Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 143

Deborah Bright


Here we have five single-purpose accounts that have made large additions to Deborah Bright in the past six weeks. None of the accounts have made any other contribs. Might be a class project but there is nothing to be found to say so. It also makes no sense that five students would be editing one page and nothing else. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment on the article talk page says that it's a class project. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good to know, this can therefore be closed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

SJK_171 old

 * N/A for now
 * N/A for now

Autobiography/COI editing delayed discovery. Seeking input on how to approach this one. I've tagged the article as connnected contributor for now, but want to know the right way to go about it. I haven't named the editor yet since I don't know the generally accepted practice for handling matters of this natureGraywalls (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Submitted to AfD, as I don't think it meets notability. If it survives that, it will need to be very heavily reworked/trimmed, because it's clearly WP:AB right now. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Withdrew my AfD. Worked through the article, removed a lot of puffery/NPOV, hopefully it's improved.  Thanks to User:ThatMontrealIP for the edits! BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

User:DWThoener


User made promotional/BLP edits on their own User page, which I have nominated for Speedy Deletion. By the looks of it, this may be a promotional account. IanDBeacon (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Utah English


This brand-new article is almost entirely sourced with Brigham Young University papers added here by Wikipedia editors affiliated with Brigham Young University. In my personal opinion, Utah English may justify a section under Western American English but not its own entire article. Wolfdog (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that we've shown well enough that this topic deserves its own article. The existing section under Western American English is small and doesn't have enough of note about Utah English. It is true that it is still up for debate whether or not it is a full dialect, or just a unique part of Western American English, but that's also true for California English and Pacific Northwest English, and both of those have articles. Utah English has enough unique history and features behind it that it deserves its own article. If you noticed, in the heading and in the "Research" section, we explicitly said that Utah English may not be a full dialect, which I think solves your concern about whether or not Utah English justifies an article or just a section This article is also not "almost entirely sourced" with papers from here at BYU, several of them are from the American Speech academic journal and researchers at the University of Utah, but those that are written by people at BYU are credible academic sources, excluding the two news articles that we added and only cited once or twice. Part of the reason that we chose to write this article is because we're both students at BYU; I'm a linguistics major here, but I'm from California and my partner is from Maryland. Neither of us actually speak Utah English, but we're in a place where we observe it, and it was interesting to us, which is why we wrote about it, which I think can show that there isn't really a conflict of interest. The people interested in a topic and writing about it are going to be in a place where it is more prevalent, which is true for both of us. I would argue that this article should not have been deleted due to "lack of discussion" after 4 days, 2 of which were the weekend, and that the article does deserve its own page, which I think we have shown due to our sources, the history behind Utah English, and the precedent set on Wikipedia for articles about dialects or sub-dialects that may not be full dialects, but still have existing pages because there are enough differences and history that they deserve a page. Peterjwms (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see my response at Talk:Utah English. Wolfdog (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Michael Daugherty


The volume of hyper-specific, unnecessary, and irrelevant information on this article is baffling. His list of students, in the 'Teaching: Oberlin, Michigan, residencies, and service' tab, includes a number of individuals who it appears are still in school, and that in conjunction with the detailed mass of personal information asks the question of whether or not he's editing his own article. 2600:1702:1DE0:8BA0:1C02:7D05:CCAE:20A1 (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty clearly has been edited by the subject, so WP:AB issues, but doesn't look like that's happened recently, most recent appears to be in 2015. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Guy McPherson
The article concerns someone who predicts humans will go extinct by 2030. It is a WP:FRINGE science topic. It has been edited by SPA User:PESchneider who claims to be the partner of Guy McPherson. It has also been edited by User:68.129.132.213 who is "Guy himself", according to PESchneider. They have routinely added promotional material such as pictures of Guy McPherson T-Shirts and other promotional language. They routinely delete content that is critical of Guy McPherson. I have warned them repeatedly about COI but they ignore it or don't consider it important. They claim the material in the article that is critical of McPherson (reliably sourced) is "libelous", and that I am "suspicious" and a "vandal". -- Green  C  05:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Green C removed my post and removed my edits from Guy McPherson's LBP. He is harassing me and my partner, Guy McPherson, by refusing us the ability to correctly edit Guy's LBP. Conservation science is not WP:FRINGEscience. The Sixth Mass Extinction is not WP:FRINGEscience. You can see the evidence below that Green C is out of order. We cannot even complete a proper edit before he corrupts the page and has now permalinked it so that it cannot be corrected. It has been improperly edited for nearly three years while we were in Belize without internet. Grammar is terrible, language is awful, facts are incorrect, and WP:FRINGEscience articles not posted by any scientist are less than worthy to post. The peer-reviewed scientific journal and publications were unscrupulously removed by Green C. He is a vandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PESchneider (talk • contribs) Here is my original posting at LBP notice that Green C felt so scared of he had to post here:

Green C. removed copious amounts of information but left potentially libelous content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guy_McPherson&diff=896997148&oldid=896994688

Green C continues to vandalize my edit corrections to a previous and incorrect edit that does not represent the facts of what Guy McPherson does, says or believes. Green C also continues to restore potentially libelous material from questionable links. Green C also removed a photo of a shirt with the logo of Guy McPherson's website stating it was potentially COI and promotional, which is nonsense. Photos of individuals in Extinction Rebellion Tshirts abound.

His edits are arbitrary and suspicious and he changed information that was corrected by Guy McPherson himself. 68.129.132.213 is Guy McPherson. How do I know? I'm his partner, PESchneider, and was sitting next to him editing the site when Green C began to vandalize the site. Who knows best what Guy McPherson means than McPherson himself. Please stop Green C from changing these edits anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=896994688&oldid=896992738&title=Guy_McPherson

Green C. removed copious amounts of information but left potentially libelous content.

peschneider 14, May 1:18am New York — Preceding unsigned comment added by PESchneider (talk • contribs)


 * The correct way for you to edit the article is to follow the guidance at Conflict of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Subsequent discussion at Talk:Guy McPherson appears to have de-escalated this content dispute. I believe the matter here can be considered settled. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Oakdale Christian Academy


Userpage says that the user is the founder of a marketing firm, created promotional-looking Oakdale Christian Academy (a draft version previously was deleted per G11). No response to COI post on user talk. creffett (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Submitted for Speedy Delete per G11. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And removed speedy shortly after. I despise paid and COI editing, but the subject is undeniably notable. Deletion isn't appropriate. John from Idegon (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this thread is premature. I've made some drastic edits to the article. If there is opposition, perhaps then we have something to talk about. The failure to respond to the UPE notice is troubling, but it's only been a day. failed to notify the subject of the thread as required. I'll take care of that for him. John from Idegon (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought notification would be done automatically by filling out the templates (though in retrospect that was a silly assumption on my part), will remember that for next time. creffett (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , that applies at every noticeboard except AIV and SPI, and of course if there are clear reasons not to. John from Idegon (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Guy McPherson


I am incredibly frustrated by your system. I have been trying to correct errors of syntax, spelling, grammar, facts, and add new information all evening, but this troll, Green c, removes all the corrections and I really would like to be done in this century. I have copied the trolling vandal, Green C's nonsense comments below. He has disallowed Guy McPherson to edit his own BLP with facts. This is outrageous. And Green C has rationalized this with some kind of conflict of interest nonsense. Please remove this fool, ban him from being allowed anywhere near Guy McPherson's BLP. PESchneider (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You say that that Green c "has disallowed Guy McPherson to edit his own BLP with facts." If you are acting on behalf of Mr. McPherson, you should NOT be editing the article.  In addition, if you're acting on his behalf and are being compensated in any way by him, then that's undisclosed paid editing, which is a serious violation of Wikipedia's terms and conditions.  I've left a post on your talk page about how to come into compliance with the policy.  You should not make any more edits until you've responded to that post.  Once you're in compliance, if you have suggested changes/corrections/improvements, you're welcome to list them on the article's talk page, for editors without a Conflict of Interest to consider and (potentially) incorporate.  BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Like the section above, subsequent discussion at Talk:Guy McPherson appears to have settled this content dispute. This matter can be considered resolved. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Possible promotions in articles inside Template:Christianity in Kerala
and many more.


 * I was looking at this template and it seems to be filled with many non-notable churches and "christian retreats", I think most of those organizations are not eligible enough to have a wiki article, and some of them are written in a promotional tone. Thus they should be deleted. Can anyone confirm if I'm right. Daiyusha (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Catalent


Won't be able to look at this today, but I noticed recent edits at Catalent that could use another look-over. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Batch ending 19 April

 * G5, Wikibaji
 * A7
 * draftified to Draft:BelkaCar (2)
 * draftified to Draft:Bitkub
 * G11
 * G5, Wikibaji
 * PROD
 * dratified to Draft:ITribe Social Inc
 * PROD
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Parimatch
 * G12, 2010
 * G13, 2018 and G11, 2019
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Thirty-One Gifts
 * G11
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * draftified to Draft:Bitkub
 * G11
 * G5, Wikibaji
 * PROD
 * dratified to Draft:ITribe Social Inc
 * PROD
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Parimatch
 * G12, 2010
 * G13, 2018 and G11, 2019
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Thirty-One Gifts
 * G11
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * G5, Wikibaji
 * PROD
 * dratified to Draft:ITribe Social Inc
 * PROD
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Parimatch
 * G12, 2010
 * G13, 2018 and G11, 2019
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Thirty-One Gifts
 * G11
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * PROD
 * dratified to Draft:ITribe Social Inc
 * PROD
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Parimatch
 * G12, 2010
 * G13, 2018 and G11, 2019
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Thirty-One Gifts
 * G11
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * dratified to Draft:ITribe Social Inc
 * PROD
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Parimatch
 * G12, 2010
 * G13, 2018 and G11, 2019
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Thirty-One Gifts
 * G11
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * PROD
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Parimatch
 * G12, 2010
 * G13, 2018 and G11, 2019
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Thirty-One Gifts
 * G11
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Parimatch
 * G12, 2010
 * G13, 2018 and G11, 2019
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Thirty-One Gifts
 * G11
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * draftified to Draft:Parimatch
 * G12, 2010
 * G13, 2018 and G11, 2019
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Thirty-One Gifts
 * G11
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * G12, 2010
 * G13, 2018 and G11, 2019
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Thirty-One Gifts
 * G11
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Thirty-One Gifts
 * G11
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Thirty-One Gifts
 * G11
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Thirty-One Gifts
 * G11
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Thirty-One Gifts
 * G11
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * G11
 * draftified to Draft:Thirty-One Gifts
 * G11
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * draftified to Draft:Thirty-One Gifts
 * G11
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * G11
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * G11
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * G11
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019
 * A7, 2013; G11, 2018; A7/G11, 2019

Happy Easter, from the spammers. MER-C 10:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. You have drafted HealthPocket, Inc, but now there are 2 drafts for the same subject: Draft:HealthPocket and Draft:HealthPocket, Inc. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've history merged those two since Tramontinaberbera created one as a cut and paste move. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That draft is all the more interesting given this unblock request. MER-C 08:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Admins have been amenable to speedy deletion criteria G11 (promotion) and G5s (creation by blocked/banned, e.g. Wikibaji) in many cases. I didn't notice before, but at least one was eligible for G4, recreation of deleted article (Articles for deletion/Ulugbekhon Maksumov). Based on who did the moving perhaps the drafts are retained as honeypots? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That, and to minimise the amount of community time dealing with the trash. MER-C 09:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Steuart Pittman paid editing
Could an admin look at Draft:Steuart Pittman? I think it was deleted as copyvio then recreated and moved to mainspace. Bri.public (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It was. Even worse, the whole thing was a repeat performance: the first version had been created as a draft and then moved to mainspace without a proper AFC review, so I moved it back to draftspace and reviewed it to go over the reasons why it wasn't approvable in its original form (although I didn't notice the copyvio issue itself, there were still problems with the sourcing and with his basic notability claim not cleanly passing our inclusion criteria in the first place.) Then somebody else noticed the copyvio and deleted it afterward — but then the creator recreated it, used OTRS to cover off the copyright problem while still not actually addressing the basic notability issue at all, and then proceeded to ignore what I had already told them about "you don't get the privilege of moving the article into mainspace yourself without an AFC review" by doing exactly that again. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That editor I believe is in politician's employment and I have notified them of paid editing requirements. They partially self-outed as a county employee on the article's talkpage (now deleted) and are listed in this exec staff directory. We had an additional problem that they were personally attesting that the copyvio contributions made on taxpayer time were released by the county government. I'm not sure if that's allowed. Bri.public (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Batch ending 2 May


Lots of spam for everyone. MER-C 17:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Specialist LLC
I came across Wiki Specialist LLC, another paid spam outfit. Their website includes this gem:
 * Q: Is Wiki Specialist LLC affected by Wikipedia’s policy on paid editing and other related bans?
 * A: No company or individual can make any changes to its wiki page which leaves an open opportunity for the competitors to make wrong edits and add misinformation to defame the brand’s reputation. Wikipedia has banned many individuals and brands for disregarding this strict policy of the platform.
 * Wikipedia clearly states that “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” Wiki Specialists LLC updates and edits the page content as the outsourcing company in order to avoid any rule violation.

Helpfully, they have a list of articles on their website: At a quick glance several were written by the typical just-autoconfirmed sockfarm, but some weren't and seem to have been thrown in to look good. There are no paid editing disclosures on any of them. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , of late, multiple clients (especially academics) are forwarding mails from them to OTRS. Charges about 2000-2500 USD per article. &#x222F; WBG converse 07:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is a different group to the one targeting academics. There is one ticket about them that I just sent to OTRS. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Here we have a US company openly flaunting our terms of use. Is there any chance the Foundation could be persuaded to take legal action against them? John from Idegon (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Already blocked socks:

SPAs (all stale):

MER-C 16:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I wrote The H Collective (to complete a red link for The Parts You Lose), and I've never done any paid editing in 13+ years here. It's possible that IP editor engaged in undisclosed paid editing with these edits, but these were not problematic. If this company has any negative press, I would include it. It is simply too new to be anything other than basic coverage. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This is one of the many, many sites linked to Get Wikified. They are de-facto banned and we should G5 anything we can link to them. SmartSE (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , I am saying that I wrote that one article from scratch. The IP editing that I linked above is the only other contribution made and amounts to minor content-shuffling. In the case of this particular topic, there is no content based on paid editing. Like said, "some weren't [paid editing] and seem to have been thrown in to look good". The article should be evaluated separately from paid-editing concerns. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Paid deterioration of neutrality is only getting worse it looks like. I was surprised how pervasive connected contributor editing has been for local outfits... and now this. Graywalls (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

NGS1888


The user claims themself to be from the "marketing team at NGS". NGS is an abbreviation of the National Geographic Society, and 1888 is the year the society was founded. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 14:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I restored the article to the version just before NGS1888 came along. To quote their edit comment, "As a part of the marketing team at NGS, we had our team fact check the page and ensure that everything was reflected appropriately based on our website and historical documents." I've tagged the article as $UPE, since they have no clear disclosure on their talk page, but that tag can be removed once a few others have a look over the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This looks to me like someone attempting to disclose a COI and cooperate transparently with Wikipedia on improving their article. That said they should be informed that they should not make direct edits and rather discuss their edits on the talk page. El komodos drago (talk to me) 09:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * There edits look to primarily be legitimate minor error corrections (spelling, capitalization, etc) that did in fact significantly improve the page, they should have been proposed on the talk page with a full disclosure of bias but tbh this is the least egregious example of editing by a marketing team I’ve ever seen. Personally I would be in favor of restoring their edits. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

SJK 171 redux


Article had been extensively edited by SPA and appeared here earlier. Article was reworked by several editors (including and ) to remove WP:AB issues, but the user has returned to editing. The images in the article of the subject's artwork were submitted by that user as "own work," which implies either a COI problem or a licensing problem with the images. Have posted on user's talk page about COI, but gotten no response. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not being paid or compensated I am a fan correcting information and you guys keep erasing it even though I am adding credible information with cited sources..

Can you please explain to me why I am not allowed to make changes with factual information? The image was uploaded as own work as an accident as I thought that was the correct way to upload a picture I took. I took the image of the work when it was hanging in a gallery. I am adding citations but they keep getting removed? I am a huge fan of street art and am giving credit to many historical names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyrare (talk • contribs)
 * Because we have deep slepticism for an editor who only edits STK171 for over four years, and has also uploaded a portrait of STK171 tagged "own work". It's not super plausible.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see my response on your talk page. Glad to know that you don't have a conflict of interest here.  Unfortunately, that means that the photos of SJK 171's work that you added create a copyright problem, since you have the copyright to the photo, but not to the underlying work depicted in the photo, so they're going to have to be removed, since Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

, do you care to explain why the first two paragraphs in the version before I came along is word-for-word copy from https://www.sjk171.net/about? and https://sjk171.weebly.com/about.html ? Graywalls (talk) 05:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

,, did you realize the above when you started working on it? Graywalls (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * the info above on images and underlying copyright of the artist is exactly correct. Thanks for explaining that BubbaJoe123456. It is strange how Johnnyrare has tagged a 1970s photo of STK171 as "own work". That's a long period of fandom (40 years+), and since it's a portrait taken from six feet away, it's a likely conflict. Not sure about the text copy issues as I am not following this one that closely. I did look at the article history and that is the only thing SPA acocunt Johnnyrare has been editing since 2015. Looks like a WP:DUCK to me. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Covestor


This article has been "updated", though this user is effectively messing it up, renaming the article in all instances except moving the page, and other messy things. It's clear from their edits here and to Interactive Brokers that they do not understand and do not want to learn how to properly edit. It's clear from their user talk page that they will not respect COI guidelines; they keep directly editing these articles and ignoring my responses. ɱ (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC) those all appear to be single purpose accounts/IPs. Graywalls (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * MarkB101
 * Aggregation
 * Ernesttobilson
 * Rbudhani
 * Jomohrer
 * 2601:182:c103:344d:f581:191:bfac:cbcb
 * 38.122.253.2

Etherweave


Made another COI insertion as a minor edit after a prior COI/N discussion in Archive 142. diff Graywalls (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe I have found the party responsible for this and other edits, all of which are undisclosed paid edits. I'll email an admin with the evidence to prevent WP:OUTING. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Evidence is strong. Account in question is blocked. Disclosure needed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding other article links created/edited by this individual for further analysis. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Myrna Herzog

 * users
 * users
 * users

Promotional concerns with multiple edits at an article about herself and an article created about a teacher/colleague. See for self-identification. I've already reported the account at the username board, since it refers to Ms. Herzog's ensemble. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems obvious to me, especially with this admission of sockpuppetry and this content: https://www.phoenixearlymusic.com/ Toddst1 (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, though I don't see the block evasion that makes her a sock. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No block evasion is required to be socking. There was no block that I know of, just abusing multiple accounts. Toddst1 (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm dense today. Which other accounts? 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * She has posted an explanation of her actions at User talk:Myrna Herzog. I don't think there's anything malicious going on, just some unfortunate decisions from a confused newcomer. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

User:HectorAsdaa
This editors only edit appears to be attemping to recruit somebody for possible paid editing. That they're talking to a bot is a mute point... I'm just fresh back from an extended break so would appreciate if a more experienced coi-aware editor could investigate thanks. -- Longhair\talk 07:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like they're talking to a declared paid editor who has appeared on this page at least once. That said, the new editor/PR guy obviously doesn't know much if anything about our rules. It hard to say he's acting in bad faith. Many somebody should just send him an e-mail saying something like "please don't pay for articles on Wikipedia!"  Is there a designated person who likes to send out these types of emails? Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW - do we have a list of declared paid editors anywhere? Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Promotional and copyvio team at Preetha Reddy

 * - Vice chairperson of Apollo Hospitals, listed immediately below.



The username Askapollo1 is an obvious match for Apollo Hospitals, username violation paid/role-account/shared-user. Askapollo1 added copyvio&promotional content to Preetha Reddy,. Ngs071093 restored the copyvio&promotional content, greatly improved by the addition of refs (chuckle). All edits by these accounts were all within 2 hours, strongly suggesting coordination. The article is and was tagged for copyvio revision deletion during most of these edits.

Amargupta123 edited both articles precisely 24 hours earlier (presumably the same timezone and the same business schedule). I can't see the edits as they have already been revision deleted, but I presume the same content was added by all three accounts.

In addition to any standard admin COI action here, I specifically suggest that Preetha Reddy be semi-protected for a while. None of the accounts involved are autoconfirmed. Semiprotect should be effective in preventing restoration of copyvio, and against additional meatpuppet or sockpuppet accounts. It should send an effective message. Alsee (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Ping for Drchriswilliams. I see you've warned all three accounts. I thought you'd want to know that the copyvio edits have continued. I reverted the latest vio and extended the revdelete request to cover it. Alsee (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Yetispaghetti: COI(?) journal references
Not certain what the correct handling is here (or even if it quite crosses the line into COI). Yetispaghetti had a user rename from Asqjournal (deemed promotional and shared for the journal Advertising & Society Quarterly). After the rename, they have added several references to that journal (ex:, , ). They've also added a draft article for that journal. They've said on their talk page that they aren't editing on behalf of their employer, but given the circumstances it looks COI/promotional to me, similar to (but not quite falling into) WP:SELFCITE or WP:REFSPAM. The user has not declared a COI. Is this okay or is it COI, and if it's COI, should the edits be reverted? creffett (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked at the draft you mentioned for Advertising_%26_Society_Quarterly. It's clearly promotional editing. Who knows if it is paid or not, but I would tend to think so as it is in the advertising field. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention. My intention in citing and posting this entry is not self-promotional or advertising in nature. For the citations, I intended to include relevant scholarly citations to add to the statements that were made. For the journal entry, my intention is to create an entry like that seen for other academic journals, such as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_American_Studies and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Modern_Periodical_Studies. I am not being paid by my employer or any other entity to post or cite. I am new to Wikipedia contributions, so I appreciate your patience, feedback, and advice. yetispaghetti (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "I am not being paid by my employer or any other entity to post or cite." But are you writing about your employer or inserting links to your employer? COI is *not* about your intentions, it is about the appearance of a conflict.  Please read WP:COI. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , just to confirm, is your employer a subject of any of the articles you are writing?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for providing that very helpful page about COI. I have a connection to some of the sources and information listed, so I removed a bulk of the text. I am going to remove all of the citations I have added to avoid all concerns of COI. Again, I was not trying to provide false or misleading information. I was trying to model what was done for comparable journals. I have a much clearer understanding of the COI rules that are in place. Thank you again for your patience as I learn Wikipedia from an editor's standpoint. (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, All citations have been removed. (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the honesty, that is all we are looking for. The way to go about improving articles you are connected to is to declare on your User page that you have such and such a connection. From there you can use the template, or in some cases where you are making very clearly neutral improvements, it may be OK for you to edit articles you are connected to. Useful edits are always desired, but as you can see we are wary of those with COI. Perhaps someone with more experience could advise yetispagetti on what kinds of edits are OK to article with potential COI? Also, welcome aboard.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, @ThatMontrealIP. Yetispaghetti (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

swiish.com


This looks to me like undeclared paid editing by employees of swiish.com related to the biographies of their two co-founders. Both biographies are the product of the single-purpose accounts listed above and although I have removed some of the most blatantly promotional content, some still remains. The Maha Corbett article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Deli nk (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Howley
A number of IP accounts keep adding obscure self-sourced content which seems intended to make the subject seem more notable. The accounts are likely the subject of the article or someone with a close association. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Live Nation Entertainment

 * (blocked sockpuppet)
 * (blocked sockpuppet)
 * (blocked sockpuppet)
 * (blocked sockpuppet)
 * (blocked sockpuppet)
 * (blocked sockpuppet)
 * (blocked sockpuppet)


 * There are dozens of other articles related to Live Nation that are subject to COI/PAID editing. Jytdog already identified a bunch of them since November 2016 and it has continued since then to today. This included edits from accounts from paid editing sockfarms (e.g. Barbequeue).
 * Overlap in edits with SurveyMonkey (Go Fish Digital client) by closely related account (pending SPI) suggest recent Live Nation related editing might be part of an ongoing UPE operation by Go Fish Digital, although it's hard to know, since sockpuppets from other UPE operations have appeared in the history of these articles over the time.

I'm reviewing these and related articles, but since it covers dozens of articles, it would be helpful if other editors can help reviewing them for more COI/UPE as well as cleanup. --MarioGom (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Side discoveries

 * While reviewing this, came up, created by PressureChief, possibly part of UPE operation.
 * The initial accounts reported also edited and, who had previous edits from older UPE operation (Jeremy112233). --MarioGom (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

User:GoldVine5

 * It appears that the author is engaged in undeclared paid editing of articles about young adult fiction. The books may be notable, but COI must be declared.  The House of Marley draft, which has been deleted, was blatantly promotional, and gives one reason to suspect paid editing in general.
 * It appears that the author is engaged in undeclared paid editing of articles about young adult fiction. The books may be notable, but COI must be declared.  The House of Marley draft, which has been deleted, was blatantly promotional, and gives one reason to suspect paid editing in general.
 * It appears that the author is engaged in undeclared paid editing of articles about young adult fiction. The books may be notable, but COI must be declared.  The House of Marley draft, which has been deleted, was blatantly promotional, and gives one reason to suspect paid editing in general.
 * It appears that the author is engaged in undeclared paid editing of articles about young adult fiction. The books may be notable, but COI must be declared.  The House of Marley draft, which has been deleted, was blatantly promotional, and gives one reason to suspect paid editing in general.
 * It appears that the author is engaged in undeclared paid editing of articles about young adult fiction. The books may be notable, but COI must be declared.  The House of Marley draft, which has been deleted, was blatantly promotional, and gives one reason to suspect paid editing in general.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=895634583&oldid=895620981&diffmode=source on my talk page, in which the editor states that they were trying to complete House of Marley due to a course deadline, but the course had in fact been completed, which renders everything suspect.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have just received a notification regarding a conflict of interest for my Wikipedia contributions. I have already notified user Robert McClenon about my current position as a student on the BA Writing and Publishing course at the University of Derby, with a module revolving around Wikipedia. Although the teaching weeks have finished, as Mr. McClenon pointed out, assignment deadlines are often set later, to offer more time for students to complete them. I reiterate, I am not being paid for any of my contributions, I am purely trying to engage with my assignment, and as the House of Marley page was denied due to its tone (I have never worked on a company's page before, so any persuasive language is accidental and I fully accepted the feedback, and have not resubmitted the page for this reason) I thought I would rethink my options and, for the time being, focus on another subject. If you require a reference as proof of my student status, my tutor's user is Cbderbylib. This has been an honest mistake and misunderstanding, I am honestly just providing content in line with my assignment brief.

GoldVine5 (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I can confirm User:GoldVine5 is not being paid for her edits, she is a student on a course being run by the University of Derby with support from Wikimedia UK - I am the module lead for the program. The assignment involves a portfolio of edits, either new articles, added references, copy edits or a combination of all of these, but the choice of articles is up to the students. The course finishes in several weeks, after their portfolios have been submitted on 16 May 2019 and subsequently assessed and graded. Cbderbylib (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is clearly no conflict of interest. GoldVine5 is not being paid to write, but is editing as part of a university course, which is indeed stated on their user page and publicly documented just two clicks from there. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have draftified the article for potentially failing our subject specific notability guidelines and containing a bunch of promotional non-encyclopedic stuff. &#x222F; WBG converse 14:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We should go ok on grounds of notability, since Ink has been covered by multiple independent sources. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * GV has declared no COI and teacher of course has confirmed. I am willing to accept that. However, as new-to-Wikipedia editor, GV needs to learn what content is acceptable as neutral point of view and what is promotional. For example, in Ink, I deleted the entire section Awards and honours, as it consisted of a list of organizations at which Ink has been nominated for awards. David notMD (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Guidance from WikiProjects novels indicates that nominations can be included in an article. A bit like how pages on actors might includes lists of awards they've nominated and shortlisted for, regardless of whether they've won. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Cbderblylib - Were the students properly instructed as to neutral point of view? It appears that GoldVine may have been acting under a false impression of how a Wikipedia article should be written, because she states that she made an effort to make the House of Marley "persuasive", and indeed it was a good job of marketing buzzspeak.  If students will be using Wikipedia to learn expository writing, it is very important that they learn the difference between neutral writing and promotional writing.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

RN - That guidance states nominations for significant awards. In my opinion, none of what GV added to the list qualify. David notMD (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Significance is contextual, but being shortlisted for the Waterstones Children's Book Prize seems relevant, doesn't it? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion belongs on the article's Talk page, not here, which is about the editor's suspected COI. David notMD (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Rupert Lee-Browne


The article about Rupert Lee-Browne, investor in Caxton FX was created in Jan 2018 by the editor in question. The editor remains the main editor of that article. There have also been a number of creation of an article about Caxton FX over time, which were eventually deleted. The editor did not respond to COI notices, however eventually - after over one year of editing on those two topics - admitted to being a marketing agent who works for Caxton, when being put on the spot. (diff). Given the long running COI editing, I suggest deletion of the article currently in draft, salting and a ban on directly editing and creating articles on said topics. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello - first of all, I have been totally transparent in who I am and my relationship to Caxton. In addition, when discussing this with talk who was at first highly aggressive but then became more civil once I tried to have a two way dialogue with him -he made it clear that the Caxton page was too promotional which when discussing with him I was in agreement. regarding the Rupert Lee-Browne page, this was written long before me and deleted, i rewrote it and then reposted it to fit in with guidelines working with page editors to make it right. I am very happy to stop editing the page but given how important and influential Mr Lee-browne is to the UK fintech and financial services scene - as proven by this article and the regular mentions, invitations to events and references, i believe it would be naive to remove his page.

In addition there needs to be a better way to make it clear that if you have a relationship with a brand/person/object you have to state it - by the way - having worked in the marketing industry for the last 20 years you should be aware that the creation of wiki pages is a standard service offering world over. I would be very happy to work with you to create clearer and more appropriate guidelines around this.

Finally - perhaps you need to also have a think about how your page editors behave and represent Wikipedia.

Jamesmaharrison (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "In addition there needs to be a better way to make it clear that if you have a relationship with a brand/person/object you have to state it" - You mean like the notification you got on your talk page in January 2018, but ignored and continued to edit without disclosing your Conflict of Interest? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

While we're at it,, you created the Majid Jafar article. Were you in any way compensated for creating that article, and/or was it a part of your job? Do you have any other COI in regards to Jafar, his businesses, or his family? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As of 16 June 2014, Wikipedia's terms of use were amended so that any edits made in exchange for compensation had to be identified. It's better to disclose this information on your userpage (User:Jamesmaharrison) instead of article talk pages, as they can get deleted. Have a look at the paid template and you can choose a format that works best for you. You will need to specify the article name, your employer and the client, e.g.
 * The full policy is at Paid-contribution disclosure. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The full policy is at Paid-contribution disclosure. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
An employee of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) removed in 2016 repeatedly content about an alleged sexual harassment scandal in 2013. While the sexual harassment case was never substantiated with enough evidence, the allegations ended up with an exec stepping down and a few female employees resigning. This had substantial media coverage, both in 2013 and later, so it seems it is worth coverage in the article, probably with improved sources and follow up on later development of the case. MarioGom (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

User Tokamac


Has edited topics related to the theories of French Physicist Jean-Pierre Petit for many years. He behaves like the owner & curator of the page. The external relationship WP:EXTERNALREL is probably academic. Could an admin make a quick search on Wikipedia & Google ?82.126.64.58 (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

NSE co-location scam


The user removed content that was cited to reliable sources and disputed the neutral tonality. He had every chance to defend his changes on the talk page but failed to do so as well. Without any justification, the user is reverting back the content repeatedly. This is simply disruptive editing. LeoStephenTwain (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There also seems to be an undercurrent of accusing him of racism, considering these edits. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Bori! 22:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Antiworld


Single-purpose account created in order to promote a local band on Wikipedia. Article deleted due to lack of notability. sixty nine  • whaddya want? •  13:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Attila Konnyu


This SPA has made the majority of the edits to this article (both by count and total size) and has repeatedly removed maintenance tags without addressing problems. Talk page message has been ignored. MB 13:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I stripped out the long lists of non-notable material, and checked the (very small number) of actual refs, none of which actually mentioned him (the source for the claim that he studied architecture at a university in Budapest was just a link to that university's architecture department). Article's now a stub, I submitted for CSD under A7.  BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Jules Bailey


User was contacted for making COI edits on Jules Bailey, a former mayoral candidate and a politician. They acknowledged to connection. Reasonable search effort on the web will reveal on the more likely than not relationship. acknowledgement of connection. The COI pulled the contents from the article and copied it into talk. A different editor put it back into the article. After series of edits, the contents and position are essentially the same. Comparing before and after. While it has gone through the mechanical procedures to go set aside, request edit, and it was inserted by another account, but the promotional and partisan nature of the content are unchanged and I feel paid tag in the article is appropriate but I'm open to further input. Graywalls (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * THESE indicate the contents added by the main contributor whose a COI. The COI admitted to having COI... and the extent of connection at the time looks considerable https://multco.us/file/56849/download

Graywalls (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I trimmed the article a lot, removed the promo material. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Cam Howe


COI regarding Cam Howe. 1subwoofer has created pages for this individual at Cam Howe and Cameron Howe. Both have been deleted after afds. Articles for deletion/Cameron Howe, Articles for deletion/Cam Howe. Both titles have been salted after multiple recreations. 1subwoofer receieved a final warning about "Creating inappropriate pages" on these topics

1subwoofer has spammed Howe into othe articles complete with linkspam to Howe's website, ,

Howe is the founder of The Carrum and Patterson Lakes Forum. 1subwoofer is repeatedly spamming this forum into the Patterson Lakes, Victoria article, complete with links to Howe's website and the Forum's website. May19, May19, Apr19, Apr19, Mar18, Jan18 duffbeerforme (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The Carrum and Patterson Lakes Forum is the community organisation representing the suburb Patterson Lakes, Victoria and is based out of the Patterson Lakes Community Centre. If a website supports the contents of the article, which it does, the there shouldn't be any further discussion. To close this matter, the only referring reference now comes directly from the Carrum and Patterson Lakes Forum's website. (talk) 7:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Noting here that 1subwoofer just attempted to blank this section. - MrOllie (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that, I took this to WP:ANI. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's the history. Fact: the organisation in question represents Patterson Lakes, Victoria. 2.) Although most of the article is left unreferenced. At this stage there is ONE reference to the organisation's website. Duff wanted more references. Fine, so a total of four references are added. Two supporting the date of the establishment and two putting the organisation on context. 3.) Duff calls this link spam and engages in malicious behaviour reverting changes. 4.) Removal of 3 references to hopefully satisfy Duff occurs, leaving just one reference to the organisation's website. 5.) Obviously this should resolve the issue, so there is really nothing more to be discussed 1subwoofer (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting News Article – Paid government staffers edited the articles of four Pennsylvania politicians



 * Pa. Capitol staff being paid by taxpayers to edit Wikipedia for elected officials

Just finished reading a very interesting article (linked above, with another, similar piece here ) (requires a subscription, or incognito browsing) in LancasterOnline (a publication operating as part of LNP (newspaper) that detailed a campaign of edits by various staffers associated with Pennsylvania politicians; the article is opinionated but very good. To my knowledge, no editors on any of the four effected articles have made an attempt to disclose their respective connections. From a brief look at the articles in questions, it seems that puffery, editorializing, and the copious use of primary sources seems to be the most pertinent issue. Needless to say, these issues should be addressed and the articles cleaned up.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting you should post this. I'm getting the impression that it's quite common, unfortunately. Did you have a chance to see my notice on a similar thing? Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard Graywalls (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

GSL Group


SPA, almost all contributions relate to the GSL Group or Graham Lee, strongly suspect COI or UPE. Added a COI notice to the user page and speedied the articles created by the user as A7/G11, but I'd appreciate review of the other edits. creffett (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Maryphillips1952


See this previously brought up concerns about promotional editing years ago. The editor came out of hibernation and made this edit to the awards section of Stacy Schiff, an article in which paid editing by Etherweave Communications/ 's UPE controversy just occurred. Looking through the account history of the subject of this COI/N, there's a pattern of embellishing awards and honors section of numerous biography articles. Graywalls (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC) and peculiar "minor" edits that are very common with that are very common in accounts that show tendency to make COI edits. Graywalls (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The editor replied to their talk page: User_talk:Maryphillips1952. Editor says she's just a fan. Should it be taken at face value despite the pattern?, perhaps you're more familiar with this editor. Graywalls (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello - I responded to Graywalls inquiries about wikiposts. I have not received any payments for any posts. I have been a donor to Wikipedia, but have never received payments from wikipedia or people I have edited. I am interested in many topics and I am a fan of authors, classical music, musicians. I have made posts over the years, but consider myself still learning. Thanks for your help.Maryphillips1952 (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * so, do any of the subjects know you're editing, and do they communicate about it? Graywalls (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure if they know. I have edited several articles over the years. I try to find references and citations from various sources. For example I read Stacy Schiff had won the Peggy Helmrich prize for her book in Tulsa and wanted to place information on her page. I may not have done it correctly. I did not contact anyone about my edits. When scientists win awards, I try to post on their wiki page and edit. I have edited NASA missions. I have found citations for articles seeking citations to make articles better. My posts are backed with references for objectivity and documentation of information. I will try explain changes in the summary box in greater detail. Again, I am on learning curve, so I appreciate your suggestions to be a better editor. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Commment COIN stalker here. I looked at Maryphillips1952's contributions over the years, and yes, she does have a very healthy interest in Horacio_Gutiérrez. She has been editing his page for eight years on and off. Judging by her edit and talk page comments, I would say this is a genuine editor who happens to have a strong interest in the subject! S/he has edited a number of other pages quite diligently, so I don't think this is really a COI concern.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I disagree with her removal of NPOV tag at the time she did, but after you trimmed out puffery, the tag is no longer necessary. Graywalls (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. I think this can be closed if you do not object.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontreal- Thank you for your help to resolve issue. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Anderz Wrethov


Suspected user editing the article about himself. Aikclaes (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks to have been installed for promotional purpose. Two editors that appear connected have done most of the edits. I proposed it for deletion.Graywalls (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. How do we do the same for the Swedish-language version of the page? Aikclaes (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. You could read this WP:Proposed_deletion and try to search for the equivalent in the Swedish version. The local language version may operate under a slightly different policy though, so read the explanation in the Swedish version you find. Graywalls (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. That's what I did, but couldn't find anything. Aikclaes (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I found no viable third-party coverage of the article subject (i.e., no niche/lyric sites), so a future AfD is not out of the question. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  03:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Cook Group

 * and related articles

This user appears to be a SPA with regards to Thomas Cook Group and its related companies and has refused to engage on any talk pages so far with regards to disclosure. shoy (reactions) 15:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are several things very clear here
 * We don't need a dozen articles on the Thomas Cook Group and associated articles.
 * Airline7375 has a strong conflict of interest and is likely a paid editor
 * They have been warned for various disruptions by several people.
 * They haven't responded to 's question on whether they are a paid editor.
 * They should be blocked for UPE unless they respond here soon.
 * So,, what's the story? Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This editor is continuing to edit without responding either here or on their talk page. shoy (reactions) 12:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * At very least, the three Thomas Cook Airlines can be consolidated into a single article, and Condor can probably go in there as well. Will try to get to that later this week.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Adnan Malik


User is evidently editing his own article. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The Murder of Hae Min Lee


Mainspace edits by User:Cynistrategus are all to this article and Thiruvendran Vignarajah. Vignarajah is the attorney who has defended the conviction discussed in the article. Edits routinely remove WP:RS that are inconvenient for the prosecution and insert references to non-RS. Editor insists he doesn't have a WP:COI.Adoring nanny (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

————————————————————————————————————

I have an interest in the facts and history related to the murder of Hae Min Lee, but no personal attachment to anyone related to this case in any way. Cynistrategus (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Then why repeatedly remove the Everett source? Example diffs:, the first diff from my original post, and again here by User:Deaconfan1, who has made a grand total of two edits to Wikipedia.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Where to place podcast based speculative content can be discussed on the talk page of the article. Cynistrategus (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Not until there is a WP:COIDISCLOSE that comports with the diffs I've been seeing from this user. Here are examples that further illustrate the problem..Adoring nanny (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problems with those edits are, I am trying to get more of the investigation into the article using police and legal documents as sources. Cynistrategus (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In light of the number of edits which bias the article in the same direction, that statement is difficult to credit. That said, I've just templated this user on WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP, all of which are routinely violated by this user's edits.Adoring nanny (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As a postscript to this, User:Cynistrategus appears to have taken the hint and departed from the article.Adoring nanny (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I wrote too soon. He's back.Adoring nanny (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

NTT Ltd.
I notified the editor and he started placing the appropriate disclosures. However, NTT Ltd. may need to be moved to the draft namespace and reviewed. --MarioGom (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: also included in the list "More potentially suspicious articles" a few sections up. I trimmed the article, and think it could probably be merged to Nippon Telegraph and Telephone, but I do not know enough about the differences between the businesses to do it correctly. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have moved the article to the draftspace for incubation, as is allowed by WP:DRAFTIFY. For the moment, I am unsure the company is independently notable from Nippon Telegraph and Telephone, its parent company. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

United States Agency for International Development
Please, check the discussion at Talk:United_States_Agency_for_International_Development. A major contributor to the article initiated his edits under a conflict of interest situation (2013) that may have ceased to be a COI since 2014. I'm not sure how past employment affects or how to proceed here. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Smithfield Foods / WH Group
Single purpose account editing the Smithfield Foods and related such as its parent company (WH Group), its investors CDH Investments, executives, other companies in the group, as well as pages related to the Clean Water Act, a law under which Smithfield Foods was fined $12.6 million for dumping waste into a river. The edits include removing previous COI templates. MarioGom (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I trimmed 80% of the material from Joseph W. Luter III, as it was just a big coatrack for Smithfield farms.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not connected in any way to the subjects of the articles I edit on Wikipedia.Lostinspacetime1949 (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I also want to be crystal clear with respect to "80% of material" referred to above. I did not add it. I am not responsible for it in anyway.Lostinspacetime1949 (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thomas van Straubenzee


Knightfrankuk revealed themselves to be associated with/or represent Knight Frank, the company for which Thomas van Straubenzee is an executive, stating in an edit summary: "The information updated is correct apart from Thomas and his brothers Henry and Charlie attended Harrow School. If you would like to change anything please speak to Knight Frank Marketing Office digital.marketing@knightfrank.com" (see here). Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an outright WP:CORPNAME violation for WP:UAA to deal with, for starters. If this person wants to return with another username, they can do so after reading WP:PAID, and also WP:OWN by the looks of that edit summary. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Phuong My


Promotional article written by SPA. I tagged as advert and COI, and removed SPAM links in article. There is probably more that should be trimmed (like a list with complete street addresses of stores where the product is available.) Editor reverted my changes (including tagging). Editor was notified on their talkpage about COI a month ago when the article (then in main space) was moved to Draft. MB 17:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Single purpose account blocked, all spam deleted. – Athaenara  ✉  07:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

100 Day Renovation


Accounts: This is a group of accounts who previously came up at COIN for promotional editing of the above pages. The first five accounts all ended up blocked at SPI, and the IP was recently blocked as an anonymous proxy. Someone with an interest in the pages recently contacted our kind volunteer OTRS agent, who contacted me as I had reverted a recent template removal. I don't know the details of the request, but presumably they want the templates removed. Seems reasonable to give them another chance, assuming no further promotional editing. So, two requests:
 * First, can someone look at the articles and remove do some cleaning in order to remove the templates? I won't revert genuine removals.
 * Second, we place many UPE and COI templates here-- do we have a policy for when they get removed?

Thank you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for posting that.


 * To any potential volunteers: Wikimedia received an email with an explanation of the situation. I can't share that without getting permission from the person who sent it, but if someone is willing to check to see if their explanation is adequate, I will arrange to share the contents of the email with a volunteer.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

South Africa Today


South Africa Today in a controversial news site run in part by Gearbox4. The page was cited for multiple issues until today. Firefishy (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Sophisticated AFC subversion

 * and many more
 * WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Japanelemu
 * WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Musbaunow
 * WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Musbaunow

According to, Stevey7788 was collaborating with a sockfarm to approve tens of their creations. I have a small inventory at User:Bri/COIbox87, but these are only the most obvious. There were similarities noted to the Boskit190 sockfarm. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I put the full list of patrols and AFC acceptances on that page. While I deleted most of the spam from the sockfarm, there's still a few questionable (and maybe even corrupt) acceptances and patrols. MER-C 18:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I think these slipped through the cracks. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * - declared paid
 * - COI
 * - declared paid
 * - COI
 * - declared paid
 * - COI
 * - declared paid
 * - COI
 * - declared paid
 * - COI
 * - declared paid
 * - COI
 * - declared paid
 * - COI
 * - declared paid
 * - COI
 * - COI
 * - COI
 * - COI
 * - COI
 * - COI
 * - COI
 * - COI
 * - COI

These I find suspicious based on content. There doesn't seem to be any connection between them, but you never know. MER-C 09:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just noticed today that Shurtape Technologies was a declared-paid work, then AfC approved by Stevey7788. The creator, (has declared working at Full Metal Chicken, apparently an SEO firm) is invited to comment here. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * specifically in this case, but also generally, should accepted AfC submissions that are discovered to be UPE be moved to draft-space en-mass so that they can be reviewed? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think they should. But I think we need to ask a slightly different question here: should drafts accepted by a sockpuppet – or associate of sockpuppets – be automatically moved back to draft space? I believe they should, unless the page has substantial contributions from bona fide editors. Ping and  for their thoughts.
 * What am I missing at Derek Fuhrmann? Could someone kindly spell out in words of one syllable or less why it's listed here? – I'm not seeing the connection. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Accepted AFCs later found to be undisclosed advertisements should be quarantined to remove them from search engine indices and deprive spammers of their products.
 * Yes. A NPP/AFC patroller accepting payments from one spammer in exchange for reviews is corrupt enough to work with any spammer. Their reviews cannot be trusted.
 * As for Derek Fuhrmann - it's definitely suspicious (see the deleted contributions of the creator) but seems unrelated. MER-C 11:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The same account that created Derek Fuhrmann in August 2018 also created Amanda Mustard in January 2019. The latter AfC was by one of the socks blocked in Musbaunow SPI. There was a time lag of some 19 days, so the creator could be uninvolved. There's another connection too, involving possible Australian proxies, but I'm not ready to nail that down yet. Bri.public (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Thanks for the ping, Bri! I have no clue who this editor is. In my work with my agency (Full Metal Chicken, which is not really SEO agency - we're full-spectrum marketing), I was assigned to study the viability of an article for Shurtape Technologies, best known for its popular adhesive tapes (specifically Duck Brand tape as well as gaffer tape, formerly sold by Permacel and widely used in the entertainment industry). In my research I found that it was clearly notable and felt that I could write an excellent article on the topic - I also found the entire coverage of adhesive tape on Wikipedia to be lacking, so I was not surprised this was not covered. This also ties in to where I live, the Hickory–Lenoir–Morganton Metropolitan Statistical Area; Shurtape is one of the largest employers in this area. So basically, I felt this was an area that needed work and was confident this would be a valuable addition, so I began writing the article. You can find a full edit history at my project page, where I worked on it for several weeks.
 * After producing what I felt was a satisfactory page, one that I felt met all Wikipedia guidelines (even in paid editing work I want to actually contribute to the project; my goal isn't to promote a product or band, but to expand on areas that are notable but have not been covered properly) and would be an excellent addition to the project. I went through the articles for creation process as required of paid editor. I made clear to my agency and client that this process would take as long as it was needed. The agency and client were extremely understanding and were in no hurry at all to confirm it - we want to do things legit, white hat, and that includes waiting for the process to work out on their own. We were willing to wait as long as needed for the review to take place - I believe the backlog was up to several months or something like that, but my client and agency as well as myself were okay with this. I think the article ended up being in wait around two months before it was ultimately confirmed.
 * The long and short of it is, then, that I can say that I have no connection to this individual or his farm and my agency does not have any connection to them. Our client does not understand Wikipedia, really, so this was entirely run between me and FMC. I also operate here on a non-paid basis as User:Toa Nidhiki05 (in fact the vast majority of my editing is there), so I'm not part of a sock farm or anything of that nature.
 * If there are any issues with the Shurtape Technologies article - and I hope there aren't, because I think I'm genuinely proud of how it turned out - I have nominated it for WP:GA but will gladly work with anyone to address them. I'm fairly confident it's a solid, notable article and I have the research to back it up, but obviously that's up to the community. My goal when editing from this paid angle is to operate completely transparently and in a white hat manner. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's nice that you are upfront about being paid. However the first source I checked in the Shurtape article is from what I would characterize as a very bad source: Business NC. Here's the marketing brochure, which makes clear that it is really just marketing, not journalism. The first three sources use Shurtape itself as a reference for itself, fifteen times. A good article it is not. It seems to be paid promotion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What about that brochure says that? I see stuff about ad space but also about specific journalism awards.
 * As for sources, it’s important to note what the hare used for. The first 8 citations are used in the infobox. Of those, several go to Shurtape but cite relevant information: what type of business this is (public or private), founding date, subsidiaries, etc. These seem appropriate for primary source coverage, although the information is almost certainly available elsewhere. The actually body cites the Business NC piece as well as the website, but mainly for useful historical info. This could probably be found in newspapers as well. Shurtape sources generally are used for information that is useful but not not necessarily requiring secondary sources. By my count, 17 of 52 go to Shurtape, but a lot of this is minor stuff, like opening a plant in Mexico (2), reorganizing Henkel purchases (2), and also with pairing another source for the Permacel purchase (2). Most of the 17 are used once for a minor detail. At the Chipotle Mexican Grill article, for example, the menu includes citations to the website used only once (see: citation 103). I looked to several articles like this for guidance on how to structure and word things.
 * Regardless, I put it through AFC for exactly this purpose, to weed out any issues, so the fact it didn’t get legitimately approved is disappointing, as these could have been addressed then instead of now. You’re more than welcome to specific tag areas that need concern and I can do what a I can to propose fixes, like finding specific source improvements or trimming areas. The article is clearly notable, at least from my research (this is excluding newspaper access, which I now have with Newspapers.com). The goal genuinely isn’t to create an ad, it’s to improve the coverage of tape that is really not ideal right now (see: duct tape, gaffer tape, etc. as areas that are lacking). I’ll withdraw the GA for now. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Specific citations asserting the credibility of Business NC: *Former Managing Editor of the News and Observer has a regular column

It seems to be a credible business source. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Democracy Fund mentions it alongside other journalistic outlets in the lacking NC market
 * Founder is recognized in UNC Journalism School’s Hall of Fame
 * Cited as a credible business journalism outlet alongside other outlets
 * Awarded as high-quality within the business journalism industry
 * Interview on magazine’s role
 * Another mention in business news
 * WRAL Techwire article from a Journalism Professor at UNC Chapel Hill favorably cotes it


 * You have a clear COI, so your arguments are extremely weak. However, the larger issue appears to be that when you created the article, you had not disclosed your paid editing connection. So it is undisclosed paid editing.
 * 29th January: Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) creates the article.
 * 18 February: Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) discloses that they have a COI on the article talk page.
 * So it took you more than a couple of weeks to actually disclose that you were being paid to edit that article. For 20 days you edited the article numerous times without disclosing a conflict. After that you started adding "COI statement: I work for Full Metal Chicken, and Shurtape is a client." But for the first 20 days that it was a draft, you did not disclose. Would you not say that is UPE? I think UPE is something that leads to a block, as it is an abuse of the Wikipedia terms of use. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn’t create the article, dude. I wrote up in user space and submitted it to AFC because that’s what you do if you’re a disclosed paid editor. I nominated it for AFC in January’s and it was approved in March. I added the COI on the AFC talk later because I realized it might not be completely obvious I was paid, despite the user name and notice on my user page. The article was then approved and created by the user who was blocked up above, which is the reason it’s in this discussion. If you’re going to accuse me of something, please be accurate about it. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * this is clear undisclosed paid editing: doing paid editing in draft or article space without clear disclosure is UPE. You wrote the article and submitted it to AFC before you disclosed that you were being paid to promote the subject. Knowing that an article is by a paid editor is important for reveiwers, and, as you say above, you hid that by not disclosing on the article talk page. Your intention is obviously to promote your client, and you hid the promotional nature of your work for three weeks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Paid-contribution disclosure says:

"Editors who are or expect to be compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries."
 * I did this on January 16. This is also obvious in my account’s name. My user space edits began on January 23. The link to that page is clearly visible on my user page. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How on earth is would anyone know that Full Metal Chicken (or whatever it's called), has Shurtape as a client? It's still UPE. All I can see is that you put a link to a "projects page" on your talk page, which is not the same as "They must do this on their main user page". You hid the project in a sub page. You did not disclose Shurtape, which is the ultimate client anywhere until weeks after you began editing. Let's see your first disclosure of Shurtape as client. It seems to be Feb 18th, long after you began working on their article. Finally, if it seems like I am giving you a hard time, it's because I am. You have not been clear enough about your conflict. Paid editors deserve a hard time and need to be extremely up front about their contribs. The wiki is better for it, as we are really not here to act as an advertising platform for companies. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You’re not “giving a hard time”, you are assuming evil faith and saying things that are blatantly untrue. It’s absolutely fine to criticize the article - that’s exactly why I nominated it through AFC, as policy demands.
 * 1) I did disclose I was paid, per policy. I did so immediately, on my user page, per policy, and specially stated I only use this account for paid editing. My name also pretty obviously discloses it.
 * 2) Shurtape is listed on Full Metal Chicken’s Website as a client. It’s literally on the page I linked to. Literally every client FMC has is listed there.
 * 3) I did not hide anything. I did what i normally do as an editor, which is work on articles in userspace and then make the change at once - or, in this case, per policy, nominated through AFC. You can’t nominate an article you AFC if it doesn’t exist.
 * 4) I added the separate disclosure to the AFC talk to make it as clear as possible that i was paid, if the username and disclosure on user page were not enough.
 * You don’t like paid editors, fine, that’s absolutely your right. But that doesn’t exempt you from policy on interacting with other. That includes WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY. You incorrectly accused me of creating a mainspace page and hiding that I was paid and that’s flat-out false. I expect a strikethrough or at the very least an acknowledgement that what you claimed was not true. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm civil, and just stating the facts. The edit history is clear: you did not disclose your client, the article subject, on your user page, nor on the AFC draft until weeks after the fact. You hid the client in a subpage called "projects". The policy says "They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries." I'll give you some credit for admitting it later, but the client was not disclosed on your user page, the article talk page or in edit summaries until weeks after you started the draft and submitted it to AFC. You have a massive COI in creating this article, seeing as you are paid editor for the client. It's using Wikipedia as a promotional platform.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many times I have to say this until you stop lying. I did not hide anything. I created this account - which explicitly notes that this is a work account in the name itself - on January 16th and literally my very first edit was a disclosure of my conflict of interest. To quote from that edit:
 * "Normally I edit on User:Toa Nidhiki05, but this is my account for edits where I have a conflict of interest or vested interest. I work at Full Metal Chicken and in this role will occasionally work to improve Wikipedia articles. In this role I will disclose that I am being paid and follow all guidelines about editing in such situations."
 * I also added a link to this on my normal user page. As you quoted:
 * "They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries"
 * I did the first one, and even though that alone satisfies the requirement. It doesn't say "and", it says "or". I have been nothing but upfront about what this account is for and who I work for from day one- I even provided a link to the website of the company I work for, which has a list of every single client it has.
 * On the 23rd, I went even further than my text-based disclosure and added the conflict of interest tag to my user page, which basically restated what I already said; by this point I had been editing the project page for a week, but it was already linked on my talk page, so again, it was not hidden. The link to the project page is directly accessible from my talk page. It's not hidden.
 * And again - I did not create this article. I wrote a draft version (because if you are going to submit something to articles for creation, you should have an article already written) and then submitted it to AfC, where it would be reviewed by another user and approved or rejected. My username and user page directly indicated who I worked for (see: this is my account for edits where I have a conflict of interest or vested interest) - the fact my account name literally has "work" in the name could not be any more clear . I added an additional tag to the AfC, a couple of weeks later, to be even more transparent. The article sat there waiting for a couple of months until another user reviewed it and approved it. I did not create the page. I have made exactly two mainspace edits on this page since: adding a logo, with full disclosure of who I work for in the edit summary, and archiving sources with a bot. I was not dishonest, and I did not hide anything.
 * You can like or dislike paid editors (and I get either one), but you can't just ignore rules and basic decency here. I am just asking you to stop saying things that are false. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You created the draft and sumitted it to AFC without disclosing the connection clearly on your talk page, as required. Read the page Paid_editing. It's crystal clear. You need to post the client and affiliation on your user page. You did not. "The conflict of interest guideline further advises editors to place the connected contributor (paid) template at the top of the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (and to fill in the parameters), and to supply a clearly visible list of their paid contributions on their main user page. The template paid can be used for this." As well as that, you're a paid editor and you are being disruptive here and on the article talk page. About your paid editing project. The simple solution to that is to stop using Wikipedia as means to make money and to promote companies. I'm not going to reply to this any longer. Arguing with paid editors is a waste of the volunteer (unpaid) time and resources of the wiki.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Read what it says again.
 * "Editors who are or expect to be compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries"
 * I did this, on my user page, day one. I dislocated that literally every edit this account makes is a paid edit. The website has a full list of every client the agency has.
 * "The conflict of interest guideline further advises editors to place the template at the top of the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (and to fill in the parameters), and to supply a clearly visible list of their paid contributions on their main user page. The template can be used for this."
 * I also did this on the talk page as further transparency, although this is an advisory to do this, not a mandate. I do realize that I don't have a list of contributions on my userpage however, so I have added that now per guidelines.
 * As for disruption, I'm not sure how I've disrupted anything. I provided sources to rebut a claim you made about the validity of Business North Carolina and responded to false claims you have made about me, so unless merely responding to you is disruptive, that's another false thing you have said about me. That you do not like paid editing does not exempt you from WP:WIAPA ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on the wiki."). Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Disruption by paid editors, for example, is when paid editors don't follow the disclosure rules and then waste the time of other editors.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI: I just sent in a private CU request regarding a different sockfarm and at least one of the articles above. MER-C 18:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You know what: the more I dig into the SPIs, the more I find. Pay very careful attention to the full list of articles patrolled and AFCs accepted especially for new users and frequently spammed topics. MER-C 09:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: The corruption and subversion of AFC is important and I have no wish to distract anyone from it.  I've encountered this in Wiki Ed programs as well, cf. User talk:Athaenara/Archive 11 (December 2018) and User talk:Athaenara/Archive 12 (February 2019).  – Athaenara  ✉  09:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Small World Social



 * (previously editing as Smallworldsocial )
 * (previously editing as Smallworldsocial )

The first three accounts have a clear conflict of interest regarding Small World Social. The first to obviously so, the third is a SPA that has only edited Small World Social and her username Lindseyrsws ends in sws.

Prosnuts is a SPA who created an advert for HelpMe Feed Foundation. This foundation was formed by Small World Social. Unlike the others Prosnuts HAS declared a conflict of interest around SWS.

Ch Yaseen Zulfiqar has all the hallmarks of a UPE. First edit included removing a coi tag from an article created by a sock of a blocked UPE, adding promotional material while claiming to be removing promotional material. Xe added more PR to SWS.

This article was created by Julie345 whilst she was still called Smallworldsocial. Soon after she created Google Glass breastfeeding app trial, a project SWS is involved in, and Madeline Sands, project leader of that trial and a staff member of SWS. She also spammed that trial into other articles, eg,.

Smallworldsocial despite their obvious coi removed the coi tag from Small World Social.

The Small World Social article itself is a promotional disaster. Many of the sources used do not support the claims made in the article. Ones that do are often very short mentions and are played up in this article.

Julie345 (as Smallworldsocial) heavily edited Priceline (Australia) and their parent company Australian Pharmaceutical Industries, both with a declared COI,. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

North Face product placement

 * Various articles
 * pt:Category:!Fantoches de Gmortaia (sockfarm / pt.wiki)
 * pt:Category:!Fantoches de Gmortaia (sockfarm / pt.wiki)
 * pt:Category:!Fantoches de Gmortaia (sockfarm / pt.wiki)

Undeclared paid editing and product placement, per (see also the users' Commons uploads). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was tempted to call this overreacting or coincidence at first...but most of the pictures they've uploaded do, in fact, have the North Face logo somewhere in it. Wow. Nice catch! Also, there appears to be some photoshopping going on: see File:Pico_do_Agudo_Santo_Antonio_do_Pinhal.jpg and File:Vale_do_paraiba_montanha.jpg - I have to wonder if there might also be some copyvio going on here... creffett (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Further digging on Commons (Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_User:Fhpatucci) came up with this link...looks like there's some more digging to do here. creffett (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. This is troubling, but we need to not throw the baby out with the bathwater; I've had one or two companies provide us with good images of their products, and intend to try more. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Kudos to (an above-the-board paid editor) for calling this out as "duplicitous" in Ad Age. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

NSE co-location scam


The user is repeatedly changing the tonality and removing content cited from credible citations. Apparently, someone is a huge fan of Ajay Shah. Also, he had every chance to defend his changes on the talk page but refused to justify them. This is simply disruptive editing. LeoStephenTwain (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

James Benjamin Rothschild


This editor has e-mailed me and in that e-mail has told me they have been paid to create this article. Here is a quote from his e-mail " I am being paid to write this bio, that is why (James1770) has been created." The editor has been warned multiple times not to create inappropriate articles and has continued to do so. In addition the article has been created by different users also with James in the username. VViking Talk Edits 01:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you give some more information on the suspected socking? As far as I can tell from the logs, only James1770 has created that page. creffett (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong about that, but I'm also not sure how to check past deleted pages. I remember at least once that the article was created by a different James, but I don't know the name. I didn't write it down or warn the suspected sock. I only warned the sock master. Sorry I don't have additional information on that part. VViking Talk Edits 01:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I've checked the deleted revisions of that article and the associated draft and I can't see any other users. We've blocked and deleted so this can probably be closed. SmartSE (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your help on this, I agree it should be closed now. VViking Talk Edits 13:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Jacob Kyle Young


There is an editor, Uuuwiki, who does some pretty standard article partrolling for roughly 150 edits between May 2013 and March 2014. There is no activity until March 2019 when they suddenly make a new article (something they've never done before). The article makes claims about and provides a bunch of reliable sourcing for notable topics - but these sources do not include information about Young. The sources about the article topic itself are far less quality. In looking at what is more broadly available there quite a few press releases about the article topic but seemingly far less coverage from RS. The article itself is on the "barely OK side" of being eligible for speedy deletion for promotional writing. Two weeks later a new editor, EdHamilton223, posts a picture about this article subject to commons. All of these facts add up to me to UPE starting from a compromised account that wouldn't have needed to establish an edit history to be able to create in mainspace. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Charlie Wilson (singer)
Somebody using IPs in the Los Angeles area, especially from Granada Hills, has been trying to puff up the biography of R&B singer Charlie Wilson, to make him seem more influential than he is. The problem started in August 2011 with this series of edits calling Wilson a "legend" who influenced Snoop Dogg, R. Kelly, Justin Timberlake and Kanye West. The person contacted in 2013 to complain about the removal of the promotional wording. This promotional theme has been repeatedly returned to the article by the listed IPs, now engaged in edit warring. The article was put into pp-pc protection because of the IP edits. The conflict of interest component comes from an article link posted by the IP saying that Charlie Wilson was interviewed at his manager's house in Granada Hills, the same place as the IPs.diff, LA Times source.

Charlie Wilson is not usually listed as one of the top R&B singers. Billboard lists 35 and Wilson is not among them. Another source lists Jackie Wilson but not Charlie Wilson. Of course Charlie Wilson is somewhat influential as a singer, having been the leader of a popular funk group, and having mentored Snoop Dogg to a degree, but he's not so iconic as James Brown or Otis Redding. The scale of puffery is too much for the topic. What do you all think should be the next step in terms of article protection? Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

TO WIKI COI TEAM: This is insane that a new Wiki user who happens to have an IP in Granada Hills and cites an article that mentions Granada Hills allows Binksternet to claim a conflict of interest and claim "puffery" and delete factual information included about Wilson because of his own personal opinion of Charlie Wilson's status. There has been zero "puffery" except indicating what Charlie Wilson has accomplished in the articles mentioned. How can wikipedia continue to allow Binksternet to police this and try to censor the facts with his personal feelings about Charlie Wilson by citing 1 Billboard article about R&B Singers (when there are numerous other Billboard articles actually indicating Charlie as a powerful and influential artist) and using his personal and biased opinion about what can be included from these professional articles like the LA Times and others that note Wilson accomplishments that I am simply including and need to be updated. As someone who follows R&B music there are hundreds of articles that show Charlie Wilson's relevance in the music space and his well noted collaborations with many popular and mainstream artists alike that have been indicated in his own personal discography and those of others like Snoop Dogg, Pharrell, Kanye West, Bruno Mars, R. Kelly, and most recently Tyler the Creator among countless others (this is what I am trying to show on his page and not puffery). In fact even though Wilson comes from an old funk band as Binksternet indicates, Wilson has a very accomplished solo career later in life and continues to be sought after by artists old and young. I am simply trying to include these and update events that are not indicated on the page. Wilson was honored with the 2013 BET Legend Award and presented the award by Justin Timberlake (whom performed with with Wilson and indicated his admiration to him) along with many other heavy weights that participated in honoring Charlie Wilson as a legend throughout the program. Yet Binksternet claims that myself and others are including this information on his page as "puffery" when they are simply facts and show Wilson's place with the R&B and music community. In my recent research revolving around this I also noticed he has a major tour following that rival other major acts like Janet Jackson and Lionel Richie where he sells out multiple nights at the Hollywood Bowl and the Forum and did a multi-million dollar tour last year which placed him as one of the highest grossing for R&B but am weary to post anything or update the Charlie Wilson page with this kind of information that is available because of Binksternet's constant censorship of the facts based on his own personal feeling as to what a legendary artist is or how HE FEELS about Charlie Wilson from his own point of view which creates the opposite experience of what Wikipedia should be about. I should be allowed to freely update the page with these facts and not arbitrarily be deleted or accused of things when I am simply stating the facts in the article and want to update certain things on the page that are missing with regard to this artist. This is not "puffery" nor is it the problem. The real problem here rather is censorship created by Binksternet and his biased policing of an artist's page that needs to managed and controlled so new users like myself can simply keep the facts included with the appropriate research and not be blocked by this man's personal opinion and feelings about the artist. PLEASE LET US KNOW NEXT STEPS as to ensure a proper update of this artist's legacy. Thank you. WP:DNB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.225.7 (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Uh, what you just posted is pretty much textbook puffery - going on extensively about how great you think Charlie Wilson is, talking about you want a proper legacy for him, etc. Just looking at the edits, this is a borderline case for me - while the edits in question did not look excessively puffy to me, they aren't supported by the source either (for example, you listed a number of artists whom Wilson has influenced, but all the article said is that he has collaborated with them - and, in fact, at least one wasn't mentioned in the article at all!).
 * With that said, you didn't answer the COI question, and that is kind of the purpose of this noticeboard, so: do you have any sort of relationship with Charlie Wilson? Please review WP:EXTERNALREL for a list of things that can be considered a COI relationship.
 * creffett (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Noting also that the IP refers to themselves as "Us", which is highly suspect.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He refers to himself as a new editor (linking to don't bite the newbies) but he's been doing this stuff since at least 2011. He was previously warned about a conflict of interest back in 2011, by . Not a new user by any stretch. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Binksternet 2011? Seriously? What are you talking about? I saw those edits from whoever you referenced earlier and even those edits were simply facts about Charlie Wilson.  What is your personal hate to this man?  I wish someone here on wiki can see how people like you with some authority on here bully and edit these pages to your personal tastes and when someone like me comes along that doesn't fit your ideal of the artist you throw everything at them including lies.  In my opinion you have the COI and I believe you have a history with Charlie Wilson in some way maybe as a potentially disgruntled audio engineer (as you say you are).  What other pages are you doing this too, using your powers to control the page based on your personal preferences?  Wiki needs to try and contain individuals like you spewing inaccurate accusations and conclusions which are false and stop the growth of these pages.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.225.7 (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

User:SamHolt6 - the "Us" was simply referring to myself and Binksternet and hoping to get some answers from the wiki community on how to proceed for both of us and potentially have him revert his edits from his bias or mine with a solid conclusion; and so I do not continually get harassed, blackballed, deleted, blocked with the edits I wanted to do on the Wilson page moving forward. Nothing suspect or deceitful to read into there. User:Creffett I appreciate your response and yes my tone in my comments could be construed as "how great I think Charlie Wilson is" based after my research on him but what is the difference with Binksternet saying the exact opposite and his personal feelings about Charlie Wilson in all of his commentary prior and reasons for deletions and accusations/attacks on me which is the very reason we are now put in the scenario. Positive "puffery" = bad but Negative "censorship of facts" good/okay?? None of my edits "pufferized" anything that either wasn't already there or in the information I added. Binksternet said I was "promoting". What am I promoting exactly? The street should go both ways and his negative bias should carry the same weight as my accusations of "puffery" which is inaccurate based on my edits. And no I am not related to Charlie Wilson but have been following his career and fond of his accomplishments. My edits are simply stating facts I have read and have come from varied citations that have now been mixed and co-mingled thus why you indicated the article I cited had someone missing from the original paragraph that I was trying to re-instate. But that doesn't mean the facts are not there and that Charlie Wilson did not do these things and unfortunately it was my mistake in not putting together the exact citation with all this back and forth battling. It is going to be easily proven and referenced to show this however but at this point my ability and original intention to include these facts and stats and update the page are hampered and I feel like I have beaten by the wiki mob. Truly unfortunate and I don't feel this is in the spirit of how this was meant to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.225.7 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't feel "beaten by the wiki mob" if your additions weren't so badly out of balance with the sources, so clearly promotional. If you had been making reasonable changes then your experience here would be positive. The article history shows a long-term and persistent attempt to puff up the man's legacy. I'm not blind... the persistent attempts are all in the same style, showing that you have been doing this for years, from multiple IPs.
 * I refuse to comment on the ridiculous claim that I am somehow connected to Wilson myself. Totally unfounded, a flailing attempt at mud flinging. Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Badly out of balance? How is updating award statistics "puffery" or are you just upset he was nominated for awards because you truly are disgruntled or indeed have some sort of conflict interest with Charlie Wilson yourself?  And the other edit I did was simply reinstating your deletions based on your negative bias to Charlie Wilson and that whoever did the edit prior was actually accurate for including in the first place.  Plus that original section wasn't even written by me but was written by other wiki users so what am I promoting?  Yet you sir have the persistent attempts to censor this man's page and try to stop those edits by claiming I am puffing it up.  And it is you who seems to have some kind of obvious conflict, to quote you "but he's not so iconic as James Brown or Otis Redding".  Who are you to determine that or make any sort of interpretation of his status when you say others should not do the very thing you are doing?  I also find it truly suspect that the only thing you don't want to comment on was explaining how you are not connected to Wilson in some way especially after it is so easy for you to spread all your accusations and lies about others.  (I will be researching to find this out sir as I am confident I will find out you somehow worked with Wilson or affiliated in some way and wanting to limit any positive research on him).  Coincidentally, I also found this on you too which proves this is how you act, control, and bully others to push your biased agendas here on Wikipedia Binksternet bullying others on Wikipedia.  I just hope a hero Wikipedia contributor with more power than you sees this "persistent" damaging pattern and does something to contain you.


 * Attempting to be the voice of reason here.
 * Based on the IP user's comments, I'm willing to WP:AGF and call this non-COI, just an enthusiastic fan. Recommend taking this to WP:DRN. Also, the 2011 reference seems a little unlikely to be this editor if you only have IPs as a reference.
 * You aren't doing yourself any favors right now by accusing Binksternet of bias, control, and censorship. You may not have intended it, but your edits did come off as puffy. Please WP:AGF on the part of the editors trying to keep promotional and COI material off of Wikipedia. Based on this, I would also suggest that you bring up your edits on the article talk page so that other editors can suggest how to make them more encyclopedic.
 * creffett (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Creffett and thank you for being the voice of reason. I do want a truce and for this to come to an end and stop the warring but I dont feel I have been treated fairly here.  I want to be clear that the few edits I did and as being labeled "puffy" or promotional still does not sit right.  Of my less than handful edits they simply were updating award numbers or trying to merely reinstate a section of the article that Binksternet continued to delete outright.  That section was previously written by other wiki members (and not me) and it was only until someone added Tyler The Creator to it (which was accurate based on Wilson's relationship with Tyler working together on Tyler's last 2 albums after I noticed in the research) and tried to reinstate that section.  What part of those edits is puffery or promotion?  It is evident Binksternet does not look at Wilson in the same light and using his powers to bully and censor the page and accuse me of all kinds of other edits to push his agenda.  You said I am not doing myself any favors by accusing him of bias but that is hard to do when Binksternet himself says "Charlie Wilson is somewhat influential as a singer" and "he's not so iconic as James Brown or Otis Redding".  This is pure bias and his personal opinion on how he feels about Wilson and should not be used to influence how he controls the page or other wiki contributors like myself.  Am I missing something here?  I also found this gem that shows this continued type of harassment and bullying done to others in the wiki community from Binksternet and the same tactics he has used here with me to push his agendas Binksternet bullying others on Wikipedia.  How is this right?  And this was why I was requesting help from other senior Wiki contributors.  My edits are not the true problem but his edits and censures are and if anything he should be banned from contributing for this and at least to the Wilson page.  I would also like to have my IP and talk page be corrected and reverted back to a status that does make it out to look like I was some sort of vandal because I want to continue to contribute and have learned a lot of the experience here and understand how to better the edits moving forward.  I do appreciate the true wiki contributors like yourself that seem to care and move this forward positively.  Thank you for that and I appreciate your help.
 * If you think Charlie Wilson is in the same league as James Brown or Otis Redding, you are welcome to quote some WP:Reliable sources agreeing with your position. You won't find any. It's not "bias" to say that James Brown and Otis Redding have a greater influence and more extensive fame than Charlie Wilson – just look at the literature and you'll see nothing to contradict my position. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I Never said Charlie Wilson was in the same league nor made any comparison to any artists including the ones you mentioned. Ever. You sir did that and worse it is bias to arbitrarily say that those artists had a greater influence and more fame than Charlie Wilson. Its categorically the definition of bias.  What is this bias based on?  Grammy awards, Chart positions, what?  It is your opinion and further proves that the very thing you are accusing me of is what you are actually doing.  And then suggesting for everyone to simply "look at the literature" but then turn around and tell me to get WP:Reiliable sources while we have to go along with your biased opinion because that is the agenda you are pushing here.  You are a pure hypocrite who has been outed sir.  The same way you say to simply look at the literature anyone could have said the same for Charlie Wilson and you would have pounced with your deletions and threats yet others beyond you or me could perceive Wilson the opposite and which may be dramatically different than your opinion.  Like everyone said opinions do not rule these wiki pages.  Your personal beliefs on Charlie Wilson is as a result of either your lack of knowledge on Charlie Wilson in general and what adds to his statistics against your obvious and personal bias on where you think he belongs in your music circle which you yourself proclaim to be working in and a part of.  In fact I'm sure there is COI somewhere with you and Charlie Wilson.  Your actions here and on other pages as evidenced  along with your self proclaimed employment in the music space and this is truly accurate of your actions in the Wiki world and also includes other Wiki contributors complaining about your agenda of pushing music products that only you endorse among the same bullying tactics you have done here to push your agendas.  The cited article definitely is accurate and sounds like you sir for sure always pushing your personal bias and negative agendas creating a net negative Wikipedia experience for us all. More on other wiki users accusing Binksternet of same tactics he uses to bully, lie, and push his personal agendas on wiki and other COI.  I'm over this and know my point has been proven so I am done with this sir as you have shown your true colors and all I hope at this point is my IP restored and other wiki users see the same with this debate and the previous complaints other Wiki users have about you in those articles that I have dug up and pray that a good Samaritan wiki user finally contains you and stops your peddling of personal agendas and products.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.225.7 (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)