Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 136

Rachel O'Riordan


I added date of birth info to this BLP on 7 September using (age yy) template. This was later reverted several times, mostly by IP editors. Sadpastie has stated on the article talkpage that "She is however my sister and it’s not accurate", and "I know it to be inaccurate which is why I am being persistent. I am the author of the original article and the subject would prefer it to be removed entirely rather than to be inaccurate", after I encouraged them to read Conflict of interest. Sadpastie has not done any of the reverting. It is reasonable to suppose that the users noted above are not four different editors. I cannot revert again just yet without breaching WP:3RR. Sadpastie is now asking for a speedy deletion! Edwardx (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Edwardx

Hey Edwardx - I am asking for speedy deletion because the information is not accurate and the subject of the page would prefer not to be featured in a page at all than it to be inaccurate. As I haave said. The article is incorrect - her birthday is 16/01/1974. I know this because, as mentioned already, she is my sister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RankXgirl (talk • contribs) 18:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Edwardx - I understand fully that you are working within the parameters and guidelines of Wikipedia, (which I'm afraid are beyond my comprehension and understanding) but please appreciate that I'm just looking out for someone who finds the constant edits of information which she and I know not be true, both upsetting and needlessly bullying. I understand that this is not your intention - but this is the reality. As soon as I am able to find a citeable source for her actual age I will post it.

EDIT: I don't even know if this is the correct way to respond - apologies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RankXgirl (talk • contribs) 19:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * RankXgirl, you appear to be admitting that you are also editing as Sadpastie, which would be in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines on sock puppetry, which states, "The general rule is one editor, one account". You have been editing since 2006, so some "comprehension and understanding" of the rules ought to be expected by now. Edwardx (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So it looks like we have a couple issues here. First off, there definitely appears to be some socking going on here between, , and . I'm rather inclined to block all three for blatantly obvious socking to revert war and avoid scrutiny. Second, those editors should understand that Wikipedia articles are not controlled by their subjects, nor do their subjects (or their representatives) have any kind of veto power. Suggestions are always welcome, of course, but edit warring, attempts at ownership, and very much sock puppetry, are not and are grounds for a block for disruption. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Edwardx Talk to me Ok, I had forgotten the password for the RankXgirl account and it wasn't linked to an email so I couldn't reset it. Wasn't aware of that rule, but thank you - duly noted. The other 'accounts' to which you refer I can't comment on, if I edited when I wasn't logged in that may be why. The terms to which you refer are all quite alien to me I'm afraid - I certainly had no intention of 'pupperty' and despite having had an account since 2006 you will probably notice that I am not an experienced user. I am not trying to exert any 'veto power', I was just trying to explain why I reverted the edits by sharing some personal insight. All this has been done with the most sincere and genuine intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RankXgirl (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, RankXgirl. Please do not delete talkpage comments as you have done on Talk:Rachel O'Riordan. If you wish to retract something you have written, you can strike it through using . Please read WP:TALKNO for further guidance. From your contributions, I note that you have also started articles on your father Robert Anthony Welch, a book he edited, The Oxford Companion to Irish Literature, your brother-in-law Richard Dormer, and a pop group Codex Leicester (band), which looks to have another family member, Tiernan Welch, as its bass player. Please refer to Conflict_of_interest, and make appropriate disclosures. Are you sure about the birthdate you have stated, as that does not seem to be consistent with that held by Companies House? Edwardx (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I have now made appropriate disclosures on the pages you reference. Does this squabbling get removed at any point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RankXgirl (talk • contribs) 02:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the disclosures, but you still need to add them to Talk:Richard Dormer and Talk:The Oxford Companion to Irish Literature. This discussion will be archived in due course, typically 30 days after there have been no comments. Do you have any response to your stated birthdate for Rachel O'Riordan and the apparent inconsistency with Companies House? Later today, I will be re-adding the 1972 (age 38) template based on the Irish Times article from 9 February 2010 which states, "O'Riordan was born in Cork 38 years ago", unless you or someone else can come up with a reasonable policy-based objection. Edwardx (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Edwardx I will add the disclosures to those pages - I thought I had. Thank you for the direction. I have no objection to the amendment and won’t change unless I am able to find a suitable and citable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RankXgirl (talk • contribs) 09:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , if the cited source did indeed get some information about her wrong, the best thing she could do is to contact the source and ask them to issue a correction. Reputable news sources will correct stories if they demonstrably got factual information wrong. And of course we would take any such corrections into account while writing the article, and that would also fix any inaccuracy at its root. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Apkril
Raising concerns about Apkril (talk), namely that they may be WP:NOTHERE and an undisclosed paid editor. Recently I reviewed an article they created, SWIGGY, and found that the article name was in all-caps as Swiggy has been salted after being created and deleted multiple times. Looking into Apkril's history, they also created Draft:Practo, and Practo has also been salted due to spammy articles being created. Apkril was asked about possible undisclosed paid editing in June by Jytdog, but continued editing without giving a response. I have asked them a second time about editing with a COI/for pay, but in the meantime would support moving all of Apkril's creations (five are articles about companies, one is about a government project) to the draftspace, at least until some sort of response is made. Would anyone else support such an action?--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Their pages should be draftified.  Additionally, in my view this person should be blocked until they respond about their very WP:APPARENTCOI editing. Jytdog (talk)
 * I second it. I think the filing editor is trying to extract the micheal. Field Notes is particularly atrocious. Zizoo is a clear COI as wouldn't pass NCORP in a New York minute. scope_creep (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Zhaojicong


An account which only edited the article, at first use promotional tone level 2 title "Outstanding Achievements", without adding reliable source as citation. Those content were cleaned up, COI message sent, but he reverted the content back with edit summary "objective facts of BSR company, which you can easily get on the official website. achevement [sic] can be searched on the web site" Matthew_hk   t  c  10:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User Edmunddantes

 * Category:Nancy Wong at WikiCommons
 * Verification of identity at WikiCommons
 * User_talk:Ronz
 * Category:Nancy Wong at WikiCommons
 * Verification of identity at WikiCommons
 * User_talk:Ronz
 * Category:Nancy Wong at WikiCommons
 * Verification of identity at WikiCommons
 * User_talk:Ronz
 * Category:Nancy Wong at WikiCommons
 * Verification of identity at WikiCommons
 * User_talk:Ronz
 * User_talk:Ronz

Spamming of images created by "Nancy Wong" with no apparent understanding of MOS:IMAGES or COI, often including the text "Photo by Nancy Wong" in the image caption.

I'm not going to identify "Nancy Wong" further, as I've not come across any disclosure of further details. However, this is very likely a professional photographer. I certainly believe so.

I'd like to assume that she is offering images from her work for use in Wikipedia, unless I'm overlooking something that obviously links her to photography services.

Still, I'm rather baffled by the two responses that I've received on my talk page in response to the COI notice I left:
 * Can you be more specific? I am not employed.
 * Thank you for your interest in my snapshots: I do not have any external relationship with anyone.--Edmunddantes

I've not attempted to identify all ip's, rather just listing ones I've come across while trying to figure out what's going on.

I've done some cleanup while I've looked, removing "Photo by Nancy Wong" as well as images that don't clearly improve the article.

I'd like her to learn MOS:IMAGES thoroughly. I'm not sure if she always needs to use edit requests to add her images. I wouldn't mind if she added images directly to articles in cases where there are no images at all in an article, and she has a clearly appropriate one to add. --Ronz (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Another response on my talk page that's more of the same as far as COI and MOS:IMAGES are concerned: --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr. Ronz: I am an amateur who shoots one roll of film every five years for my own pleasure. I am very flattered that you believe I am a professional photographer. I offer no photography services and I do not accept photo assignments nor do I do work for hire. I am happy you think my work is good. I hope it is a valuable resource for Wikipedia as some of the people I have taken snapshots of on a public street location are now dead: i.e. no more new photos can be taken of these people: Joe Rosenthal, Jim Jones. Thank you again for your interest in my decades-old snapshots! --Edmunddantes
 * Since you are reading what's here and responding, some direct questions for you:
 * You have a clear conflict of interest. Do you disagree? Do you understand why your additions of your own photographs can be a problem?
 * Have you read MOS:IMAGES? --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, they've already self identified and verified their identity with OTRS. The images themselves aren't overtly promotional. What is the problem here other than not getting the hang of MOS:IMAGES yet? Adding images you've taken yourself to articles isn't inherently problematic. In fact, it's encouraged.  G M G  talk  19:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The images are being spammed.
 * This has been going on for five years.
 * Adding content you yourself have created is a problem. I realize we give a huge amount of leeway for images due to the difficulties of getting them, but this creates NOT problems, especially when there's a COI fueling the bias to add content without judgement for what is and is not encyclopedic. --Ronz (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding image you have taken yourself is not problematic. I couldn't tell you how many of my ~3k uploads are images I've taken myself, but I don't and shouldn't have any qualms about adding them to articles where appropriate. The user also has <100 edits all this year, and <300 over four years, so we're not exactly being overwhelmed.
 * Moreover, images like this one are fan-freaking-tastic, and could be a contender for WP:FP, not unlike the last FP I nominated, which happens to have been taken by a professional photographer and donated to WP.
 * Sounds a lot like we need to thank the user and help them if there are issues around the edges, not bludgeon them with a COI bat.  G M G  talk  20:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to count edits, please be accurate by attempting to find all the ip's and including their edits. Otherwise it's useless noise.
 * No one is bludgeoning anyone. Please retract the statement, then we can move on if you want me to clarify further why I brought this here. --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I spent about 10 or 15 minutes clicking through their contributions, and I'm still not totally sure why you're reporting them to COIN instead of giving them a barnstar. So yes, from where I sit it still looks a great deal like unnecessary heavy handedness toward a user uploading images that are at times of such high quality and irreplaceability I'm shocked they're not copyright violations.  G M G  talk  21:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All I'm doing is looking for help with this editor.
 * I'm not seeing any reason for a block, but until she clearly understands MOS:IMAGES, the spamming of images needs to stop. The additions of "Photo by Nancy Wong" needs to stop. I'm happy to remove the ones that remain.
 * Since you bring up copyright: Either she's the same Nancy Wong that worked professionally to take some of the photos, or we have a huge problem. I'm assuming she's the same person and that she retained the copyright to her work when she was involved in endeavors such as her work with Wayne Wang. --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Next time try talking to the user before you file a noticeboard report. Most of the inappropriate attribution in captions seems to be fairly old, and I see no evidence they are currently doing so. So long as they are not, kindly don't revert on topic high quality image additions.  G M G  talk  21:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I linked and quoted from my attempts at discussing the matter.
 * 00:59, 16 December 2017 --Ronz (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 19:12, 28 December 2017

I had a look at the photos some of which are excellent and others not so. I then asked myself if this were somone plugging their business by sticking professional photos on then there should be some way of identifying them a link to a web page or at least the city they work in but there is nothing at all, either here or on commons. For me either they are not a pro or they are totally inept at marketing and either way it doesn't seem to be a problem. Publishing your own photos is not only ok but actively encouraged as per MOS:HOTLINK and the different tutorials on commons such as How to take pictures for Wikimedia Commons. --Dom from Paris (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Or someone using/sharing this account and/or the ips for her. It's strange, which is why I came here for help.
 * No one is arguing that we don't want the photos available at WikiCommons. Many are excellent. --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So it's more of a sockpuppet problem than a COI problem? If that's the case then you need to open a WP:SPI instead I think. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's been some edit-warring via the ips, but it all looks like editing from a very casual editor trying to create a legacy for herself within Wikipedia.
 * Since no one shares my concerns, I'm going to wrap this up.
 * I'm going to review the editing in detail, cleanup anything inappropriate, and note any further ips and unusual editing.
 * I hope Edmunddantes will make a statement about her professional photography (eg the work for Wayne Wang), and that she will take some time to learn MOS:IMAGES. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If the best we've got is a short lived edit war from four years ago, then yes, I'd say we're pretty well done here.  G M G  talk  16:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just very quickly I would agree with you that some of the photos have clearly been published professionally and I have found off and on-wiki proof that she had photos published for newspapers such as this File:SFCHRONICLE TEARSHEET.jpg. I would be very curious to know why she would lie about being a professional photographer especially as she doesn't seem to be advertising her work and seeing the dates of some of these photos (1970s) she may well be retired already. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Etangm7 and Pools by Nature


A number of edits have been made to Natural pool by both the IP and the user. They have consistently added information about the company Pools by Nature, and the text added is somewhere between glowing prose and spam. The IP appeared to declare a conflict of interest when, after information on Pools by Nature was removed, they said "if you take us out you will have to eliminate others." Etangm7 has referred to the product as "our system" Between the edits and these claims, I have serious enough concerns that there is a conflict of interest that I've raised the matter here. Could I get a few more eyes here to look at the prose and help provide guidance to the new editor(s)? —C.Fred (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What a mess. I wouldn't be surprised if all the WP:SPA editors that have worked on the article have a COI.
 * I think there's more than enough evidence that they're here to promote their company, Pools by Nature. --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That was one polluted page. Oh the irony. I cleaned up all the crap, and then redirected what was left to Garden pond. This was offensive all around, from the "natural" name for something constructed, to all the industrial waste dumped into WP by representatives of companies selling this groovy natural stuff. Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I am looking for an admin to indef Etangm7 and the IP 174.85.60.56. They have resolutely refused to disclose and continue to want to chat about content, all while flipping us all the bird with regard to PAID. Basta. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not tying to offend anyone, As asked I acnolaged, please let me know it was done right and where best to have the talk.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etangm7 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)  Etangm7 (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Focus on the Family Singapore

 * (FoTF IP address)
 * (Tried to remove COI talk on Talk page)
 * (FoTF IP address)
 * (Tried to remove COI talk on Talk page)
 * (FoTF IP address)
 * (Tried to remove COI talk on Talk page)
 * (FoTF IP address)
 * (Tried to remove COI talk on Talk page)
 * (Tried to remove COI talk on Talk page)

Dear COI editors, I'm an irregular editor on Wikipedia and hope I'm approaching this subject on the right page (was advised from Teahouse some time ago to bring this here). Hope to get some third party opinions for this article - Focus on the Family Singapore. I'd noticed the article has been edited by many single-purposed accounts or IP editors over the years (and once with an IP address originating from its office) with promotional content of its services based on primary sources and press releases. And its more controversial aspects are periodically removed despite them being properly sourced, such as the recent edits by .- NoCringe (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Sun Country Airlines
Et al.

This article is plagued with likely paid editorial contributions from IP hoppers, which makes it nearly impossible to attempt to engage in discussion regarding the issue. I don't see this being successful at RFPP because it's not a vandalism issue, but I'm having a hard time seeing what other measures could be useful. Any thoughts?  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  22:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * 8A0C This IP SPA added promotional text, including direct appeals for office space.
 * A76F IP SPA added branding, offices, new HQ, building purchases, and Collegiate Affiliations asking WP to hire 250-350 pilots over the next three years This IP SPA is clearly here to add WP:PUFF, and sell the business.


 * 91F4 Worked on a whole bunch airports and airlines, plus adding loads of non referenced content, in some cases large section. Possibly a fan.

scope_creep (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Kierangaring
Wannabe rapper stage name North Shy who fails criteria for musicians and ensembles using Wikipedia for self promotion. His autobiography which has twice been speedy deleted clearly stated he "is currently unsigned and releases all music independently" as has his autobiography for his real name (thrice). Also he is a minor. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've salted North Shy and Kieran Garing, TomCat4680. However, I can't see that Kieran Garing has been speedied more than once. Have there been other spelling variants? I tried it with the middle name included, Kieran Marcus Garing, but that has never been an article. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC).
 * Check his talk page, there's several speedy deleted pages on there. He also repeatedly made Gingo which has been speedy deleted a few times, I'm guessing he has another stage name but I didn't see them before they were deleted. Also he made KC Studios (whatever that is) which has been deleted a couple times. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

User:CKM SUHAIL


I tried to get the user blocked at UAA, but that got declined and tell me go to the COI/N about spamming the User page which is http://User:CKM%20SUHAIL Now Deleted by a Administrator. Sheldybett (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed third party call out for better readability. scope_creep (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Frank Caprio (judge)


I have concerns that the editor who created this page on Judge Frank Caprio of the popular programme Caught in Providence has a close relationship to the subject. I am presuming the editor who created it is the same who works on the social media side of the programme (will provide link to investigating admin privately if requested to avoid WP:OUT). The photo in the article also comes from said editor which appears to show the judge sat in his courtroom, one which I'm sure a general member of the public might not be allowed to take. Also the show's website directs traffic to the Wikipedia article, which was created by the same company whom I have suspicions that the editor in question may work for.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

YourParkingSpace


An article that I accepted at AFC and has now been very very largely edited only by WP:SPA and single edit IP users all with skills that are largely beyond newbies so it looks like WP:DUCK intervention by either WP:COI or WP:UPE. Addition of non notable awards, promotional language the partnership focused on the sharing of knowledge, insights and technology to accelerate each company's growth, addition of unsourced detailed updates that read like press releases, During 2018, YourParkingSpace grew in size to 28 full-time employees. The company also expanded its commercial client portfolio to include Bruntwood, APCOA Parking, Leeds City Counciland York City Council. and now unsourced WP:coatracking for a new non-exec chairman, Andrew Higginson. I wonder if this article should not be semi-protected or even extended-protected. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

United States tech COI

 * At Afd.
 * Cleaned
 * pending copyvio cleanup
 * At Afd.
 * Cleaned
 * pending copyvio cleanup
 * At Afd.
 * Cleaned
 * pending copyvio cleanup
 * At Afd.
 * Cleaned
 * pending copyvio cleanup
 * pending copyvio cleanup
 * pending copyvio cleanup
 * pending copyvio cleanup
 * pending copyvio cleanup
 * pending copyvio cleanup
 * pending copyvio cleanup
 * pending copyvio cleanup
 * pending copyvio cleanup
 * pending copyvio cleanup
 * pending copyvio cleanup

Each one of these articles has either structural (WP:Identifying PR) or contributor issues (WP:SPA) indicating potential COI. Not listing any individual editor but it smells like there might be a common thread at least for some of them. Two I happen to recognize as Seattle area companies; several, perhaps most, are Bay Area; some SoCal; some New York. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Bronx Community Board 7


The article listed above should have the website for Bronx Community Board 7 updated from www.bronxcb7.info to www.nyc.gov/bronxcb7

It should also have the chair updated from Adaline Walker Santiago to Jean Hill. - HugoHelp (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Kaleb Mitchell


User has an obvious WP:COI and is threatening legal action against wikipedia. see this edit. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A user seems to be threatening legal action. 17:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not only is it a clear COI case but a clear fail for WP:NMUSICBIO I had a look for sources and found only social media. I would suggest nominating for deletion and then the problem will be sorted pretty quickly I think. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * nominated the page. Articles for deletion/Kaleb Mitchell -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Daweibj
The user has mainly edited these two articles, and I couldn't find any single sentence of criticism against both subjects. If the user is somehow related to the StarTimes company, I'd like to declare it's against WP:COI, but I couldn't find any sufficient evidence. (I do believe these articles need to be retouched, however.) JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 10:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Three red accounts on Patrick Morrisey


Three accounts (Edwardlathropiii, Valentinalattanasio, Almartin2602) who all made minor edits to a bunch of pages in July 2018 have in the last week made virtually the same edit on the Patrick Morrissey page. They were once reverted by the admin 'Neutrality' and twice by me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Accounts that are likely associated with the Jason Lewis (Minnesota politician) campaign are also edit-warring to introduce primary source content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Veterinary practice management software
Fairly obvious tag teaming COI user in case anyone else wants to give it a go. G M G talk  13:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, they've disclosed their paid editing, but are now repeatedly inserting a link farm to promote their company, and I'm at 3RR. So anyone feel free to weigh in there.  G M G  talk  14:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Tommy Smith (saxophonist)
Shockingly, since 2012 Tommysmith007 has been evading editors without declaring their obvious conflict of interest. Their only edits are to their own page or regarding himself on other peoples pages. While I have warned the editor, upon closer review of the page I feel it is uncomfortably close to his own bio see here for example and compare it to "Spartacus" section (which I have removed because it is all copied). This may require some rev'dl but at the very least this page requires some major cleanup. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Equality Trust


Hi, there are promotional edits being editwarred onto the article by the trust themselves and a paid editor 'commissioned' by them. They are removing the independent references for a version sourced only to their website, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Herbert R. Brown


Appears to be the subject of the article, editing to puff up the article. User ignored a talk page notice and I do not want to continue an edit war. shoy (reactions) 14:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Talk about crimes against MOS! I reverted the changes and left another note on their talkpage asking them to discuss. There may be some good sources in those awfully formatted refs - I googled a few headlines and they were findable; some of the website ones looked a bit non RS, but the newspaper ones might be good, if they could be tracked down. Curdle (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Paul Jessup (artist)


The creator of this article and other SPA editors are removing/whitewashing referenced negative content and editwarring to do it. The Timberlack edit history indicates a UPE, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Linh Nga

 * Sockpuppet investigations/Homealone1990
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Homealone1990
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Homealone1990

If anyone feels like helping with a medium size cleanup, there is a whole nest of COI socks, many of them now blocked, around this and related articles. The damages extend at least to Commons and Wikiquote. More detail at the talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

What About Wiki

 * Website see
 * This company has been reported to have been active since 2015 and have "more than 50 sock-puppet user accounts" claiming a revenue of $500k/yr. An example given in the article is about a baseball player who wanted their photo changing from one of them appearing fat for a more flattering photo. Anyone got any ideas what article that could be? SmartSE (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting article. There are only about 750 major league baseball players on the regular season roster! Hopefully, some baseball fan/editor has run into this. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I have zero clue where to start. started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball. SmartSE (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have checked about 40 players nearly all active or recently retired and have found nothing so far. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Richard Battye


I am self-reporting myself as I'm working on a rewrite of the article on one of my PhD supervisors/colleagues. I am doing this as the initial version of the article was focused on him being a cricketer, which he was briefly in 1995, but his career is in cosmology. I am trying to do so as neutrally as I can, but a second set of eyes would be useful please. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the self-report. To be entirely correct you should put a notice on your user page and say whether it is paid editing or just a COI. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I have added a note to my user page. It is just a COI - no payment was involved. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

NeedaAnsari00


Fairly simple observation of mine; the articles created by NeedaAnsari00 exhibit a number of hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing. All were created with a single, large edit, and all are in some way promotional. Furthermore, two articles (Jim Ricks and Rameswar Rao Jupally) contain images (the image of Jim Ricks was given to Needa by the artist) claimed as the personal work of NeedaAnsari00, and a search turns up no clear copyright violations. I asked NeedaAnsari00 about having a possible COI several months ago, and they have not edited since. This leads me to believe they may be a SPA. Therefore, I would like to ask if anyone would oppose me moving the articles to the draftspace so they can be incubated/quarantined.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Recbcd

 * articles
 * (originally created under the brand name
 * (originally created under the brand name
 * (originally created under the brand name
 * (originally created under the brand name
 * (originally created under the brand name

Since October 27 this person has worked exclusively on articles related to Portola and its products; the editing is promotional and badly sourced. Per their talk page 3 people (including me) have inquired about the WP:APPARENTCOI. They have said No, I am not paid for my edits. Neither am I affiliated with Portola and have said they are a medical professional at an institute in St Petersburg (their previous edits were all about a district in that city). In response to a question about whether they were studying any Portola drugs they said no.

This disclosure is not credible to me. There was a case in the past where people holding stock of a small publicly traded biotech company, Peregrine Pharmaceuticals (now Avid Biosciences), were abusing WP to promote the company and its products in exactly this fashion and were discussing it on a stock-flogging forum (here is where they reacted to the clean up and it goes on from there). That is one thing that could be going on here.

But the exclusive focus and promotional editing behavior = advocacy driven by ...something.

Recbcd feels harassed per this, and wants my behavior examined, so I am stepping out of this. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I recently added information about Portola and updated articles, related to this company with theoretically and clinically useful information. These articles contained outdated and false information (e.g. about andexxa mechanism of action). I also changed article name for "Andexanet alfa" to "Andexxa" because "andexanet alfa" is no longer a valid INN for the drug in US and "Coagulation factor Xa (recombinant), inactivated-zhzo" is not a practical name. In my opinion, I used neutral tone. I provided sources - medical journal articles (where they are available) and professional conference abstracts where not (like for cerdulatinib, which is a relatively new drug). I do not agree that my edits were "unambiguously promotional", represented "stock-flogging promotional garbage" and that I "wrote nothing about adverse effects" as Jytdog mentions on my talk page. For example, I mentioned all major side effects of cerdulatinib in the article I created. I didn't touch information about unproportionally high price of andexxa and so on. I feel that Jytdog is overly authoritarian, follows aggressively opinions of himself and does harm to WP.--Recbcd (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll reply one time here. You have not disclosed if you hold stock in the company.  Probably more importantly, you have shown no interest in understanding why your edits were bad and attracted the concern of 3 experienced editors. The latter is for me one of the key signs that you are not here to build an encyclopedia but rather to promote the company and its products. If you cared about Wikipedia you would be at least trying to learn how to edit well, here. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

JYTDog
Jytdog has been a controversial editor on the Finasteride page and their unusual editing behavior warrants a discussion.

Looking back at Jytdog's involvement on the Finasteride page, they have pattern and history of removing any information that is negative for the drug or drug manufacturer. This is a controversial product because it is used for the cosmetic purpose of maintaining hair loss, yet there have been studies reports of thousands of patients taking the drug and developing permanent sexual dysfunction and psychiatric disturbances after taking treatment. As is the case for many situations of this kind, the initial view is that the drug or product is safe but the conventional view changes over time as there are scientific and societal developments.

Whitewashing and information suppression are against Wikipedia's guidelines per WP:NEUTRALEDITOR and WP:NPOVT. Just for one example, Jytdog's most recent edit shows them removing a reference to the Post Finasteride Syndrome Foundation's website, a non-profit health advocacy group that was founded to research and find a cure or treatment for the medical condition. Jytdog's explanation for removing the link was that it was spam, but I would expect any impartial person to agree that such a reference is not just spam and Jytdog's referring to it as spam reveals his biased point of view. This is just the most recent example of dozens from this page and many other articles.

There is a recent discussion on the finasteride talk page about including information about a legal settlement related to the product liability litigation for the drug. Several editors had discussed the matter with civility for the most part and all of the sources that had been discussed showed that the court settlement amount was confidential. This edit shows Jytdog matter of factly stating that the settlement amount was for $5m which was not worth talking about. I asked them where they got that number, since all sources previously discussed indicated that the number was confidential, but Jytdog was unable to show a source and struck their comment. Another user later found a SEC filing that confirmed a similar figure for the settlement, but this was clearly not Jytdog's source. This leads me to wonder if Jytdog was given this figure by a 3rd party and has been editing at the directive of another person or organization without disclosure. I can't be sure about this right now, but when I brought this up on the talk page, Jytdog didn't address the points I raised and told me that WP:COIN was the right place to discuss this.

Jytdog's editing behavior in general is peculiar and warrants a discussion. Jytdog removed one of my edits on the talk page and requested that I bring the discussion here, so that is what I have done. On User:Jytdog, they state they have previously initiated a COI investigation but do not specify many details of the investigation. Jytdog also mentions on their user page that "I edit here purely as a volunteer; it has never been, and is not, part of my day job nor any paid work nor any volunteer work i do outside of my day job." Jytdog's editing history seems to me to be very unlikely. If you look at Jytdog's editing history over the past seven days alone, you will see that they spent about 60 continuous hours over this time period editing Wikipedia, not counting the periods in which Jytdog took breaks. Jytdog's edit history suggests they are a full time editor on wikipedia, in contradiction with the claim from their user page that they have a "day job". During the weekdays, Jytdog began editing between 8:30am to 9:30am EST and continued making edits until 12:30am, taking some breaks in between throughout the day. Last weekend, Jytdog still edited very heavily, but this began later in day and was for a shorter period than during the week. At the very least, Jytdog spends more time editing Wikipedia than the average person spends at their day job. This editing pattern was not unique to this week and went back at least the most recent three months which I checked, likely much longer than that. If Jytdog is a volunteer editor with a day job, why and how are they spending more than full work days during the week editing Wikipedia? I would think that a volunteer editor with a day job would not be able to edit Wikipedia 60 hours a week, mostly during the "day". I would also think that a volunteer editor would spend more time on the weekends editing Wikipedia, rather than less, since it is when they would have free time.

The best explanations I can think of is that Jytdog is a full time editor here or is sharing the account with multiple people, which I don't believe is permitted. I see that Jytdog is very involved on this noticeboard so I expect that many people will be familiar with Jytdog's editing history but I thought this was worthy of discussion since they are causing a lot of controversy on many articles. 2604:2000:E0CF:5100:81B8:A314:4A73:70AF (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Haha. I’m getting popcorn. Make accusations like that at a drama board and see what happens! Roxy, the Prod . wooF 15:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Lila Nelson editing her husband's article again
I was cleaning up unsourced content from Gunnar Nelson (musician) last week. Apparently, the subject's wife took exception to that, hunted me down on Facebook (which I don't frequent) and sent me a private message. It started with claims of ownership of the article. I stopped reading and responded that the conversation should probably take place on the subject's talk page rather than an outside source. There's no record there and others can't enter to support either side. She responded a bit more aggressively, claiming "I should mind my own business". I then cleaned out potential BLP issues and noticed that the subject's edits are only present to peacocking and adding unsourced content. Clear CoI issues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And I see they responded by removing peacocking from your userpage. That ought to help them in their editing of that article. Oh well, perhaps they will successfully ask for an unblock, and then start a constructive dicussion on the talkpage. It could happen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to understand what WP:PEACOCKing is. That's my fault. I should have linked to the MoS. I have to remember not all editors know the terminology we use. Since the editor has earned an indef for making disruptive edits, we could probably close this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm astonished that the account wasn't blocked years ago for evidence of shared use, based on the edit summary here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Luuuuuka
Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Luuuuuka. you all might be interested in this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Jonas Becker (DJ Katch)
 * Jonas Becker (DJ Katch)
 * Jonas Becker (DJ Katch)
 * Also, who filed the SPI. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Socks created the drafts listed above. Undoubtedly these are all clients. I hope they paid with refundable credit cards. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Editor at Frank LaRose
There is an editor at Frank LaRose named Mmcdonn245 who has exclusively edited this one page. The editor adds various mundane biographical trivia, adds text that seems very promotional, adds pictures of LaRose, and has now most recently spent the last couple of weeks edit-warring to remove reliably sourced content. All the hallmarks of an account with an undisclosed COI. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Baraboo High School

 * (added 20:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC) by ~ ToBeFree (talk))
 * (added 20:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC) by ~ ToBeFree (talk))
 * (added 20:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC) by ~ ToBeFree (talk))

Appears to be a, possibly paid, and then undisclosed, legal company attempting to fix up a mess, perhaps on behalf of the article subject. My "undisclosed paid" tag has been modified by a different editor shortly after placing it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Calling to the discussion per Special:Diff/868532788. If you made the edits listed at Special:Contributions/198.179.137.230, please do not remove the tag; clarify the situation first. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Bonsaiburglar here. I'm a new user and have no conflicts of interests here and am not paid whatsoever for edits. How can I clear this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonsaiburglar (talk • contribs) 20:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * , thank you for the clarification. Please explain your statement at Special:Diff/868532788; which IP address are you referring to? See the "history" of the article to get a list of contributions and IP addresses. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm still unsure what to clarify. I made the edits at 198.179.137.230 today only. I was merely trying to remove the paid disclosure section, for I am not paid for my edits, nor am I representing the 'legal company' whose internet connection I was using. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonsaiburglar (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks again -- this explains a lot.
 * Please see Special:Diff/868536037: I have removed the template. Please note that, even if there has been no compensation, you may still have a "conflict of interest" per WP:COI. Please carefully read that page and decide for yourself if you may have such a conflict of interest. If you have a conflict of interest, that's okay, you just need to be aware of it and avoid editing the article directly. The article's talk page always allows you to request further changes. Ideally, you should disclose such a conflict of interest, to avoid any confusion. If there is no such conflict of interest, and all of this has been a completely random misunderstanding, please say so here. I'm already sorry for mistaking you for an undisclosed paid editor, and I thank you very much for your contributions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for the clarification.
 * I do not have any conflicts of interest that would impact these or any other edits. Again, apologies for the confusion regarding my perhaps heavy-handed attempts to remove the Paid Disclosure template. Thank you for removing it. I made most of the edits regarding this page as news broke this morning, and then the Paid Disclosure template popped up, which I accidentally removed without providing an appropriate messaging, then tried to create a account to try to clear up my conflicts of interests (or lack thereof), that account being newly created Bonsaiburglar. Do I need to take any other action to get my account cleared or should I be in the clear now? Bonsaiburglar (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, please don't worry! This, I think, completely clears up the case. I have been wrongly assuming that the legal company IP implied paid contributions in the name of the school. I have also wrongly been assuming that you may at least be involved as, for example, a parent or teacher in this debate. This all is not the case. There is no need to feel bad for your good contributions, and I hereby personally invite you to improve the article further. I believe that your edits are of high quality and have noticeably improved the section about the current event. Because you do not have a conflict of interest, your edits are especially valuable to Wikipedia: You possess the ability to describe the whole situation from a neutral point of view. The students don't, the teachers don't, the parents don't. You do. Please continue what I have been interrupting you with, and feel free to ask any questions that arise when doing so, for example on my talk page. Thank you very much and have a nice day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Ilana Mercer


User Kc2290 has been on Wikipedia since 2016, and has exclusively made edits to the page for Ilana Mercer or has added mentions of Mercer to other pages. These edits are usually sourced to Mercer's columns, books, or personal blogs, and usually are far more detailed and more generous than seems warranted. Mercer herself quotes some of the Wikipedia content on her personal blog page (see "Environmentalism" section at the bottom) I mentioned the WP:COI rules on the editor's page several days ago, but I haven't gotten a response to that (or a response to anything else, really) - beyond a brief message on my talk page. However, Mercer published an article in World Net Daily today that appears to use several quotes or near-paraphrases of material that Kc2290 has recently added to the page on Ilana Mercer. For instance - Kc2290 wrote this on November 6:

Mercer wrote this in today's column:

It seems that either Mercer is cribbing her articles from Kc2290, or Kc2290 is so closely connected to Mercer that they are anticipating their arguments several days in advance. Either way, it seems like there's a conflict of interest issue here. It's possible that Kc2290 is unaware of the rules here - they seem to be very inexperienced despite their tenure, but they've been largely unresponsive to attempts to contact them, and so it's tough to correct any of those problems.

[[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 18:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with : Kc2290 appears to be here for one purpose only, to promote Mercer and her views. That may at this point be academic, as it seems quite likely that Articles for deletion/Ilana Mercer will close as delete; nevertheless, it's not appropriate behaviour in this project., would you please disclose the nature of your connection to Mercer? Please note that if the connection involves any financial or other benefit to you, disclosure is obligatory. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

"These edits are usually sourced to Mercer's columns, books, or personal blogs," Oh my, heaven forbid that when documenting someone and their views using their work as a source.

"and usually are far more detailed and more generous than seems warranted." That's your opinion. I disagree.

"It seems that either Mercer is cribbing her articles from Kc2290, or Kc2290 is so closely connected to Mercer that they are anticipating their arguments several days in advance. Either way, it seems like there's a conflict of interest issue here."

There is no "conflict" of interest. Do I admire Mercer and her libertarian views, yes. But my edits aren't biased. I state her views and offer no person view point. For instance, I don't "Mercer believes X and so should you, because she's always right."

Kc2290 (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Saintignon


User Vincente Saintignon claims, by way of edit summaries, to be a member of this noble family. According to his contributions, he is a college sophomore, which doesn't mean he isn't a Saintignon but suggests that he lacks a certain amount of life experience/perspective to understand why he shouldn't be glorifying himself on Wikipedia. There are IP contributions purporting to be, via edit summaries, from his "assistant". I don't have the bandwidth to deal with this, or the foreseeable ensuing melodrama, in the next 24 hours. I left a templated COI-welcome that is unsatisfying to me but at least puts him on notice of the issue, which no one appears to have done yet (on this American federal holiday on which a lot of usual-suspect recent-edit patrollers are likely away from their computers). Thanks for any help any of y'all can contribute here!  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  01:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I did a bit of clean up, will see what happens :) Melcous (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oy vey, that went pretty much exactly as expected. Thank you so much for dealing with that. Back onto conference calls for me, alas... -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  22:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hundreds of potentially affected articles
User:Smartse/sandbox contains a list of 405 articles that were created by users suspected of UPE based on inclusion in this dataset created by. I've automatically checked them so the list should only be (mostly!) biographies and corporate articles. I'm sure many of them are fine or innocuous, but from a brief look, I've found stinkers like AutoeBid and Crystal Lagoons (and Fernando Fischmann in turn) that definitely need attention. Sorting by the CORP? column helps find the problems. SmartSE (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Important work. Lots of trimming needed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Tokai Park


I'd appreciate it if others could take a look at this. There's extended discussion at User talk:Arebelo, but here's a summary: Any thoughts on the COI aspect of this? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Arebelo to have written this article
 * The author of that article is, according to this page, a member of Friends of Tokai Park, an activist/pressure group which has been doing contentious work in the park, and which, according to this page, is headed by Dr. Tony Rebelo
 * The Tokai Park article was created by user Tony rebelo, by copying the content of this Open University page, of which Dr. Rebelo is the author
 * Arebelo maintains that there is no conflict of interest and that previous content should be restored to Tokai Park (blanked for copyright investigation) and Tokai Arboretum, which is at present a redirect.
 * I will look into this as I have some acquaintance with some of the parties and institutions involved. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am confident that Arebelo's claim to be the author of this article is true.
 * The contention between Friends of Tokai Park and Parkscape is real enough. Friends of Tokai Park want to restore the natural vegetation, in compliance with scientific recommendations for rehabilitation of the area. Parkscape want to retain the alien vegetation because it provides a recreational facility for the locals.
 * Part of the problem is the common one of scientists who are acknowledged experts in their field not understanding how Wikipedia has to work to maintain credibility, and not getting the Wikipedia meaning of verifiability and reliable sources. I will take a look at the blanked article before I comment on whether I think it is acceptably neutral. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read the Tokai Park article. I see nothing in it to raise concerns of conflict of interest. It appears to be encyclopedic in content, well written and informative. While I am not a subject matter expert on the local ecology, I do know that the Rebelos are both experts on that ecosystem, and while not infallible, would not knowingly provide misinformation. I am slightly familiar with the area, and though a bit more sourcing would be nice, I did not find one thing there that appears to be contentious or likely to be wrong. Maybe I am missing something?
 * The copyright issues should be easy to fix. Get the authors to release the material under CC-by-sa 3.0 by whatever means is most convenient.
 * For the record: I have worked with Tony Rebelo on iSpot and iNaturalist, and we have occasionally been involved in other projects through SANBI, where he works. I am not employed by SANBI, and never have been. My work on their projects has, like on Wikipedia, been voluntary, and mostly through the SeaKeys projects. I have never met User:Arebelo that I can remember. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Tokai Arboretum could use a bit of work, particularly in-line referencing and some images. There are some opinions expressed in the voice of the encyclopedia that should be eliminated in the interests of neutrality. Otherwise, it too, should be acceptable or at least easily fixable. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , and . I hope this helps. Ping me for further comment if it may be helpful. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear Peter (Southwood), this is SO helpful, thank you so much for your time. Arebelo (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , Most of us try to be helpful. It is what we do here. Sometimes it works. Cheers &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I have unblanked Tokai Arboretum, cleaned up a bit, tagged for inline citations, and expect that will be able to provide them within a reasonable time, depending on how accessible the sources are.

, I would like to unblank Tokai Park as well, so cleanup can start, if there are no objections. I will watch both articles and provide advice where needed. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd ask to please explain this quote: "I have no relationship with Tokai Park, besides the relationship that anyone would have with anything they decide should be on this online encyclopedia. [...] I'm no expert on the history of this site [Tokai Arboretum], nor do I have any vested interest in the area, beyond the interest of any scientist in just seeing things properly documented." I don't think that's an accurate description of the situation, and I don't think it can be excused by a lack of understanding of Wikipedia. Rather, the Vision section indicates quite a vested interest. Huon (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I do not see what you appear to see. Taking the statements at face value, and assuming good faith, I see no vested interest whatsoever. If you start from the assumption that the editor is trying to mislead you, those are possible interpretations. Do you want me to investigate this in real life? If so, will you accept my judgement, as I will not make any private information available to you or any other Wikipedian, and I do not wish to spend the necessary effort to do the job properly to later be told that I have wasted my time. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * SANParks' documents regarding the future of Tokai can be found here. The newest published document covering plans for Tokai and the Arboretum in some detail is the Management Framework 2005-2025, which is indeed cited as the Wikipedia article's lone footnote. Unfortunately what it says about SANParks' ideas for Tokai does not agree with what Arebelo wrote about the vision. Example: SANParks: "The future role of the Lister’s Place facility can be reassessed to determine its most appropriate use as tea room, interpretive centre, environmental education centre and/or other use." Arebelo: "[...] the Old “Listers tea room” is to be converted to a museum for the Arboretum (as it is not suitable for serving food, was never designed as such)." The unsuitableness of Listers for serving food seems unknown to SANParks which lists "Lister's Restaurant" among the "opportunities". Arebelo: "The vision is for a baboon proof fence to enclose the entire complex." SANParks: Or maybe not. It's possible that the Management Framework is no longer current, but it still was in 2016. This surely is someone's vision, but that someone doesn't seem to be SANParks. Huon (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . That needs to be clarified., can you explain these discrepancies? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , Notice that all three fencing options mentioned effectively separate most of (all options) or the entire (2 out of 3 options) complex from access by baboons. While not precise, the suggestion that there is an intention to fence off from baboons is realistic. Also, as you suggest, things may have changed, or may differ in other documents. Very little is mentioned about Listers in the Opportunities. Again other sources may be applicable. If necessary the vision section can be deleted or replaced by something adhering more strictly to the sources, it is a small part of the article. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I see some incompatibility between cited sources and the article text. Various reasons are possible. Vested interests do not spring to mind as a major probability, largely because I do not see an obvious "interest" that would be furthered by the discrepancies. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Thats great. I'll look into it as soon as I possibly can. I have two crazy weeks ahead at work but will do my best. I think it is pretty self explanatory. And please remember, the text is not mine, but belongs to another user, which I took off the iNat website. This was given permission to use by the CC for SA 3.0 licence. If you think that "vision" doesn't belong on the page, not a problem, I will delete it. This is the official vision according to the national parks that manage the area, so I didn't think this would be a problem. But I'm learning as I go along. Arebelo (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Vision statements are often somewhat unencyclopedic, but if you feel that it is important enough to quote or describe, provide a reference from the organisation which proclaims the "vision". Often they are simply empty promises and fancy words to boost the image of the organisation. Management plans and policies are generally more likely to be followed up with measurable action and should also be cited from an official document of the organisation. I would not worry too much about the citation of iSpot, links die all the time. The only trouble here is establishing the original author for licensing purposes. Do what you can, and I will see if there is anything more that looks necessary, and we can take it from there. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Taking 's comments above into account, it might clear the air if you provide a reference that quotes the official vision statement of SANParks for the Arboretum, so we can see whether the text you have provided is a fair representation of an official policy statement. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

PCCW
The user refused to disclose his COI/paid status, and only active for articles related to PCCW group. It is not a new account and very look likes a SPA. Edits are promotional tone "premier telecommunications service provider" and "leading operator ". Matthew hk (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

NuVasive


Something funny going on here with this CEO and connected company. Maybe the editors can explain. There was a paid-editing disclosure only for the CEO bio which is now at AfD.

Curiously several of these editors have just recently come out of a multi-year hiatus. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Initiated Sockpuppet investigations/Mikefarrington11 ☆ Bri (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Added RightCowLeftCoast per . ☆ Bri (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have one edit on this article and it is for tagging this article for notability and need to improve references.
 * I have not edited on other usernames, and thus am not a meat or sock puppet.
 * I do make edits at work, but do not want to self out myself in order to defend myself to addition of my name.
 * I do know a Mike who works at where I work, and if the Joe Cheetahs are connected to NuVasive, it would explain why it edits from the same IP, as there is a publicly available wifi. That said I am not in control of the Joe Cheetah accounts.
 * I do not extensively make edits related to Nuvasive and want my name removed from this list.
 * This is the first time I have been brought up here. What do I need to do to defend myself?-- Right Cow Left Coast  (Moo) 21:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What you wrote at your talk page is all I needed to hear. Acknowledging the fact that there is very clear evidence and then turning around and writing about an attack upon me and my character that is wholly unwarranted is complete bullshit. You should be indefinitely blocked. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC) (redact....that was premature, at that point in the discussion Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC) )
 * Seriously?
 * I have never been paid for any editing.
 * I may edit while at work, but have never been paid to edit or asked by any of my employers to edit on their behalf.
 * So am I, or anyone, not allowed to edit while they are at work?
 * So am I, or anyone, not allowed to edit while being employed?
 * I think I feel wholly justified to feel attacked, especially when someone is advocating that I be indefinitely blocked.-- Right Cow Left Coast  (Moo) 02:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * leave the matter to people with the tools, temperament, and access to relevant data  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 03:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There are no magic tools needed here beyond what CU has shown (it is not just an IP thing), the edits, and the reaction. If you have nothing to actually say about this matter, please reconsider posting here. Please also see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

So let me get this understanding clear. I edit at work via a public available wifi. Others maybe editing where I work, thus we may share the same IP, thus why the check user result came up with what it did. One of those others editors acted in a manner that may be seen as a conflict of interest. Because I edit at work, I am roped into this dragnet? Therefore I have to defend myself, and should not feel concerned that I am being disparaged?-- Right Cow Left Coast  (Moo) 03:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've answered at your userpage but will reiterate here. What you just described is a pretty good definition of WP:APPARENTCOI. It is reasonable to ask these questions at the conflict of interest noticeboard. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They already said they haven't received any compensation to make edits on Wikipedia. At that point, you have to assume good faith that they may be mistaken for other users on the same IP address. 2604:2000:E0CF:5100:F893:BB10:355F:7194 (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 2604, you are wrong about what COI is, and you can read why on their talkpage. Hint, it's not just compensation. Which confusion is one of the reasons we have these discussions here.  ☆ Bri (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So do I need to out myself and share my LinkedIn? Based on the above, it sounds like anonymity is no longer allowed in editing.
 * replied to a topic I created on the talk page of the article about the former CEO of NuVasive (yet current member of the board of directors), and my few edits of the two articles listed in this section, could be seen as being opposite the interest of the subject. As such, being outed may negatively impact me, leading to being in a fiscal position where I would no longer be able to afford my current activity with the various projects of WMF. Is this the goal of this inquiry?
 * Is there a way to meet the needs of this inquiry in a way which does not cause outing?-- Right Cow Left Coast  (Moo) 06:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What's the behavioral evidence for WP:APPARENTCOI? The one edit? In which he stated that the CEO's article does not meet WP:ANYBIO and tagged it with a tag which, uhmmm, means the article is more likely to get deleted or merged? Laughable, this does not make any sense. --Pudeo (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional info for evaluation made visible for those that cannot see deleted contribs:


 * 00:32, October 21, 2017 . . DGG (talk | contribs | block) (1,451 bytes) (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. (TW))
 * 20:06, October 18, 2017 . . DGG (talk | contribs | block) (1,290 bytes) (remove the rest of the spam)
 * 21:39, October 11, 2017 . . Joe Cheetah (talk | contribs | block) m (1,852 bytes) (Edited description) (Tag: Visual edit)
 * 10:12, June 8, 2017 . . Mean as custard (talk | contribs | block) (1,929 bytes) (revert promotional b*llsh*t)
 * 19:21, May 20, 2017 . . RightCowLeftCoast (talk | contribs | block) (5,258 bytes) (removed POV tag due to Template:POV#When to remove, no discussion on the talk page; re-added COI tag due to past edits by User:Lifeofcheetah & User:Joecheetah; added additional tag due to WP:INLINE)
 * 19:26, May 19, 2017 . . Julietdeltalima (talk | contribs | block) (5,229 bytes) (Added POV tag to article (TW))
 * 01:04, May 19, 2017 . . Dnvo (talk | contribs | block) (5,207 bytes) (Removing templates) (Tag: Visual edit)
 * 00:56, May 19, 2017 . . Dnvo (talk | contribs | block) (5,260 bytes) (- Added portfolio, refactored headers, added sources.) (Tag: Visual edit)
 * 05:43, May 17, 2017 . . RightCowLeftCoast (talk | contribs | block) (3,944 bytes) (added additional tag, no non-primary sources utilized)
 * 05:40, May 17, 2017 . . RightCowLeftCoast (talk | contribs | block) (3,913 bytes) (tagged article)
 * 00:33, April 23, 2017 . . UnitedStatesian (talk | contribs | block) (3,891 bytes) (move logo to infobox)
 * 20:48, February 20, 2017 . . Magioladitis (talk | contribs | block) m (3,876 bytes) (→‎top: Removed invisible unicode characters + other fixes, replaced: → using AWB)
 * 17:58, February 13, 2017 . . Lifeofcheetah (talk | contribs | block) m (3,877 bytes) (Added key acquisitions and NSF/TBWB information) (Tags: Visual edit, references removed)
 * 17:09, February 13, 2017 . . Lifeofcheetah (talk | contribs | block) m (2,059 bytes) (Tag: Visual edit)
 * 17:06, February 13, 2017 . . Lifeofcheetah (talk | contribs | block) m (2,053 bytes) (Updated information in paragraph and logo.) (Tag: Visual edit)
 * 00:45, February 10, 2017 . . Msfarrin (talk | contribs | block) m (1,929 bytes) (Removed fields that were unused.) (Tag: Visual edit)
 * 00:44, February 10, 2017 . . Msfarrin (talk | contribs | block) (1,988 bytes) (Updated CEO, Revenue and Employee information.) (Tag: Visual edit)
 * 15:52, January 31, 2017 . . Mean as custard (talk | contribs | block) (1,974 bytes) (revert to less blatantly promotional version)
 * 16:04, January 17, 2017 . . Bender the Bot (talk | contribs | block) m (5,088 bytes) (HTTP→HTTPS for Yahoo! using AWB)
 * 15:38, January 1, 2017 . . Maxime Vernier (talk | contribs | block) m (5,086 bytes) (Added as a S&P 400 component in the infobox)
 * 15:23, September 30, 2016 . . Lifeofcheetah (talk | contribs | block) m (5,037 bytes) (Updated to new logo (2016) and new employee count (2016)) (Tag: Visual edit)
 * 17:58, June 14, 2016 . . Joecheetah (talk | contribs | block) (5,024 bytes)
 * 17:36, June 14, 2016 . . Joecheetah (talk | contribs | block) (5,018 bytes)
 * 17:35, June 14, 2016 . . Joecheetah (talk | contribs | block) (5,012 bytes)
 * 15:53, June 14, 2016 . . Julietdeltalima (talk | contribs | block) (4,976 bytes) (Added news release and peacock tags to article (TW))
 * 15:52, June 14, 2016 . . Joecheetah (talk | contribs | block) (4,907 bytes)
 * 15:50, June 14, 2016 . . Joecheetah (talk | contribs | block) (4,903 bytes)
 * 15:40, June 14, 2016 . . Joecheetah (talk | contribs | block) (4,949 bytes)
 * 15:38, June 14, 2016 . . Joecheetah (talk | contribs | block) (4,948 bytes)


 * Note: the additional tag added by RightCowLeftCoast "..added additional tag due to WP:INLINE.." was a refimprove.

POV tag
I removed the tag, as there was no discussion as to why the article appears to not meet WP:NEU. I re-added the COI tag due to the names, appearing to be largely single purpose accounts with names sharing the company's mascot ( & ), having made significant edits to the article in the past. I would also like to invite to the conversation as the individual has recently made edits to the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * RightCowLeftCoast added additonal projects and changed from stubs to start class. diff



— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly a coincidence but a new account with a COI, has just popped up yesterday using a proxy and editing on Catalent. Related to Gregory T. Lucier article.
 * Thanks very much for digging that up. So here is where I think we are (cross posted from SPI): RCLC has said My employers are aware that I edit Wikipedia, but have not asked me to edit on their behalf..  RCLC has talked about "shared wifi" but that only covers IP; the tagging by RCLC could just as well be mundane cover for socking.   Given the technical indistinguishability here, it appears fairly clear that there is at least MEAT, if not SOCKing.  The throwing up of chaff in So, I find this attack upon me and my character to be wholly unwarranted. makes this all the more lacking in credibility. This bit from the deleted NuVasive page (kindly posted above) -- I would also like to invite to the conversation as the individual has recently made edits to the article appears especially deceptive.  It is not a bad thing to have a conflict of interest; it is a bad thing to obscure it, as RCLC actively has, and to MEAT or SOCK -- one of the two of which is very clearly going on.
 * At this board we deal with the COI issues. RCLC, please disclose your relationship with NuVasive.  It would be best all around if you made it clear whether the interactions with the other accounts are MEAT or SOCK.  If you come clean, simply, about what is going on with Nuvasive and these other accounts, there is a way forward. There is. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * CONSIDER ME SHOCKED. I am not a meat or sock puppet. I do not maintain any other accounts other than this one RightCowLeftCoast. I am not any of the cheetah accounts. I am not Mikefarrington11 or any of the other usernames. While I work at the same location as NuVasive for one of my employers, I am not a direct employee of NuVasive or Gregory T. Lucier. NuVasive has a publicly available wifi at the location I am editing from at this time, and I edit through this publicly available wifi. I have not been paid to edit on behalf of NuVasive, Gregory T. Lucier, or any of my employers or organizations which I have, or had, associations with. To accuse me of such, is hurtful IMHO.
 * My real identity is known to WMF and it is known I am only RightCowLeftCoast, and am not Gregory T. Lucier, Mikefarrington11, or any other person, other than who I am.
 * If feeling impugned is a knock against me, then consider it a knock.
 * I have been editing since 2006 as an IP, and since 2009 as this username since.
 * My edits have largely been within areas that are not within the interest of NuVasive or Gregory T. Lucier, therefore to cast my few edits about it as a violation of COI is something I find concerning. If I have violated COI in the past, it was inadvertent and was not my intention.
 * IMHO none of my edits have advanced the interest of NuVasive or Gregory T. Lucier, and I find this entirely absurd that I am being accused of being a Meat puppet or sock puppet. I have ever right to feel impugned to have this allegation thrown at me. If broadly construed apparent COI is anything I have a connection to, I shouldn't edit anything about or within the United States as I am a citizen of it, I shouldn't edit anything about or within anything that relates to Filipinos, as I am of that ethnicity, I shouldn't edit anything in particular about or within the County of San Diego as I am active in the usergroup whose region is that aforementioned county. And so on and so forth. If COI were to be taken to such extremes, no one would edit anything that is within hundreds of miles of them.
 * If I am defensive than accept my apology, but that won't change how I feel about it. I am of the opinion that the threat of getting me indefinitely banned due to the false accusation that I am a meat or sock puppet is a direct threat against my continued work on Wikipedia and other WMF projects and activities.
 * After this I might as well go on a wiki-break from having had my character assaulted as what has occurred above. But I am sure there are some who would like that. -- Right Cow Left Coast  (Moo) 01:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 100% chaff and distraction; no simple disclosure. This is not the way forward. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous, you are menacing Jytdog. RCLC has clearly stated that they are not employed by NuVasive and they have not been paid by anybody to edit the aforementioned articles.  It can't get any more clear than that and you cannot force them to out themselves and you have already been blocked for outing.  The explanation that this person works in close proximity and thus shares a free wifi with the NuVasive network is totally believable.  They made a single edit over one year ago suggested that the CEO of said company was not noteworthy of a Wiki article in fact suggests that they would be editing against their own interests in they were in fact employed by NuVasive.
 * The way this is being handled is wildly inappropriate. There is no justification to bring this case against them because they don't have an apparent COI, they deny working for the company, and they deny getting paid.  This should stop there.  Even if there was reason to continue, trying to force an outing on COIN is despicable.  You should go through an admin privately or the WMF contact that knows RCLC personally to deal with the issue judiciously.  At the very worst, RCLC could agree to simply not edit articles related to NuVasive anymore which isn't a problem because they don't even currently do that. This is not to mention that NuVasive has over 2,400 employees so it should be no surprise that multiple wikipedians could show up as having used that same IP address and not be coordinating with one another. Shame on you. 2604:2000:E0CF:5100:41FC:D066:875B:F0A7 (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * IP, COI is a broader issue than just being paid (please read WP:COI) and there is very clearly SOCK or MEAT going on here. We are looking for RCLC to simply disclose all this.  The distraction by you and by RCLC is just unhelpful to resolving this so we can all move on. There is a simple way forward for RCLC for things to be OK; there are also simple ways for the community to resolve things if there is just more of the same. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Why did you choose to edit the article, ? It is apparent from your contribs that you weren't doing some kind of coincidental page curation that would have placed this article in front of you. What brought you to it?

In general terms, would it ever be appropriate that those with affiliations would be the ones to regulate which tags are allowed on the article or perform article assessments? You removed what looks to be a valid POV tag from the article. You could have simply placed your COI tag as an additional one instead of removing the other. The language of the article was clearly non-neutral puffery.

NuVasive, Inc., based in San Diego, California, is a global medical device company focused on transforming spine surgery by empowering surgeons with technology to approach procedures in the least disruptive way possible and restore the vitality of life for those that suffer from debilitating spinal conditions. Their mission statement is to improve the lives of patients who suffer from debilitating back, neck, or leg pain by creating cutting-edge products and procedures that revolutionize spine surgery through focusing on Speed of Innovation®, Absolute Responsiveness®, and Superior Clinical Results.

Through innovative technological advancements, NuVasive has successfully progressed major spine surgery to where many patients have experienced extraordinary results—they are often walking the same day of surgery, experiencing less blood loss, spending less time in the hospital, and going back to work within four to six weeks (versus six months).

NuVasive is the 3rd largest company in the $9 billion global spine market and is publicly traded on the NASDAQ under the symbol NUVA.

NuVasive offers more than 90 products spanning lumbar, thoracic, and cervical applications, neuromonitoring services, and a biologics portfolio. Their most popular devices are used in spinal surgery.
 * XLIF - a minimally disruptive surgical procedure performed through the side of the body
 * ACDF - cervical spine surgery from the front of the neck that addresses spinal symptoms
 * ALIF - a procedure where surgeons work on the lower spine from the front and fuse one or more vertebrae together
 * CoRoent Small Interbody System - interbody cage cleared for use in up to 4 contiguous cervical-disk levels

On June 6, 2016, NuVasive acquired Biotronic Neuronetwork, the nation's leader in intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. Biotronic strives to provide the highest quality intraoperative neural monitoring services supported by an industry leading quality assurance program.

On March 7, 2016, NuVasive acquired Mega Surgical, the exclusive distributor of NuVasive products in Brazil. Mega Surgical was founded in 1996 as an implantable medical device distribution company.

On January 5, 2016, NuVasive acquired Ellipse Technologies, a privately held medical technology company focused on revolutionizing procedural solutions for complex skeletal deformity and leg lengthening with patented technologies involving External Remote Controllers (ERC).

In 2015, NuVasive was forced to pay the United States $13.5 million to resolve allegations that they made health care providers submit false Medicare claims for spine surgeries by marketing the company’s CoRoent System for surgical uses that were not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.


 * The NuVasive Spine Foundation is dedicated to providing life-changing spine surgery to individuals in disadvantaged communities across the globe and advancing spine surgery technology in these communities by training local surgeons.
 * The Better Way Back is a program built on the power of empathy dedicated to building a community that provides hope, support, and information to patients suffering from chronic back, leg, or neck pain.

You removed the tag on a technical issue that there wasn't a post on the talk page but really, was that the correct course of action when it is that obvious? Are you telling us that you don't see non-NPOV language in that? The editor after you used "revert promotional b*llsh*t" in their edit summary which implies that it was that obvious.

Why didn't you gut the promotional language out or alternately post to this noticeboard for the COI? The puffery was left in article space like an advertisement until another editor cleaned it up about three weeks later. You elevated the mostly unreferenced ad to start class. Why? While choosing to edit the article, you didn't really assist with remedying the problems. How did you expect the remedies for this article to come about? — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to acknowledge that I've seen this, since I was tagged earlier in this thread. I don't have the time to take a careful look at all of the evidence to determine culpability. I'm disappointed in how RCLC in particular has been addressed, though. Why the hostility? Airplaneman  ✈  00:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * represents themselves as copyright holder of the Nuvasive logo, and the VP of Global Marketing happens to be named Michael Farrington. –dlthewave ☎ 20:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've been following the discussion, and there's been unnecessarily hostile language in my opinion. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC); refactored to remove specific mention of Jytdog 04:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, not the Jytdog-isnt-nice noticeboard. Could we keep this discussion on point? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I refactored the comment; apologies for the antagonistic tone. Limited comments on others' language, while perhaps against TPG#USE, is explicitly condoned by EQ. Talking about it here is preferable to starting a whole section about it on another noticeboard. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Resolution of this matter is dependent mostly on RCLC disclosing. Waiting... Jytdog (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd like to remind you from WP:COI, when investigating COI editing, do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Wikipedia's policy against harassment, in particular, the prohibition against disclosing personal information, takes precedence over this guideline. And also from the arbitration motion, "Jytdog is strongly warned any subsequent incident in which you reveal non-public information about another user will result in an indefinite block or siteban by the Arbitration Committee. To avoid ambiguity, 'non-public information' includes (but is not limited to) any information about another user including legal names and pseudonyms, workplace, job title, or contact details, which that user has not disclosed themselves on the English Wikipedia or other WMF project."
 * RCLC has disclosed they are not an employee of NuVasive nor are they a paid editor. You can't do anything about RLCL editing on a public IP address and having other people use the same IP more than a year later. Feel free to keep pushing for disclosure, but you risk consequences. 2604:2000:E0CF:5100:8036:9C96:B7DB:F52B (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I reiterate, I am not a meat or sock puppet. I have made my disclosures above, which I thought would have cleared things up. I cannot help if other editors do not believe me, and do not take my disclosures on good faith, and continue to believe I am a meat or sock puppet, or that I had/have/will have a COI regarding the articles mentioned in this discussion. If it is the view of some other editors above that I did not go further with my few edits on the now deleted article, then I apologize I didn't do what they thought I should have done, or did what they would have done if they were me editing that article. Yet at the same time, that might have been a worse course of action for some other editors opinion of my edits, as based on the statements above by other editors it is their opinion that I should not have made any edits at all, and doing so would only fuel their suspicion of my editing activity. Damned if I did, damned if I didn't. Regardless in either direction in the POV of some editors, I am bad faith editor and shouldn't be on any WMF project based on what appears to be their already established opinion(s) about me. Broadly construed I could have a COI regarding anything that I have an interest in, relating to my ethnicity, my nationality, where I live, etc. and therefore if the broadly construed COI statement were to be taken extreme I shouldn't edit anything within the subject areas where I do my majority of editing as they relate to things within the area where I live, my relationship to the military of the United States, my ethnicity, my hobbies, etc. An editor above expressed a want to get me indef banned. Another editor above has hounded me in the past, and now I see that they are editing here in this topic. This is causing me significant anxiety, thus increasing my feeling that I am being targeted for harassment and threats, and I request that this inquiry cease, and we all move on to more constructive uses of our time.-- Right Cow Left Coast  (Moo) 02:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Afiniti


Hello. I am not sure this is the proper forum, but I noticed that this article with a history of G5, SPI and COIN was recreated recently, so it might be worth a glance. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Mauro Collagreco


I have a lot of Michelin starred on my watchlist, so I noticed this massive edit on the article about Mauro Collagreco. Largely unsourced and plain advertising. We had a polite discussion at my talke page about my revert. In that discussion he stated I've been commissioned by Mauro Collagreco himself to make these edits.. I advised him to make a formal declaration of his COI on this user page, but nothing happened on that point. But today he was back again with a massive promo piece. I have reduced the list of restaurant to the plain fact, without the promo and hallelujah. And I have removed the list of experiences completely as irrelevant and promotion, although sourced. His talk page gives me reason of concern.

Any advice how Wiki.chefs can be turned in a proper editor? The Banner talk 14:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I've added a uw-paid2 notice on their talk page in hopes they will respond to the question of being paid editor. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Brian Charrington


Brian Charrington is a major drug dealer and known as the "Wikipedia Narco" because he edited his own Wikipedia bio and the police used his IP or something to track him down and arrest him in 2013. How should we handle the Brian Charrington article because it was created by an IP from Spain (where Carrington was arrested) and appears to be largely unsourced and contains lots of details no one would know, other than probably Charrington. I've opened a discussion on the talk page. Green C  21:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Article COI Flag Removal - Request for help
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 made edits to Mitchell Goldhar's article before declaring a COI. We recognize this was wrong. Can you please help me understand the process to have the flag removed from the article, and have the employee's edits reversed? Thank you in advance for your help. Mandymail (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin, so forgive me if I get any little details wrong; but it looks like the edits were already reverted by another editor. Oh, and if you haven't already you should read the conflict of interest guidelines. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. If the edits were already reverted, do you know the process to have the article flags removed?  I have reviewed the conflict of interest guidelines but do not see how to have flags removed once everything is corrected.  Thank you for your help.  Mandymail (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately not... this isn't really my field of expertise; I just was bored and reading through and saw you asked a question, heh. Im sure someone more qualified than I am will respond soon. By the way, this is a bit off topic... but when you responded to my comment you only put one ":" in front of it; ideally you should put two to make it clear that your responding to my comment and not the main thread; you'll notice that I responded to yours by putting my message directly below yours and using ":::". If you were to respond to this comment you would use "::::" and put it directly below mine. I already added "::" to your comment though so don't worry about it. But, enough with my off topic silliness, heh. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Your too infrequently posted list of suspicious articles

 * Draftified
 * Draftied,
 * ok
 * Historical woman
 * At AfD Articles for deletion/APPSeCONNECT
 * At AfD Articles for deletion/Apto
 * Not a lot of refs, but exceedingly famous.
 * At Afd Articles for deletion/Casandra Lopez
 * At Articles for deletion/DOOGEE
 * Draftified. Non encyclopedic.
 * draftified
 * Queen's Service Medal, probably OK
 * Promotional but cleaned.
 * At Articles for deletion/GEET Engine
 * At Afd Articles for deletion/Harvest Exchange
 * Ok. Famous Disney director
 * Scientific theory, nothing suspicious. Article up for a merger discussion
 * clear
 * clear
 * - promotional article; article creator has hallmarks of UPE
 * Draftified
 * ok
 * ok
 * Cleaned
 * At Articles for deletion/Rippling (company). Classic startup
 * history article.
 * draftifed, likely created by coi editor
 * cleaned
 * draftified; created by a disclosed paid editor, but was not sent through AfC
 * nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/SVAKOM Design USA Limited
 * Promotional, now cleaned
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * At Articles for deletion/DOOGEE
 * Draftified. Non encyclopedic.
 * draftified
 * Queen's Service Medal, probably OK
 * Promotional but cleaned.
 * At Articles for deletion/GEET Engine
 * At Afd Articles for deletion/Harvest Exchange
 * Ok. Famous Disney director
 * Scientific theory, nothing suspicious. Article up for a merger discussion
 * clear
 * clear
 * - promotional article; article creator has hallmarks of UPE
 * Draftified
 * ok
 * ok
 * Cleaned
 * At Articles for deletion/Rippling (company). Classic startup
 * history article.
 * draftifed, likely created by coi editor
 * cleaned
 * draftified; created by a disclosed paid editor, but was not sent through AfC
 * nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/SVAKOM Design USA Limited
 * Promotional, now cleaned
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * Draftified. Non encyclopedic.
 * draftified
 * Queen's Service Medal, probably OK
 * Promotional but cleaned.
 * At Articles for deletion/GEET Engine
 * At Afd Articles for deletion/Harvest Exchange
 * Ok. Famous Disney director
 * Scientific theory, nothing suspicious. Article up for a merger discussion
 * clear
 * clear
 * - promotional article; article creator has hallmarks of UPE
 * Draftified
 * ok
 * ok
 * Cleaned
 * At Articles for deletion/Rippling (company). Classic startup
 * history article.
 * draftifed, likely created by coi editor
 * cleaned
 * draftified; created by a disclosed paid editor, but was not sent through AfC
 * nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/SVAKOM Design USA Limited
 * Promotional, now cleaned
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * At Afd Articles for deletion/Harvest Exchange
 * Ok. Famous Disney director
 * Scientific theory, nothing suspicious. Article up for a merger discussion
 * clear
 * clear
 * - promotional article; article creator has hallmarks of UPE
 * Draftified
 * ok
 * ok
 * Cleaned
 * At Articles for deletion/Rippling (company). Classic startup
 * history article.
 * draftifed, likely created by coi editor
 * cleaned
 * draftified; created by a disclosed paid editor, but was not sent through AfC
 * nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/SVAKOM Design USA Limited
 * Promotional, now cleaned
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * clear
 * clear
 * - promotional article; article creator has hallmarks of UPE
 * Draftified
 * ok
 * ok
 * Cleaned
 * At Articles for deletion/Rippling (company). Classic startup
 * history article.
 * draftifed, likely created by coi editor
 * cleaned
 * draftified; created by a disclosed paid editor, but was not sent through AfC
 * nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/SVAKOM Design USA Limited
 * Promotional, now cleaned
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * clear
 * - promotional article; article creator has hallmarks of UPE
 * Draftified
 * ok
 * ok
 * Cleaned
 * At Articles for deletion/Rippling (company). Classic startup
 * history article.
 * draftifed, likely created by coi editor
 * cleaned
 * draftified; created by a disclosed paid editor, but was not sent through AfC
 * nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/SVAKOM Design USA Limited
 * Promotional, now cleaned
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * clear
 * - promotional article; article creator has hallmarks of UPE
 * Draftified
 * ok
 * ok
 * Cleaned
 * At Articles for deletion/Rippling (company). Classic startup
 * history article.
 * draftifed, likely created by coi editor
 * cleaned
 * draftified; created by a disclosed paid editor, but was not sent through AfC
 * nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/SVAKOM Design USA Limited
 * Promotional, now cleaned
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * clear
 * - promotional article; article creator has hallmarks of UPE
 * Draftified
 * ok
 * ok
 * Cleaned
 * At Articles for deletion/Rippling (company). Classic startup
 * history article.
 * draftifed, likely created by coi editor
 * cleaned
 * draftified; created by a disclosed paid editor, but was not sent through AfC
 * nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/SVAKOM Design USA Limited
 * Promotional, now cleaned
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * clear
 * - promotional article; article creator has hallmarks of UPE
 * Draftified
 * ok
 * ok
 * Cleaned
 * At Articles for deletion/Rippling (company). Classic startup
 * history article.
 * draftifed, likely created by coi editor
 * cleaned
 * draftified; created by a disclosed paid editor, but was not sent through AfC
 * nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/SVAKOM Design USA Limited
 * Promotional, now cleaned
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * - promotional article; article creator has hallmarks of UPE
 * Draftified
 * ok
 * ok
 * Cleaned
 * At Articles for deletion/Rippling (company). Classic startup
 * history article.
 * draftifed, likely created by coi editor
 * cleaned
 * draftified; created by a disclosed paid editor, but was not sent through AfC
 * nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/SVAKOM Design USA Limited
 * Promotional, now cleaned
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * Draftified
 * ok
 * ok
 * Cleaned
 * At Articles for deletion/Rippling (company). Classic startup
 * history article.
 * draftifed, likely created by coi editor
 * cleaned
 * draftified; created by a disclosed paid editor, but was not sent through AfC
 * nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/SVAKOM Design USA Limited
 * Promotional, now cleaned
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * Cleaned
 * At Articles for deletion/Rippling (company). Classic startup
 * history article.
 * draftifed, likely created by coi editor
 * cleaned
 * draftified; created by a disclosed paid editor, but was not sent through AfC
 * nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/SVAKOM Design USA Limited
 * Promotional, now cleaned
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * history article.
 * draftifed, likely created by coi editor
 * cleaned
 * draftified; created by a disclosed paid editor, but was not sent through AfC
 * nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/SVAKOM Design USA Limited
 * Promotional, now cleaned
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * draftifed, likely created by coi editor
 * cleaned
 * draftified; created by a disclosed paid editor, but was not sent through AfC
 * nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/SVAKOM Design USA Limited
 * Promotional, now cleaned
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * cleaned
 * draftified; created by a disclosed paid editor, but was not sent through AfC
 * nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/SVAKOM Design USA Limited
 * Promotional, now cleaned
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/SVAKOM Design USA Limited
 * Promotional, now cleaned
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * Promotional, now cleaned
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * Promotional, now cleaned
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * draftified
 * normal expansion, ce.
 * normal expansion, ce.

Triage for socks/covert advertising/false positives from others is welcome. MER-C 15:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * that is quite a list. I will keep an eye out for any articles in the new page feed that are on the list, and will try to leave comments on articles' status.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

List to 9 November

 * PRODded
 * aka Articles for deletion/Carolina K
 * PRODded
 * AfD
 * PRODded
 * aka Articles for deletion/Carolina K
 * PRODded
 * AfD
 * aka Articles for deletion/Carolina K
 * PRODded
 * AfD
 * aka Articles for deletion/Carolina K
 * PRODded
 * AfD
 * aka Articles for deletion/Carolina K
 * PRODded
 * AfD
 * PRODded
 * AfD
 * PRODded
 * AfD
 * PRODded
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD
 * AfD

Gotta keep those at AFD and SPI busy :) MER-C 21:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

List to 17 November


Of particular note, I'm thinking of quarantining

and taking admin action against their respective creators for covert advertising. Thoughts? MER-C 15:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi they are full of native advertising and assert WP:NCORP. The  is probably notable, although it can be discussed. Having anything downloaded 150,000,000 times has got to be notable, although the article is rank. Reads like a small brochure. scope_creep (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that can stay either. scope_creep (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Reddit ad seeking to ad external links to medical articles

 * 

Claims to be looking for experienced editors to add external links to dental articles. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 01:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good find! Their comments indicate a relationship with authoritydental.org. My search didn't turn up any links to that site, and none of the dentistry-related articles that I checked showed any recently-added links, but let's keep our eyes on it. –dlthewave ☎ 17:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it just me, or is the link no longer accessible? The original post link is now saying the post has been locked. – numbermaniac  01:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It was always locked I believe; most reddit ads seem to be locked like that. Signed, your local not-an-admin, TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * currently no links to it. If it appears it will go onto the spamblacklist.   01:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (and anyone else interested), the information provided above leads me to think this company should be checked.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (and anyone else interested), the information provided above leads me to think this company should be checked.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Possible UDP/COI


Arjunfilmantena created 6 articles so far and uploaded a number of images as own work including two of them with EXIF data. I tried but, can't find those images online and this implies a close connection between the uploader and the subject. I left a paid warning on his talk page twice, he ignored the first one and then responded to the second one that Not a Paid Editor Vijay Moolan is an Indian Film Producer but did not reply to my question regarding the image he uploaded. Pinging if he wants to share anything. Thank you – GSS (talk |c|em ) 14:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * it seems likely that this is a case of coi/udp editing; the EXIF data attached to some of the images uploaded is particularly suspicious. Given that the editor in question is the creator/principal editor of the majority of the articles linked above, I support moving the article to the draftspace for possible salvage via AFC later; I will conduct these moves myself if other editors support such an action. A SPI may also be in the works involving Arjunfilmantena.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is some good evidence that Arjunfilmantena runs a company that provide some services including film production, public relation, social media marketing etc. so I believe this is definitely a case of undisclosed paid editing. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS (talk |c|em ) 15:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that the editor has now been blocked for persistent sockpuppetry (see Sockpuppet investigations/Arjunfilmantena), I will take the WP:BOLD step of quarantining most of the articles (one is up for deletion at Articles for deletion/Vijay Moolan) listed in this thread and tagging them with udp/coi templates. These moves can be reverted, per WP:MOVE.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2018 (UT
 * for taking care of this matter. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS (talk |c|em ) 08:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

User_talk:Swapnil4995


User has made several promotional edits regarding Verificient Technologies, Inc. even after receiving a COI notice, it has been G11'd three times now. See this edit for blatant advertising regarding that article. Kb03 (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Media.net


All of the editor's edits have been to add links to blogs. The editor's user talk page contained a statement that they were the CEO of a company that apparently is in the business of promoting blogs. After I placed a CEO warning on the editor TP, they blanked the user page. A week later, the editor added another promotional link. O3000 (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing but pure spam. Blocked. MER-C 20:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Journalists cite references from their home organization?
Hi! I would like to open up a discussion regarding whether Journalists can cite references from their home publication or not? Something like a Wikipedian in residence, but instead of for a GLAM, it would be for a journalistic organization (that is a reliable source) instead? The goal here is to get journalists onboard to help contribute to Wikipedia, and the ability to reference material from their home organizations will largely help their efforts. Thanks! -Object404 (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This might be worth exploring, but there would likely be many objections from well-established editors and folks who frequent this page. Some thoughts:
 * There would have to be an organized project which would self-police the Wikipedia Journalists-in-Residence (WJIRs)
 * WJIRs would have to be at established print newspapers, or perhaps radio and television. No internet startups, blogs, gamers magazines, product review rags,  local or specialist business journals (with maybe a few exceptions)
 * WP:NOTNEWS says that we're not here to cover the news, so in many cases the added refs would have to be "old news"
 * No promotion of any kind
 * No promotion of the newspaper
 * No promotion of the subjects covered
 * I could probably go on for awhile, but you should be getting my drift by now. Why don't you come up with a more formal proposal?  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why no Internet startups? There are journalistic Internet startups like Rappler which fall under reliable sources. In fact, Rappler has passed the very stringent requirements to be a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network at Poynter. Rappler was started by veteran journalists and acts just like traditional print (or TV) journalism that has transitioned to the web, except it has no print (or TV) medium. -Object404 (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, it might not even be a Wikipedian Journalist in Residence model... It might be any random journalist of the news organization who just so happens to be a Wikipedian (or aspires to be a productive, contributing Wikipedian)... would it be an acceptable balance if the individual editor cites content from his/her organization, except for articles he/she has written (must not cite articles he/she has written)? WP:NOTNEWS taken into account and no promotion intended. Let's also say that content from the home organization of the journalist are not the only sources the journalist cites? -Object404 (talk) 07:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Two thoughts:
 * We recently had a case here where somebody was WP:REFSPAMming a column from the Washington Post into many pages. The case is here. That was bizarre.
 * Since WP is WP:NOTNEWS I don't know if a "journalist in residence" makes a lot of sense... we don't want the person trying to do journalism here.  Jytdog (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * On item 1 - that is certainly not what I had in mind as you can gather from my above comment.
 * On item 2 - see my above comment about "might not even a journalist in residence". -Object404 (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

A. I think that this could be done in a very good way that could really help Wikipedia. Imagine a Wikipedia project composed of WJIRs from e.g. the New York Times, WaPo, Chicago Trib, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, LA Times, etc., with some small town star newspapers, and perhaps NPR, BBC and/or C-SPAN. They get a list of citations needed for specific articles within their areas of coverage. The WJIR does the research on which articles of theirs (or others) document the facts and puts a brief commentary on whether the non-referenced statement is true together with the reference link onto the talk page. Beautiful - nobody could complain about that - could they? B) Now imagine that there is no Wikipedia Project. We just post something about journalists being invited to contribute links. So we get the National Schlock Stock Pumper, the GooGoo Game Reporter, and Bob's New Blog, etc. placing unneeded refspam in our articles. Nobody would want that would they?
 * I'm not sure about why the newspapers would want to support this, but apparently somebody at WaPo wanted to do something similar. The papers should also realize that many WIRs are unpaid - so they might want to go with that model, based on just getting their audience involved more closely with them.

So, it's up to the proposer to make a more formal proposal IMHO. If it looks like it might develop into A, I'd enthusiastically support it. If it looks more like B, I'd oppose. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * B) -> No. Not just contribute links, but also do article text edits in an encyclopedic manner (and hopefully even wikimedia uploads like images/videos/audio w/ open licensing). I don't think it will necessarily lead to refspam. -Object404 (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To add a bit more clarity to the discussion, the idea as it currently looks like is to train journalists how to edit Wikipedia. They would learn how to write encyclopedically about topics, how to upload media to Commons, NPOV, etc., while at the same time they would be able to cite material from their publications (of course excluding articles they themselves have written) on Wikipedia. Option A may complement that, but currently the idea is actually getting the journalists involved as editors. --<b style="color: #0066ff">Sky Harbor</b> (<b style="color:#0066ff">talk</b>) 17:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems like a good idea. looking at the comments made towards the WaPo journalist contributor, while concerns about promotion is something to guard against, the language used reminded me of WP:DONTBITE. We don't want to scare aware new, or existing, editors, as editor retention is a known issue for the community. Journalist may make great new editors, as in the past when our community has sought to increase the number of librarians, or academics. -- Right Cow Left Coast  (Moo) 05:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no interest in trying to stop professional writers and communicators from adding reliable sources to pages since we have millions of pages that could use more (or even one) spurce. Legacypac (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Chatham House


I think this article needs someone independent to review it, two major contributors User:Rafaellacj and User:Nickcapeling both work for Chatham House (see their user pages). Currently the article reads a bit like an advert....


 * User:Nickcapeling (Head of Digital Content at Chatham House) removed criticism of the organisation here with a false edit summary (removed a citation as it no longer exists).


 * User:Rafaellacj writes on his userpage I work for Chatham House and am being paid to write the London Conference 2015 article. I assume this refers to The Chatham House London Conference 2015.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)