most edits are pretty much neutral, but given the scale in terms of affected articles as well as persistence over time, I'm reporting here for others to review the articles, as well as checking for other users with potential undisclosed COI.

The only new users I'm reporting here are and. --MarioGom (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Biophony


User:Biophony was first advised of potential COI on his talk page in 2009. He was subsequently the subject of a report here in 2016: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 103.


 * articles

As is (frankly) quite obvious from almost all his contributions to Wikipedia since 2009, Biophony is more than closely connected to Bernie Krause. In keeping with the instruction not to "out" editors, I won't provide a link, but I will say that two edits on my talk page, on 3 September, might clarify the relationship between the two. The articles Biophony, Anthropophony, Geophony and Niche hypothesis all relate to Krause's work and were all created by Biophony. They have also been the target of tags concerning notability, conflict of interest and/or inadequate referencing (whether because of lack of third-party sources, or the lack of specific and clear referencing to what few non–Krause-authored sources might be listed). Biophony has on occasion removed these tags but, in my opinion (and that of some other editors), without fully resolving the issues.

At no stage has Biophony volunteered a COI with any of the articles listed above, a basic requirement of WP:CONFLICT. I'm concerned that he treats the encyclopaedia as a personal vanity project, in some cases self-aggrandising or attempting to settle personal scores. (And I'm embarrassed to say I've not done much to hide my disapproval in my edit comments.) Examples of the latter: George Harrison's alleged appropriation of his work and THK's alleged copying of the Beaver & Krause piece "Spaced" for the company's cinema sound logo:,. Such changes, and more so at Bernie Krause, are sometimes accompanied by the comment "Update for historical accuracy" or "Narrative correction". They're often unsourced. Most recently, he has repeatedly removed a quote sourced to him by authors Trevor Pinch and Frank Trocco (in their book Analog Days: The Invention and Impact of the Moog Synthesizer), one of his rationales being: "As with former narrative edits to correct actual historical occurrences, Krause does not rely on badly researched references for quotes." He has also implied that had Pinch and Trocco reproduced the full content of their interview with Krause, their book would be acceptable as a source – otherwise not.

It's this type of guardianship of articles that I think elevates the concerns raised in 2009 and 2016 to an unacceptable level. With Bernie Krause and Beaver & Krause, I have found Biophony seeking to control article content and impose some sort of authorised narrative of his own design.

I won't go into further detail about the Harrison issue or that Pinch and Trocco quote relating to the Monterey Pop Festival, other than to say that until I added the text, there was no mention whatsoever in the BK and B&K articles that Beaver and Krause had a business interest also (they were Moog's West Coast sales representatives). Which, I'd say, puts a different slant on things.

The identification of THK's Deep Note was a problem, though – I've recently removed the company name and the work, btw – because it could have been construed as libellous. (Pinch and Trocco tiptoe around this issue, saying only "a famous Marin County film company"; the liner notes to B&K's Wild Sanctuary CD two-thirds of the way down the page, quoting from Krause's autobiography, similarly make no mention of THK or Deep Note.) So Wikipedia could very well have been publishing this claim about Spaced/Deep Note where no one else had or would. One user here voiced their concerns about the veracity of the statement we carried in 2015. I concede that the mention of THK originated from another IP user, not Biophony, back in 2008, but in subsequent years, attempts to tone down the message were taken in the other direction, as a result of further "historical correction", "accuracy", or "update" by Biophony:,. Again, this is precisely why COI provisions exist. JG66 (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Future Electronics


This page has a pretty blatant history of COI editing, most recently by these users but also a number of anonymous users in the past. Luthair (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Family writing promotional drafts


I've asked for a user block at AiV, was advised to take it here. COI account incubating spamicles; see also. Subject may be notable, but these drafts are dross. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Ohio Bureau of workers’ compensation


The Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation page reads like a promotional brochure. The page seems to have heavily edited in 2015/2016 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=192.131.99.132&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=2015-01-01&end=2016-09-01) by someone who works at the agency: according to ARIN https://www.arin.net, 192.131.99.132 is an IP address that belongs to Ohio BWC: https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-192-131-99-0-1/pft?s=192.131.99.132 )  99.203.129.8 (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've had an initial quick look over the article and removed some unsourced content and puffery and added maintenance templates as apart from the scandals it is largely sourced to their own website. If someone has more time it could do with a more in depth look. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Promotional articles for California tax attorneys. Really


WP:COI with promotional intent, likely paid contributors. See ; ; ; ;. For what it's worth, TaxPapa was just unblocked after a change of username--I'd request a reconsideration, given the edit history. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your helpful comments. Username was blocked because old name of Wikitaxeditor did not comply with username policies, so I switched to TaxPapa. I am new to all this and not receiving compensation, so I appreciate your understanding. TaxPapa (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I see you properly declared COI on these articles. Do you have a connection to people or organizations of other articles you created or edited? Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate your kind response to a newbie. Yes, I attempted to place a COI disclosure on Talk for all the other pages I created or edited. I am still learing about all the rules, and now understand that even knowing an individual is considered a WP:COI, even if not a friend or family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaxPapa (talk • contribs) 14:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This is the second time someone removed comments and dramatically reconfigured the discussion here ; see also . TaxPapa, you can not do this. Are you working in coordination with Emanresu99, or are you using WP:MULTIPLE accounts? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your patience as I continue to familiarize myself with all the rules. I now understand that deleting or revising even my own comments is not permitted. I had an opportunity to review the Talk page guidelines. Yes, Emanresu99 asked me to intervene on her behalf, and I do know her personally. Is there somewhere I should disclose a COI for another editor? She was feeling attacking and harassed, and does not want to be involved any longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaxPapa (talk • contribs) 14:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say this is MEAT. John from Idegon (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned, I appreciate learning about the rules and procedures, especially given that I am new. I have learned that you are not allowed to delete or edit your own previous comments, even on a Talk page. At the same time, I am feeling bullied and attacked. Please be polite, welcoming to new users, assume good faith, and no personal attacks. I will attempt to do better, and would appreciate the same from you. TaxPapa (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are able to cite WP:BITE, it doesn't apply to you. Try to address the issues here, rather than talk around them and blame others. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Newness' doesn't absolve plagiarism, either . 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And I'm sorry, but no one is going to take seriously this sort of non-disclosure disclosure, variations of which which have been added to multiple talk pages . 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I will do my best to stay cool. Please let me know--in a friendly way--the appropriate way to write a COI disclosure. If I am familiar with an organization, but not a member, not friends with a member, and not related to a member, then I would guess that should be sufficient. Would you please provide me with an example of how I could disclose better or more appropriately? Is this even the right forum for this type of discussion? Please be nice. TaxPapa (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm turning in for the night, but would offer this: you either have a conflict of interest or you don't. There's the appearance of a lot of two-stepping here, in starting out with a promotional agenda, then attempting to moderate it. Even the COI disclosures try to have it both ways. The bottom line is that you want to create articles about California tax attorneys, and will wikilawyer to get it done. Experienced editors generally don't have much patience for this, and I haven't found you to be straightforward unless pressed, which is why I've asked you not to comment at my talk page. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Finally, I think I am starting to understand. Simply the desire for an article about a prominent legal organization or famous attorney could be considered a COI, even if there is no compensation or personal relationship. If that is the case, I will confine my future comments to article Talk pages or proposed topics. I had to look up Wikilawyer, another name that I was called. It actually is a bit funny, since the first username I picked was Wikitaxeditor, which was blocked as an inappropriate username. Per Wikipedia's suggestions, I no longer will engage in this discussion. I looked up Ignore personal attacks, which says that "you should ignore people who attack you." TaxPapa (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * With the sarcastic interpretation above, Simply the desire for an article about a prominent legal organization or famous attorney could be considered a COI, you've chosen to mock justifiable reasons for questioning notability of some of the subjects about whom you've written. Several times now,, you've referred to our policies re: civility, and claim that you have been personally attacked. If that's the case, I'd recommend starting a discussion at WP:ANI and including links to specific instances in which you believe you have been harassed or attacked. These are serious accusations on Wikipedia, and if I'm one of the alleged harassers, I'll welcome a formal administrative review of my behavior, rather than the vague accusations posted here. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Emanresu99 -- RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Time is running out, user:TaxPapa. I suggest you make a disclosure per the rules of WP:DISCLOSURE on your talk page. It has been three days since you received a COI notice. All you need to do, is clearly state if you are paid or not paid. If your paid make a declaration on your talk page, per WP:PAID. Simple as that. scope_creep (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked for abusing multiple accounts . 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yip. scope_creep (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I wonder if we should add something to the COI guideline about lawyers considering the ethical implications of abusing WP for marketing. See Legal advertising. It is not our business but per WP:Wikipedia is in the real world someone could arguably lose their license for doing this sort of thing. Perhaps also we should add something to the "real world" essay. Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not our job to tell lawyers how to run their businesses. It's just our job to keep them from abusing the encyclopedia. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (For what it's worth, IMHO, it would depend on the state: specifically, the size and sophistication of its bar enforcement apparat. I would be (pleasantly) surprised if my state's bar counsel's office even knew unapproved advertising via Wikipedia manipulation was a thing. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  23:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC))
 * I hear both of you. You are of course correct, User:RoySmith-Mobile but please do read WP:Wikipedia is in the real world and consider its intent. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Scroll.in


The user in question is a single-purpose account that has only been editing the draft and the article on the news service. The news service has been deleted after discussions twice. See Articles for deletion/Scroll.in and Articles for deletion/Scroll.in (2nd nomination). This raises issues as to conflict of interest editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , will take a detailed look as to the aspects of independent-notability of the journalism-house.IMO, a borderline case which can go either way at AfD. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Phillip Frost


An odd civil case of "pump and dump" has been filed by the SEC against the 81 year old billionaire Frost and his company OPKO and a slew of bitcoiners. See Bloomberg and 53 page SEC court filing. The main oddity is Frost's involvement - he's giving away $100s of millions, but he's also involved with ten or so others in a $27 million scam. Doesn't add up on the face of it. I did notice a pretty nasty COI editor - Robertf103 already banned - fighting against and suspect there may be others on related (perhaps already deleted) articles.

Those sued are BARRY C. HONIG, JOHN STETSON, MICHAEL BRAUSER, JOHN R. O'ROURKE III, MARK GROUSSMAN, PHILLIP FROST, ROBERT LADD, ELLIOT MAZA, BRIAN KELLER, JOHN H. FORD, ALPHA CAPITAL ANSTALT, ATG CAPITAL LLC, FROST GAMMA INVESTMENTS TRUST, GRQ CONSULTANTS, INC., HS CONTRARIAN INVESTMENTS, LLC, GRANDER HOLDINGS, INC., MELECHDAVID, INC., OPKO HEALTH, INC., SOUTHERN BIOTECH, INC., and STETSON CAPITAL INVESTMENTS INC.

A related company is Riot Blockchain. Tactics include commissioning articles at Seeking Alpha (seekingalpha.com)

Any help in checking for COI/paid editing on related articles would be appreciated.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 13:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Brenda Andress


This editor requested to delete the existing article on Brenda Andress, saying it was incorrect, and submitted an alternate draft BLP which contains promotional language and is written to praise Andress. (The existing article is neutral and encyclopedic.)  This behavior is characteristic of a paid editor. See also this request https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests&diff=prev&oldid=854070998&diffmode=source to lock the page, meaning to lock it in the approved version, a common request of paid editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've given them the templated warning. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Volunteered geographic information


It appears that this is an SPA for the purpose of adding links to Cogitatio Press, and that the editor is the admin of that site. The editor was given a COI warning over a year ago. All of the links are probably non-RS as the site appears to be user-sourced. The editor added a page to WP with the name Cogitatio Press, but it was deleted. O3000 (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The editor also refuses to engage in discussion. Looks like a WP:NOTHERE block is in order. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

True Tamplin
I noticed that user User:Thederekjohnson might have a conflict of interest editing True Tamplin article. At the he says I have sent a message to Mr. Tamplin explaining to him what he needs to do. I will put a COI warning at his talk page and ask senior moderators to follow up on this. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nominated this article for deletion as failing WP:ANYBIO. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, Derek here. I've created two articles so far - Ed Rush and True Tamplin. Both of these authors and motivational/public speakers have changed my life and several others. I think you are mistaking trying to get a page to stick and conflict of interest. I cited both articles extremely well, but the Wikipedia community first deleted over 3/4 of my sources (LA Times, IMDb, Google Books, WGSO Radio, the resources list was quality -- look at the revision history), then after deleting my well-cited content, put my pages up for deletion. I'll save my reasons for why I feel these authors and speakers more than embody the criterion of notability, but for the sake of this discussion, I will say that you are confusing me trying to get a Wikipedia page to stick and me having a conflict of interest. I've found that while Wikipedia officially states that one should have the "go for it" mindset, the Wikipedia community, by and large, do not help nor welcome new contributors attempting to join the community by making quality edits and pages. Thederekjohnson (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying this. I have an absolutely "go for it" mindset being an inclusionist. True Tamplin article simply doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO guideline - reasons explained at the deletion discussion. The source were removed from your article either because they were duplicating (i.e. no need to have several links to the same book at various online stores) or not being independent reliable sources (please read WP:RS). User Melcous who did most of the cleanup can explain it in details. I have no reasons to question her edits. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Reliance Industries

 * Articles
 * Users
 * 2409:4000::/22
 * 2405:200::/29
 * 2409:4000::/22
 * 2405:200::/29

These articles were subject of UPE by sockpuppets in the past. Now they are edited by IPv6 addresses from ranges assigned to the company. Trying to communicate with the user is pointless given the frequently changing IPv6 addresses, I would suggest to block both ranges completely. If they come back under a proper user account, we can try to get them to comply with COI policies. Although I'm skeptical about them complying, since they changed from UPE to covert COI. --MarioGom (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And it continues. Can we get these IP ranges blocked? --MarioGom (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Both articles were semi-protected after unrelated vandalism. So the problem is effectively solved at the moment. --MarioGom (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Mukesh Ambani article was semiprotected by Fish and karate for 1 year, so the problem is effectively solved for that article. I'll continue watching the Reliance Industries article. --MarioGom (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Ecom Express


Vshant55 is has declared on his userpage that Ecom Express paid for Ecom Express. The article was started at Draft:Ecom Express, but repeatedly declined. Vshant55 then bypassed AFC and just created the article in mainspace anyway. Is the company sufficiently notable? Is the article too promotional? Peacock (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have returned the article to the draftspace at Draft:Ecom Express (2) and notified the creator. Per WP:COI and WP:PAID, editors with a conflict of interest should put their creations through AfC.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Kathy Anderson (designer)


Only edits by this author have been promotional edits to these two drafts, including edits to reduce the amount of marketing in the KA draft without making it fully neutral. Appears to be undisclosed paid editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Criminal Case (video game)


After a consensus decision to remove a table of gamecruft from the Criminal Case (video game) article, IPs claiming to work for the game's developer Pretty Simple started re-adding the table daily, saying it was for "commericial purposes". They have been warned about their potential COI on edit summaries and their user pages, but to no avail. _dk (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

User:KayTaylor2018tm




This editor does nothing except create drafts on marginal businesspeople and businesses and edit the drafts. They have declared that they are paid by Dean Kelly and by Travelbook (and so they are not being listed here). They have not declared anything else, but all of the editing is the same pattern. It's all one duck. Pluck it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The Scott Wagner 2018 campaign is editing his page
An individual who identifies as an "authorized agent of Scott Wagner" is editing his page in the form of whitewashing unflattering/controversial content and adding puffery. The editor's name, VAndring, is similar to a Vonne Andring of the consulting firm Andring Consulting, which is on the payroll of the Wagner campaign. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to second the concerns., without outing yourself or disclosing any information you deem inappropriate (per WP:OUTING), would you be willing to disclose what connection (if any) you have to Wagner? It would be of interest to a number of editors here.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not operating as a paid entity for the Wagner campaign. I noticed the page had been clearly edited by his opponents. I saw noticed editing was possible. Upon attempting to edit, I received notification that I had to have an account. I created an account. I am not familiar with your policies, and if I've violated them, it was not intentional -- which I think must be obvious since I am not editing under an ambiguous username. It is not my intension to "promote" or "puff." The edits I made were true, and taken from the cited material. As it sits, the page is not just unflattering -- it's untrue. Scott doesn't take issue with "labor unions" but with government employee unions. I attempted to clarify that. The article which is cited does not quote Scott directly, but instead paraphrases -- incorrectly. The result, is that Wikipedia is not accurate. In any case, if you would prefer that I not edit the page, advise me of such, and please advise me how I might go about rectifying the page so that it reflects accurately - and so that Wikipedia doesn't look like it's been coopted by a political campaign. VAndring (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi As I mentioned on your talk page, you are welcome to make comments about the article at Talk:Scott Wagner, but it would be better if you didn't edit the page directly, given your conflict of interest. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, so if the information about unions, or anything else, is wrong, please back up that assertion with sources that can be used to fix it.  Brad  v  23:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are a principal or an employee of a political consulting firm working for this campaign, then you definitely are a paid editor as we define that on Wikipedia, . So, you must immediately comply with WP:PAID. This is mandatory and not negotiable. Stop editing the article and post your suggested edits on the article talk page instead. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I've posted suggested edits and have made no further edits to the page, but it seems someone else did -- ducklover2018. I do NOT know who that is, am NOT working in conjunction and resent that one of you would publicly accuse me of it, and threaten to remove my editing privileges. That's a mistake and makes an already frustrating situation all the more aggravating. I understand the policy as you've made me aware. And I've submitted the suggested edits. I don't appreciate the way you are allowing Wagner's page to present. Period. VAndring (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , you have not yet complied with WP:PAID. Do so in your very next edit. Thank you. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Cullen, can you tell me what you see as my very last edit? I'm in PA. It's 9:40 here. I think my last edit, my time, was around 6pm. What do you see on your end?

VAndring (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Basicupdater


This user has made few edits outside of related colleges. The user's counter in the AFD was very suspicious as it contained the language of an employee (For example: "There's a reason that we are going out of our way to make sure that we are transparent in our efforts.")

Thank you <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 20:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Iris van Herpen


User is almost certainly engaging in UPE. This article has been edited by a whole host of SPA/possible COI accounts but I've only tagged the most recent contributor, as the others appear to be one-and-done accounts that are probably stale. /wiae /tlk  22:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Lisa Goldman (American author)


The declaration of paid editing is made in the sandbox, but not in the draft, which is being reviewed. The two editors are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but I find the policy on meatpuppetry to be incomprehensible. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition, all of these editors appear to be here only to promote the Goldman family. Toddst1 (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Add to the list. Toddst1 (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Newmont Mining Corporation
User stated COI but edited the article directly, without suggesting changes at the Talk page. Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The K Wyatt edits are no doubt COI but seem harmless updates & refs to existing material, eg changing # of employees from a 2011 figure to 2017. Unfortunately, "suggesting changes at the Talk page" rarely produces anything on corporate pages. Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Prashant Kishor


I removed a whole mess of non NPOV crud with very long copyvio quotes from sources that only served to glorify the subject. This was added on again by IP users so I requested protection which was done but the above user has been replacing all the stuff I removed. I just reverted 43 edits that basically are purely promotional and templated them. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There was a third party call out to an shopping site in ref 7, which has now been removed. scope_creep (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

KAVV


Over the last two weeks, a number of editors claiming to edit on behalf of KAVV's owner have attempted to remove a section in the article addressing a controversy. This section is reliably sourced and encyclopedic in my view, though I encourage others to review it. At least one editor made legal threats in connection to the article and was blocked. The page was also protected to try to encourage discussion on the talk page, though the editors so far do not seem interested in discussion. I'm posting this here so there can be more eyes on the article and talk page. EclipseDude (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also discussed (and more or less wrapped up) at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, for those interested.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Jjmortier
This editor's sole contributions to Wikipedia appear to involve adding references to their own publications. On their talk page, they were notified a week ago by User:Smokefoot about the conflict of interest issue, but the editing pattern hasn't changed since then. FWIW, in the cases I've spot checked, apart from the potential COI issue, the references appear to be reasonable additions (though perhaps redundant). I'm not sure what the appropriate response is, so I'll leave it to the more experienced editors here. ChemNerd (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This one had popped up on my radar too a few days ago but I ran out of time to look more closely:( I now spot-checked, and many are redundant (second cite for already-cited content). Editors who focus solely on adding self-refs and do not respond to others' concerns about it? Classic refspam. I see User:Melcous has already started rolling them back. DMacks (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I did remove a few that were immediately obvious as redundant refspam, but it would be good if someone could take a closer look. Melcous (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the rest, and left them a message. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I found a few stragglers and removed them as well. DMacks (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Nancye Green


This editor's only edits have been on the drafts of this husband-and-wife partnership. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Rosetta Type Foundry


Nearly all of this editor's edits have to do with this type foundry and its founding (no pun) designer, Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Atsushi Hisatsumi


Ten small edits then starts creating new articles. I spotted the first one as it was in my CSD log, having been speedily deleted in 2017, and the others look too promotional and on too diverse a range of subjects to plausibly be anything but COI/paid editing. Edwardx (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

John Hawley


It's campaign season again, and Josh Hawley in the US Senate election in Missouri. The edits from Natureofthought strongly feel like edits from the campaign (or from a volunteer). Mostly very positive edits and then there are this edit and this one (which in particular concerns me with the deceptive edit summary and appearance of white-washing). I've left the COI template with some pretty pointed additional comments, but nothing in response. After their last edit, I felt it was appropriate to bring this here. Comments appreciated.  Ravensfire  (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The article is little more than a campaign brochure, with uncritical recitations of the candidate's positions and accomplishments. Needs more eyes. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

--> Responded to all of your concerns, on your user pages. I am not a volunteer, nor a 'paid editor'. Just a citizen from KC who wanted people to see his record. The page of my attorney general was bare before. I was adding cited, quoted information to his page, all true.

HOWEVER, I am not a wikipedia native like you all and i happily trust your judgement on editing. This is what editors are for, no? To correct sloppiness from people who take the time to add material to a page.

Thank You, ~NoT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natureofthought (talk • contribs) 04:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note at our talk pages, and here as well. The uploads of the two photos you said you took, along with the highly detailed and promotional content you added, only to this page, suggest an involvement with the campaign.... Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Concur with Jytdog. Having a COI doesn't mean you shouldn't be here, but you do need to be open and aware that it does cause some conflicts.  Usign the article talk page to propose changes and discuss edits. Thank you.  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello again,

The photos are actually what got me started contributing to the page: even after the primary, he had no profile photo for months due to copyright issues. I have been to some of his public campaign rallies, and decided to use some old photos I took for his profile photo but I do not work with Hawley or the Republican party. If have a political interest in the candidate is a conflict, i concede that. I looked back at my contributions, and disagree that the sources were 'promotional.' When I looked for his positions, i used Missouri newspapers or his official social media accounts and webpages for primary source material. As for being 'detailed,' I see no fault in caring. Lastly, I was looking through wikipedia today and saw this article on the editing process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Process). It describes well the process we have gone through.

~NoT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natureofthought (talk • contribs) 02:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that you have accompanied him on a campaign visit to an egg farm suggests that you have more than just a casual political interest. I think we can safely say that there is a conflict of interest and as such all edits you wish to make should go through an edit request on the article's talk page. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Users posting COI notices with nowiki tags?
A while ago, I fixed a user's UserboxCOI template to remove some extraneous nowiki tags. I didn't think much of it at the time. Template syntax is tricky, and people find all sorts of creative ways to get it wrong. What's weird is I'm seeing a very similar problem on another user's page now. Is there some automated tool that's creating these and getting them wrong? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The code is likely just copypasted from the source text of WP:DISCLOSE. For new editors it's sometimes a bit confusing that the "code" and "nowiki" tags need to be omitted for a valid practical usage of example code. But it would probably be even more confusing to try to explain this in every code sample, not sure. GermanJoe (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

MissKennedyMoon
See the user page.--Biografer (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * @Biografer: I'm not convinced there's a COI based on the user page alone. (Side note: the source does not back up the current claim on the user page.) If the user starts holding herself out as this individual, then that's a different matter. —C.Fred (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, so far it is too early to tell what her intentions are... May I advise to follow her contributions? I will put John F. Kennedy Jr. and his wife under my watchlist just to be safe.--Biografer (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

MissHarrietWhite


The folks at the Username violation told me to come to you with this problematic editor. According to my knowledge she did 2 edits to Miss Universe 2018 article which I reverted. If its no a COI, then my apologies. :)--Biografer (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You have not notified the editor of this discussion as required. See the instructions in red lettering inside a red box at the top of this page. You also have not said why you think there is a COI, so you are unlikely to get much help here. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Brandon Scoop B Robinson


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jean_luc_harrington https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brandon_Scoop_B_Robinson&action=history

Just the activity on this page says it all in terms of the edit patterns. The subject has a much more robust page, looking like a resume/marketing tool, vs. prominent individuals in the field, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_A._Smith / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Wise_(American_columnist)

It's obvious Wikipedia is being used to establish credibility by those engaging in conflicts of interest editing. However, the conflicts of interest are not being disclosed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest . 96.250.2.100 (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Royalreporterupdater


has admitted to being paid here but continues to re-create A7 and G3 articles. Could an admin block please? <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 18:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

wikiprofessionalsinc


I just came across the above company as a google ad. I was surprised to see that they boast "Complete confidentiality, and compliance with Wikipedia standards and policies." which suggests that they do not make disclosure. Whilst I was on the page I was contacted by chat and I asked them if there was any way that someone would know I had paid to have my page written and they replied that no would know. They gave me the above articles as exemples of their work for bands and of course there is no disclosure. On their faq page they say they get round this through a "loophole" ..."If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." and say that they as an outsourcing consulting company they do not break any rules. The markometal account has already been challenged and denied being a paid editor. Both users seem to be sleeper accounts created a month or so before the article creations. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * See WP:PAIDLIST. They are long-term abusers. --MarioGom (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty certain IAR doesn't trump the ToU. —<i style="color: #228B22;">Jeremy</i> v^_^v  Bori! 19:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * When people invoke IAR, they often ignore the most important part: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia..." Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of any response from either, I'll block them both. SmartSE (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikiprofessionals also maintans a presence on Facebook. The people commenting on their page makes interesting reading for those of us interested in UPE. John from Idegon (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This appears to be a list of clients (the reviewers wrote on the company after working with them): Trust Pilot Reviews of WikiProfessionals. Saddest thing appears to be a very notable ESPN and sports reviewer, whose page was draftified just a few days after posting her positive review on them. I don't know if this is why, but this does show that the page was worked on by that company. 2001:569:712B:C000:50F9:6603:553E:BDB9 (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Hexcel
As I've stated elsewhere my input to COIN and other Wiki activities must be cut back quite a bit at least the rest of this year. I wanted to point out that Hexcel has been getting a lot of odd editing lately, including the latest round of additions of manufacturing facilities, acquisitions, and strategic partnerships (pretty much indicated by WP:Identifying PR). Maybe other folks can keep an eye on it. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)
Lots of spamming, promotional content, including PROMO about health. Need to track down the accounts but there is tons of undisclosed conflicted, perhaps paid, editing going on in the set of pages.




 * issues noted here:
 * same as above:
 * same as above:
 * same as above:

Sorry for the rushed report. Have trimmed some of the spam and inappropriately sourced health claims.... Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I will take a look:-) Aligns with my domain of interest! &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 15:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * wunderbar. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Mitchell Goldhar
What do I have to do then to make the bio complete? (Necamswiki (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Necamswiki (talk •
 * User:Necamswiki - First, read the advice that I gave you. I said to discuss on the article talk page, and that if you replaced the stub with your version without discussion, you would be likely to be reverted.  You did not discuss.  Maybe you are not interested in discussing because you are being paid.  Discuss anyway.  I said to make the required conflict of interest declarations.  You have not yet done so.  You are likely to be blocked if you make paid edits without discussing and without disclosure.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I will read the document and discuss the article in Talk:Mitchell_Goldhar page. (Necamswiki (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)) contribs) 16:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The author wanted to use AFC to submit a long biography of Goldhar to replace the existing stub. Author asked for help. I explained that AFC doesn't work like that and said to discuss the edits and update the article. I also asked if author had an affiliation with Goldhar and SmartCentres. They replied that they are employed by SmartCentres and are the IT technician for Goldhar. That's a statement of conflict of interest, but not a proper declaration. The articles have been tagged. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Robert McClenon Hi, I want to proactively declare that I am a COI. I work for Mitchell Goldhar's company, SmartCentres. I understand that an employee of the company tried to make changes to Mitchell Goldhar's profile before declaring a COI. We recognize this was wrong. Can you please help me understand the process to have the flag removed from the profile, and have any original content reinstated (if he made edits)? Thank you in advance for your help. Mandymail (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)