Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 150

Arrested Development (group)
This user made their COI evident here but continues to directly edit the article (badly). A previous message on their talk page with the standard boilerplate was ignored, and they apparently have no interest in even trying to use references properly, adding external links directly into article text instead, and even removing ref markup to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC) It's concerning to me that they have made it a credible claim that they are working at the direct request of the group, are still actively editing content about the group, but refuse to engage with the community at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am starting to think that the most useful thing editors at COIN can do is watch a page, as there is strength in numbers when it comes to reverting disruption and WP:OWNERSHIP. So, watched.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that Special:Diff/877718117 and Special:Diff/877723279 are some of the larger edits that the account has ever done and outright copies and pastes of other people's writing and promotional quotefarms indicates that we would not lose very much if this account's editing privileges were revoked. That is simply not writing. I enjoyed the fact that Special:Diff/913987396 spoke in the past tense of a date that was still in the future according to its timestamp.  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * was clearly editing about xyrself, incidentally. But it seems not worth fussing over, unless untrue (which I have not checked). Uncle G (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. As far as I can see, all of their improper edits have been reverted. They're clearly in conflict though, and I sometimes wonder why editors like that aren't blocked outright, as it takes the time of good faith editors to monitor them.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I've given them another warning. Hopefully this time they heed our advice. TheAwesome Hwyh  03:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They did not. They seem steadfastly determined to not talk to anyone and not even try to understand how all this works. If I wasn't editorially involved I'd block them melself at thsi point. 20:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked for editing past COI warning and ignoring multiple previous warnings - David Gerard (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, but it looks like they are using an IP sock already. I can't believe the members of the group would want someone acting like this ont heir behalf, they seem like a pretty down-to-earth bunch. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Logos University (International) - owner editing it after paid editing notice


GabrielUnilogos states that he owns the university. He was given a notice this morning by User:McMatter but continued to edit. I rarely visit this board or deal with COIN but it looks like the best place to take this. What's the best thing to do if he continues to ignore the notice? Hopefully he'll come here now as I just notified him of this discussion. Doug Weller talk 10:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Never mind. He created a sock, there was an SPI and I confirmed it. I've blocked both indefinitely although if he appeals and agrees to follow our rules I won't mind if someone unblocks him. Doug Weller  talk 16:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You missed the obvious . &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Is "UN Academic Impact" a notable award? If not, this article might be a deletion candidate (since I'm definitely not seeing any claim to notability in-article other than that) creffpublic  a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 17:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to be an award at all, but a voluntary organization. This is the signup page; the only stipulation seems to be that they are regulated in a member country . Bri.public (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This issue isn't the awards and such but most Higher Ed facilities will make it through AFD as long as there is proof they exists and are accredited by a respectable accreditation board. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES covers this. So generally these almost have a lower threshold for inclusion in AFD. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Their accredting claim is "UNILOGOS is accredited by the AAHEA and IOED which also accredit numerous other educational institutions in America and abroad." AAHEA is on our List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations. IOED is not on that list, but is also not on List of recognized higher education accreditation organizations... and based on their What We Do page, doesn't look to be an accreditor at all. So WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not apply. Feel free to start. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Enjoy Special:Diff/764509840 and Special:Diff/750928500 from one of the major editors of this article. Uncle G (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Martin Clement Creamer
This draft is currently at MFD. The author's statements are not worthy of belief. They say that they were asked to create an article. Then they say that they were asked by a group of friends, because they are getting snared in being paid, when it would be less difficult just to declare that they are being paid. Author is a single-purpose account. The claim that they are working on this one person just to get Wikipedia editing experience, rather than shifting to some less hopeless task when at MFD, doesn't follow. (They aren't getting paid to get Wikipedia editing experience, but that is my opinion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Charlie Midnight


This is my first time filing this sort of report, so hopefully I am doing this properly. Some months ago, I noticed that someone had been removing biographical information from the Charlie Midnight article. I replaced the information, and added a citation. The same user then removed the information twice more over a period of time. After some research, I noted that the person's user name, "MPH Entertainment", was very similar to MPH Music Productions and MPH Media, both organizations previously or currently associated with Mr. Midnight. I also noted that the MPH Entertainment account seems to have only ever edited this article in its two years of existence. At that time (July 25), I posted on their user talk page, but have received no response to date. The same user again removed the biographical info in question earlier today, which led me to make this report. -Dewelar (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That article's problems barely begin with the removal of the birth name. I've reverted back a ways to a less promotional version and put a paid editor warning template on User:MPH Entertainment's talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Blackstone Brewing Company


I've removed lists of individual products and a long list of awards as promotional/non-encyclopedic and they have all been put back. If anyone could take another look... MB 17:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC) "local businessman and historian Scott R. Mertie (owner of the Nashville Brewing Company) wrote a book on Nashville's brewing history, titled Nashville Brewing (Arcadia Publishing, 2006)." So S Mertie is the owner and the author of the main source. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Tadeusz Patzek


This article is an autobiography, confirmed by edit summary "added more detailed information about my life". The editor has removed COI & like-resume tags. These should only be removed by an independent editor with a NPOV. MB 18:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I trimmed about 25% of the article content that was either puffery or irrelevant and unsourced. Seems to meet WP:NPROF as he has held named chairs. He has also participated in some high profile congressional consulting. I've templated the use for COI and added the article to my watchlist.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Gamone Pwint


New user, named the same as the chairman of the subject company, has changed the (English-transliterated) spelling of his middle name "Lin" to "Lynn". It seems likely, from sources like LinkedIn, that this is how he prefers it, but I recognize the problems with impersonation, COI, etc. Would someone, familiar with all the right username and COI policies to cite, address this with him? Thanks. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 06:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would not worry about the edit. It's very minor. The user name also seems OK, as it refers to a single person within the company, if that is what GMP means. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Seamus Coughlin
I highly suspect that Seamus Coughlin was written by the subject or someone closely associated with him. The topic might also not be notable but I saw this right before I need to log off and do not currently have time to dig through the mountain of links at the bottom of the page, so I thought I'd bring it to attention here. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    22:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nominated for deletion. It looks like paid editing, as the page started out at 35KB, and the user's first step was to redirect FreedomToons to Seamus Coughlin. The new user is a pro. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , That was my thought as well. I also haven't been editing for a while and didn't want to dive straight back in with a paid editing case, so thanks for helping out with it. Cheers, —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    00:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. The user has also posted to my talk page. Don't forget to leave users a COIN Notice as above, on their talk page. I have done it for you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I am the person who wrote the article. As I have already said, I am in no way related to Seamus Coughlin. I am not him. I do not know him. He does not know there is an article about him. I am just a fan of his who noticed there wasn't an article about him and wanted to contribute. I worked really hard on this so please don't delete it. Cc330162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying this. You did a very good job on the editing, but it is up for deletion because the sourcing does not seem to establish the notability. We get a lot of paid editors who are here promote a subject, which hurts Wikipedia. Thank you for clarifying that you are not one of them.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if you looked at the sources you would know he's notable enough to appear on The Tom Woods Show twice and to have his work talked about by Ben Shapiro and Andrew Klavan, which is a pretty big deal if you ask me. I didn't mention this in the article because I didn't think it was relevant, but he also appeared on Blaze TV, which is also a pretty big deal. Coughlin has over 300 thousand subscribers, which is more than Alan Melikdjanian had when his article was created, so he's definitely notable in that regard. I believe for those reasons that Seamus Coughlin is notable enough to have an article written about him. Cc330162 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * if you don't know him, how is this or his signature your own work? Praxidicae (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. The picture of Coughlin is a cropped screenshot of an interview from Blaze TV. In the FreedomToons intro, you can see his signature in the top right corner. I edited it in photoshop to make the background transparent and the writing black instead of blue. It was actually pretty hard to figure out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cc330162 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Highly likely self promotion


This user repeatedly created a page about a school, which he likely still "studies" in, based on his userpage.
 * His attempts at creating a page for his school was repeatedly(5+ times?) undone because of the promotional tone of the article,
 * But the most important clue that I found was he was putting in the name G50X(a DJ) in many of his edits, like putting his name as a notable alumni of his school,
 * Thus on basis of his old user name(ig"music"tek) and the striking similarity between the search results of G50X and the userpage, I can confidently say that this is self-promotion.
 * So what should be done about this? [User:Daiyusha|Daiyusha]] (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yo, I'm sorry if I'm going against Wikipedia policies but I don't think that was self-promotion. I'm providing the right information only. I'm actually a close friend of G50X. I love to edit wiki too without providing fake info's. I've noticed that there has some several informations removed from the page I've written from school, it's dumb that it shouldn't be removed, I only provided correct infos. Who else cites on "Event" section??!! I've referenced lot of school page before writing and found out that most of them don't even have their event section cited. And yeah on the infobox, how am I able to cite there lol, I've never seen someone citing on infobox yet. So 2 boxes were removed bcoz of that -_- and I'm sorry if I'm violating the policies. I'll make sure I won't put his name again haha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3FAULTX8 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , since you are a close friend of G50X, you should not be editing pages to insert his name. See WP:COI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll make sure that it doesn't happen again, please dismiss this issue, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3FAULTX8 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Nebraska Family Alliance


A large edit of non-neutral-POV text appeared with anonymous edit. It is likely that a paid employee of this organization has inserted this new, contentious text.

The organization that is the subject of the article is in the news today, link below. It is likely they have edited their own article to shore up their public appearance.

https://journalstar.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/employee-fired-after-telling-conservative-woman-to-leave-lincoln-coffeeshop/article_3cd19c34-21f2-59f0-b49c-844438d786ed.html

Jno.skinner (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * the IP user's edit seems neutral and well sourced. It is mostly good editing, although I did restore a few less than flattering sentences that the IP had deleted. Personally I would not worry too much unless they start adding material that is outside of the editing standards for advocacy, sourcing, neutrality and puffery. Keep an eye on it feel free to revert their edits if you feel they are out of scope. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I went through and checked a few of the references that the IP added. In doing so, I discovered that some of them are a bit thin, meaning the claims are only partially supported by the sources. Feel free to check those over.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * thank you for your work ThatMontrealIP! I think in a couple of cases I am able to find more descriptive sources for those thinly-sourced claims; thanks for looking into them. There remain a couple of phrases that seem non-neutral to me based upon the Manual of Style/Words to watch. Terms like "freedom fighter", according to the Manual, "may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources." I feel that the phrase "defending religious freedom" in the article is very near to "freedom fighter" and thus introduces bias. But, I'm having a hard time thinking of how to replace it in a neutral POV way. Would love to know if you happen to have any guidance. Jno.skinner (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just go for it and change the word when you come up with a replacement! Don't be afraid to revert an edit if you feel strongly about it. The relevant policy is WP:BRD, meaning be bold, revert, discuss. If you see something you don't like, you should revert and place a discussion somewhere, as you have done here. I agree "freedom fighter" is perhaps not a neutral phrase.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Assuming it only appeared in the lead, I changed it from "defending" to "increasing". I think it is the same idea but has a more neutral tone (i.e. it doesn't make a value judgement about "religious freedom" and its change). The other alternative would be to quote the group on their policy goals (if they have every released a concise, straightforward list of same). I also changed "combating human trafficking" to "reducing human trafficking". Rockphed (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Rockphed! I wholly agree that "increase" is more neutral than "defend". I did replace your change, however, because I thought it appropriate to be more specific about what policy proposals constitute increasing religious freedom. I settled on "permitting displays of religious affiliation in public schools" and "permitting business to decline service to LGBT customers" because that's what was supported elsewhere in the article, under the "Religious freedom" heading. I did choose to not alter this heading, because there is more room there to expand upon the meaning of the phrase. Jno.skinner (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

FriendlyRoRo
Misplaced on the wrong noticeboard. I have added diffs and articles to 89.240.130.121's original report, per the custom for this noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC) has been dropping by since 2016. Always kinda promo-sounding articles on companies. Never once and edit to a talk page. Talkpage has a CoI notice and a spamming warning. Fails at all opportunities to WP:ENGAGE. All well and good but... what now? This is way beyond me. 89.240.130.121 (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/915165015
 * Special:Diff/915165015
 * Special:Diff/915165015
 * Special:Diff/915165015
 * Special:Diff/915165015
 * Special:Diff/915165015
 * If I’m allowed to suggest an idea (I encountered this editor by adding tags to the Apex Airspace article), I would suggest a final warning, and a block if they continue. From reading the AfD, this report, they seem like a WP:PROMO account, or at least WP:NOTHERE. James-the-Charizard (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * IMO this is clear misuse of Wikipedia and leeching off the work of our volunteers. I've blocked indefinitely as an undisclosed paid editor. Bishonen &#124; talk 07:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC).
 * Thank you. complained about something deleted by User:JamesBWatson. Is it a sock? There are some other promo-ish sock-ish accounts incl., what do others think? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What did you mean by "a sock"? Did you mean a Sockpuppet of RoRo? James-the-Charizard (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edit history at Rockfire Capital, that is what I suspect. Also the general tone of the contribs by FriendlyRoRo and Ebin Benny are very similar; mostly RE/RE capital fund promo. Throw in too, as a prior creator of Netwealth. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m no checkuser (I’m only an editor with 1600 edits to his name) but looking at the fact that both Ebin and Louis created Netwealth, socking between the two definitely seems like a possibility, either that or the operators of the accounts could be related. James-the-Charizard (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Despite the similarity between the editing from FriendlyRoRo and Ebin Benny, I am confident that they are not the same person, for reasons which I prefer not to publicise here, especially as and the IP editor have effectively alerted the editors in question to this discussion by linking to their user names. However, I would not by any means rule out the possibility that they are both undisclosed paid editors who have both worked for the same client. LouisLuscombe and LadyWilco have both done too little editing for any conclusion to be drawn, but in any case it's fairly irrelevant since LouisLuscombe's entire editing history took place in a period of less than 6 weeks in 2016, and LadyWilco's in a single day in 2017. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Any editor has to be alerted that they are being discussed on the noticeboard. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Was I supposed to tell the two of them...? (Oh boy I feel like a dummy...) James-the-Charizard (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right, of course. Because the issue I was dealing with was suspicion of sockpuppetry, I was thinking in terms of sockpuppet investigations, where informing editors discussed is not required (and indeed there are often very good reasons for avoiding calling their attention to what the evidence is). With that in the forefront of my mind, I forgot that here it is different. Thanks for correcting me. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Dildo, Newfoundland and Labrador


has been editing the Dildo article and he is a member of the local service district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NL19931993 (talk • contribs)
 * , we have pretty strict rules on identifying people in real life. Does Adpretty say he's who you think he is somewhere? If not, everyone has a right to privacy on Wikipedia unless they disclose voluntarily. If he does, please accept my apologies! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Adpretty does not appear to have ever made a talk page comment at user or article talk. As such the assumption that they are any given individual would fall under WP:OUTING. Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Putting topic ban on the user
Here is the User:Ruth vanita who is continuously editing articles about Ruth Vanita, Saleem Kidwai and others even after issuing warnings to her about WP:COI. In this revision she tried to put details about her upcoming book and used Wiki as soapbox. Same she did here. Saleem Khidwai is the person with whom she co-authored a book and she added these details about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshil169 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia should not be use as soapbox and many of her edits related to herself, her colleague and homosexuality are promotion of her work which is not acceptable. Hence, I think topic ban on LGBT writers in India should be imposed on her so that she can't further edit about pages related to herself, her colleague and her work. Or atleast topic ban on Ruth Vanita will be also enough. -- Harshil want to talk? 11:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a note that some background exists at the AFD for Ruth Vanita. Her additions yesterday were quickly reverted.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a note that this was originally opened at ANI, and this noticeboard (COIN) has become the central discussion. - Bri.public (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Bethany Hills Camp


This is my first time filing something like this out, so hopefully I'm doing it right. The user has admitted to working for the business he edited the page for, but his page does not disclose a possible CoI. The 5th Dimension of Hades (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Our disclosure requirements are met at: User:Samtbartholomew. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Tomevo1234


Creating of an article about themself. Lupin VII (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Express Yourself (MX Player)


Promo only account and likely undisclosed paid editor. The user was asked to disclose paid editing twice, but there is no response and s/he continue promoting the subject and related topics. GSS (talk |c|em ) 07:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked. MER-C 09:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

User:AMarkMcLean and Brasserie Brunehaut
I think that this user might be an undisclosed paid editor. New account, and their only edits are to this article. Their edits appear to be promotional;, , , , , , , etc, I could provide more diffs, but I think this is enough to show why I'm posting here. Clovermoss (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * At the top of this page is the notice: However, you don't appear to have left any message on the user's talk page (which is still a red link). Perhaps you'd like to do so now?  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will. Clovermoss (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC) I have  left a notice now. Thank you for mentioning my mistake so I could try to fix it. I don't have much experience with COIN and should have been more careful about making sure I did stuff like that. Clovermoss (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm no longer concerned about this editor's intentions after seeing their reply on their talk page. is interested in improving the encloypedia and does not appear to have a conflict-of-interest, just an interest in improving the Wikipedia article. It looks like my report here has discouraged them from further editing... and I regret making this report for that reason. Clovermoss (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

SantanaMontanaofficial


Creation of article about themself. Lupin VII (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Likely UPE and promotion


The article is written with promotional intent, and the user has been warned before (final warning) for promotion. Other than that, searching for the user's name brings up fishy results, giving evidence for UPE. Daiyusha (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Promotional article
This article, moved out of draft is truly truly chronic. User coi tag placed  scope_creep Talk  00:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Openfiler


Openfiler was softblocked for a username violation. Immediately after Ofsupport started editing the article Openfiler and utilized this edit summary |"Is it your contention that we do not have the right to edit our own Wikipedia article?". Clearly a COI editor trying to remove any negative information about the subject. VViking Talk Edits 14:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Don Felder


Continued COI editing. User listed as COI editor on talk page and persistent uploading of copyvio's File:DonFelder.jpg. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

AlienGearHolsters1


Editor has been adding links to a holster mfr of the same name to a series of articles. This is pretty clear and dry self promotion. Springee (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , when it's this blatant (username is the name of a company) you can report them to WP:UAA as a promotional username and one which suggests shared use (since company names are explicitly forbidden by the username policy). creffpublic  a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Reported to WP:UAA. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Mainulsmef


Edits indicate they work at SME Foundation. They also have created an account of the same company name, probably with the intentional of adding self-promotional content. Lupin VII (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Red dress party


I've already added the 'connected contributor' template to the talk page, but I'm sharing here just in case there are other templates to share on user talk pages, etc. The editor seems willing to cooperate based on an ongoing talk page discussion. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Rodney Mims Cook Jr.


See article history and contribution history, especially this edit summary:
 * "Revisions were expressly requested by article subject, and conducted in compliance with subject's directions. Article subject considered supreme authority with regards to this article" (User:12.163.219.138) -- ɱ (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I share your concerns. Have nominated the son for deletion, Articles for deletion/Rodney Mims Cook Jr.. Edwardx (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for the issues from my edits; I was intending them as simply being for clarity and to provide further information (and, in a few cases, simple grammatical fixes). How can I make things right, so this article can stay posted? I am a novice editor, so I'm not very familiar with the rules yet. 12.163.219.138 (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You have enough gall to revert me (an editor for a decade with tens of thousands of edits), claiming you have "supreme authority", so no, I don't buy it. You are either editing at the instruction of the Cook family, or you are a member of the Cook family. In accordance with Wikipedia practices, you need to stop directly editing these articles and only request changes on the talk page. Regarding the son's article, you may contest its deletion here. ɱ  (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And for the record, no, the article subject has the least authority on their biography. Read WP:AUTOBIO: on Wikipedia, they are extremely discouraged from editing their own bios, and their own personal knowledge is continually disregarded in favor of third-party reliable sources. As well, for the record, look at External links. External links are not permitted within the body of an article. ɱ  (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * To reference external links, would that then be a footnote? What code string is used to append those, so I can go ahead and correct them? I have also identified Wikipedia internal links that could be used in some places to replace externals, and could then reference the external for further information. Can YouTube videos be included in-line, or should they be appended at the end as well?
 * Some of my edits were simply for grammar or to append/correct a missing title for an individual; are those okay as they stand or would you suggest I revert and request edits across the board anyway?
 * Again, I do apologize for being pushy; I admit I'm not versed in Wikipedia posting, so I didn't understand why what I was editing was wrong and pushed back too hard. I do understand now, though, and will keep it in mind going forward, especially in regard to requesting edits. I would appreciate any guidance you can give me as I learn this; I thought it was just "make the edit and put it live and you're fine. 12.163.219.138 (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Use internal links except if you want to back up a statement with an independent source (newspaper, book, website). Please revert your edits and request the addition of internal links or references (and any other changes) on the article talk page. Most people are allowed to edit directly, you are right, but people with a Conflict of interest are not allowed to edit directly. ɱ  (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I see! I'll go ahead and revert once I'm done typing this, and start with my edit requests. If I can provide URLs to relevant YouTube videos and where I'd like them placed, would that help with the edit process? And for matters of sourcing for the purpose of the BIO criteria, what sources are considered most acceptable?  I know there are a few referenced already, but if I can find more I would like to provide those too in subsequent edit requests. 12.163.219.138 (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * YouTube videos are rarely put on Wikipedia. Generally it is only done in cases that the video is the topic of the article, like in the case of a notable music video or performance. Otherwise, an informative, educational video like Every Detail of Grand Central Terminal Explained; Architectural Digest can be and is included in the "External links" section, at the end of the Grand Central Terminal article. As for what constitutes a good source, we've developed a pretty good guideline over the years on that: WP:RS. Generally reliable sources are nonfiction books by major publishers, major news (NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, CBS, BBC), etc. The tool Media Bias Fact Check may also help. And for your purposes, these architecture magazines publish quality work. ɱ  (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay. In this case, while the videos aren't directly the topics of the article, the topic features in them all, and I'm hoping to have them serve as additional information if permitted, so people can see the events discussed in text. I'll look through the architectural magazines too, as well as major media; hadn't thought of that, thanks! 12.163.219.138 (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment do you have a connection to the article subjects here? I.e. have you met them, know them or communicated with Cook Jr. at all, as the edit comment above suggests?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Flytime Music Festival


All these articles are linked. One person has been slowly authoring them to promote one company/person across Wikipedia. They removed COI and Advert tags multiple times [1, 2 and their very first edit was the request for undeletion of an article authored by another SPA, [[Special:Contributions/Eniolah|Eniolah]], who had repeatedly recreated Flytime Promotions. Dharmalion76 (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I did the research on those topics. they are all connected but not to me. I put them out as separate topics rather than one topic because of the different relevance they have as I first wanted to know more about those subject but couldn't find anything on them here on Wikipedia before doing my research and publishing. These subject are relevant here in Nigeria and are not promotional, I can edit them further for clarity later — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottceneje (talk • contribs) 20:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Phil Tagami


Zennie62 has admitted that he is editing on behalf of Phil Tagami and removing tags and content the article subject doesn't like. When I reverted the blankings and advised him about WP:COI he said he would continue and even threatened to enlist others saying "I can call a friend who doesn't know Phil and is on Wikepedia, but it would result in the same: the removal of that paragraph that is emotionally bothering him." His final threat has been to somehow have the entire article removed. Dharmalion76 (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I gave the article a small trim and added a source. I would not worry about Single purpose account editors like Zennie62, as s/he has expressed contempt for the project and will not last very long with that attitude. Better to spend your efforts elsewhere. I have added the Tagami page to my watchlist.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Dharmalion76 (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

More suspicious new articles
As a reminder, this is a list of articles created in the last two weeks that are disproportionally likely to be UPE, COI, or otherwise promotional or non-notable. Expect false positives.

Batch ending 23 September
Here we go again. MER-C 14:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI. I sent a few of these to AfD. Gender Alliance has since had an IP editor remove the AfD notice from the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * "disproportionally likely to be UPE, COI, or otherwise promotional or non-notable" Based on what criteria? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, at the top of this page is the notice:, yet you do not appear to have done so for many - perhaps all - of those you name. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * At the top of this page: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you see this discussion? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have seen this. This is a list of new articles more likely to I do not want to disclose the exact criteria used to make this list to keep the spammers guessing. I do not believe it is constructive to give UPE editors feedback that they may be detected, so I will post these elsewhere in the future (probably WT:WPSPAM). MER-C 16:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, please see Village pump (policy). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort of compiling this list. At the same time, I do not think it belongs here. COIN is for resolving COI disputes, with all involved editors notified of the discussion. The above list is more of a hunting list, which, as has been mentioned, does not involve the implicated editors. There is also way too much for the tiny group of people who frequent COIN to deal with. I did a rough calculation and the above table contains about 1600 individual links. Perhaps there is a better place for this list?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Caroleboller


Continually adding promotional content into an article about themself, despite being warned that their edits are a conflict of interest. Lupin VII (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not see much of a case for notability, so I sent it to AFD.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Filmography pages and IJBall and Davey2010 being unreasonable
Hi earlier this afternoon A user by the name of is arguing on having the filmography pages naturally be "one line wide" like this: (e.g. 2005-06, 2011-13, 2018). Which to be honest I don't agree with this as it contradicts and disregard retcons several article pages for actors filmography pages such as Paget Brewster (in Criminal Minds), Joshua Leonard, to name a few that had it in this format.

Eventually I had to create a section in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers hoping to solve this issue out. It went nowhere as not only continues to argue to have it as "one line wide" but also  continues to side with  with this and plans to get rid of the 'br' and eventually the 'ubl' brackets completely which is like changing the "Declaration of Independence" and I feel that changing the rules and policies is not the solution

The point for line spacing is due to the fact that an actor who played a specific character remains absent for years in a show which more recently are using this: 2006–2012;

2014;

2016–present

intead of this: (e.g. 2005-06, 2011-12, 2018).

It's noticeable when it comes to someone portraying a minor guest character in an episode of a show and aren't seen again like 2 years, 5 years or a decade later after their first appearance in an episode. Same can be said for actors who starred in a show that has been off the air for a decade only to return again for that said show (e.g. Gillian Anderson in X-Files) or even Sara Gilbert in The Big Bang Theory who's character hasn't been seen since 2010 up until her small appearance in 2016.

So eventually I decide to avoid using Line-spacing and use 'bpl' brackets on the actors pages but Davey reverted all the hard work that I put through I'm just frustrated with them. I'm not asking to block them or blacklist them I just am tired on having to deal with these issues that they get fixated on--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an example of both WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:BADGERING. Somebody please WP:TROUT this editor. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd replace TROUT with BLOCK tbh :), Nice that we've been dragged to a completely random board instead of the Dismal Swamp, Makes a nice change lol. – Davey 2010 Talk 10:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

James Bicher
The content of the article related to the person's accusations has been deleted multiple times with no explanations and reasoning. The person doing it might be directly related to, paid by, or James Bicher himself. Smarttbutt (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Siebel


The first three editors have only edited this article, all just in September. From the phrasing of the edit summaries, it would be surprising if they were not all coming from the same person. The "Honors and awards" has clearly become excessive. Looking further back, BAHB and Notevenonce have only edited this or two other Siebel-related articles that also look too promotional. Edwardx (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Anastasios Tsonis
It appears that the subject of Anastasios Tsonis has been making repeated requests on Talk:Anastasios Tsonis for changes to be made to the article about him. These requests have almost all been answered, but none of his proposed edits have been made. However, recently the subject apparently made two edit requests that (who has been communicating with the subject and responding to most of his previous requests) found so egregious that they had to be reverted on the basis of WP:IDHT:  I am not sure that this was the best way to handle this situation, given that this editor is fundamentally doing what he is supposed to do (propose edits on the talk page). But of course a never-ending back and forth with him is not ideal either. Input is requested. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * After 12 request edits, I would say it is safe to ignore the article subject's requests now. We are volunteers, not wiki service people. Excessive interaction with the article subject also has the potential of reducing the neutrality of the article by virtue of it having so much content determined by the subject. We have millions of articles that were created without any input by the article subjects, so I don't see the point in encouraging it. Personally I would have stopped responding after two request edit templates. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been said that a well-asked question is already half-answered. In the great pantheon of well-asked edit requests — this one won't appear. (To continue with my rather wordy reply, see below.)

I had asked that the COI editor supply 3 items to help with my review:
 * A verbatim description of any text or references to be added to the article
 * A verbatim description of any text or references to be removed from the article
 * If any of the above requested changes were not obvious, to give reasons for their being changed
 * The COI editor duly responded with paragraphs of text placed on the talk page with the appropriate template. This proposed text contained what appeared to be text taken from the current standing version of the article (a minimal amount) along with other newer text. The passages of proposed text did not delineate which text or references in the current standing version of the article were to be removed, the supposition being that if text and references did not appear in the proposed sections of text, that meant it was to be deleted.


 * My understanding is that if sections of text are to be removed, those sections need to be stated verbatim in the request along with reasons for their removal. The COI editor occassionally provided general reasons for why text should be removed, saying it was either "wrong" or incorrect. Again, my understanding of the removal process is that specific reasons for why something should be removed should be given, because the reasons for why one passage of text ought to be removed, can and often do differ from why another passage of text should be removed. Asking for these specific reasons to be provided by the COI editor makes it clear that their removing of these items needs to be accountable, and that since it is no less than the subject himself who is asking for the removal, that means the scrutiny of those reasons ought to be stronger.


 * It's where the text and references were to be removed, that brought difficulties. The COI editor's formatting of references were hard to decipher, and at no time did they clearly state what was to be removed. Reasons for why these unlabled changes were to be made were also missing. The COI editor particularly did not understand that any reasons provided should be placed immediately adjacent to the text in question.


 * As an example, allow me to state the following 4 claims: 1. there is a red scarf that should be worn

2. a blue scarf should be worn with grey trousers

3. scarves should be worn on cold days

4. I don't like the color The claims above are made in a small, confined and segmented space with a limited amount of text, just how edit requests are presented. Now then, with regards to the color I dont like, which color am I referring to? Am I talking about trousers or scarves? Because my statement about not liking a color was placed in the text haphazardly, who knows where the statement belongs. The placement of text in a small confined segmented space such as an edit request needs to clearly delineate which segments of text apply where. Text that is to be deleted should be clearly marked as such and reasons why should be paired with the appropriate claims, since reviewers are not WP:MINDREADERS.


 * Without access to a well-asked edit request, I had to guesstimate my response. To that end, my best guess was that the COI editor wanted to remove criticisms from the article and replace them with passages of paraphrased text from their own written journal articles. Based upon that guess of what they wanted done, my reply was to decline the request.


 * Regards, Spintendo  03:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Brenda Novak


Was warned on February 26, 2016 about COI and then claimed to be the article subject's assistant. They then continued to add Novak to articles and place blatantly promotional material in the Brenda Novak article. Even though they were instructed to WP:DISCLOSE their relationship on their user page they have avoided doing so. Dharmalion76 (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * And now Danita Moon has arrived to make the exact same edits as Brenda novak. Dharmalion76 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The first account should be blocked outright as WP:IMPERSONATE. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And it's been done. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Rodney_Orpheus


WP:NPOV and WP:COI and WP:CONFLICT

Notability and commercial purpose is also possible, as the subject fails to meet notability test even in basic purpose of the article - the article was initially created as "Writer," and today the opening paragraph states the subject is known for being "a musician."

Review of materials published or produced impugn the legitimacy; the name of this person additionally does not appear to be a real name. This is therefore a fictional media character.

Request Editor examine claims and engage appropriate policies.

Canlawtictoc (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC) 11:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I had a look at this. The page Rodney Orpheus has been consistently edited by rodneyorpheus, who claims to be the article subject. He provides a rationale for doing so on his talk page, and one on the article talk page as well. He says he is a long time editor and has the right to do so. I've tagged the article as an autobiography and for blp sources. I think that the editor's persistent ignorance of the established COI request edit procedure is basically disruptive editing, as they are not a neutral editor of their own page, even if they think they are.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi guys. Thanks for bringing this up. I completely understand your concerns - I'd feel the same way in your position. Let me attempt to allay some of the concerns raised.


 * Although this is the COI noticeboard, for some reason Notability has been raised as well, even though that's a completely different discussion. However, for the sake of getting it out of the way, I'll address it here. Looking back through the history, I can see that Notability was first raised way back in June 2009, and that original Notability heading was removed (by another editor, not by me) in December 2009. It was raised again in March 2010, leading to more discussion in the Talk page, when consensus was eventually reached. After several more months of no further discussion on the subject, I finally removed the second header in December 2010. As far as I can recall that issue hasn't been raised since then. I am more than a little surprised to see it being raised again now. I particularly am confused by the statement 'the article was initially created as "Writer," and today the opening paragraph states the subject is known for being "a musician."' I fail to understand the logic in this statement. Apparently I can only be notable for one thing at a time? Is that the argument? Because that's not how notability works, either in the real world or on Wikipedia. To put this to bed again, even a quick comparison of my discography or book publication record shows that I well exceed Wikipedia's standards for either of these things. So discussing that again is really a waste of time.


 * To move on to the actual COI issue: yes, that's absolutely a valid concern. I have done a lot of work on that article, and yes, I am the person in question. According to what I understand of Wikipedia's policies, that's certainly frowned upon (as it should be), though not absolutely banned. I welcome any correction to that assumption. So why have I been editing the article? To put things in context, I notice from my own editor page that I had performed my 2000th Wikipedia edit by December 2011. That's a fair bit of editing, and by far the majority of it was not about me! I have contributed to very many articles, including two Good Articles. Why? Because I love Wikipedia and am I strong believer in its principles - and Wikipedia can only grow and thrive if people contribute to subjects they have expertise in. So the reason I contribute to this article is simple, really - because I'm a Wikipedia editor, and it's a subject that I (obviously) know a lot about. That's it.


 * "they are not a neutral editor of their own page, even if they think they are" - I absolutely do not think that I am a neutral editor, nor have I ever pretended to be. I have always been completely upfront about who I am, and what I have been contributing. It's not like I'm astroturfing, or trying to make myself look great. Every addition I have made to that article has been derived from a third-party source which I have cited. I have tried very hard to ensure that I do not add my own personal opinion to anything in there - anything I have added has been purely factual, or the opinion of a reliable source according to Wikipedia's guidelines, and everything has been (hopefully) correctly cited and linked to. If there is any case where I have not adequately done so, by all means please point them out and either provide a solution or ask me to provide one. I am more than willing to assist, but I would absolutely prefer someone else to do it: it's not only better practice, it's less work for me :-)


 * Oh, I notice there's a BLP template there asking for additional citations, but nowhere in the body of the article is anything flagged as requiring citation. That would seem to be a good place to start on actively improving the article.

The Cybersmile Foundation, Stop Cyberbullying Day and filmindustry.network links

 * Sockpuppet investigations/Constantprogress/Archive

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been some socking to promote The Cybersmile Foundation, Stop Cyberbullying Day and a few of the socks also used filmindustry.network links which may tie into an additional COI concern. See Sockpuppet investigations/Constantprogress/Archive and also note that the majority of edits by LJatReynolds and Valerie231x were using filmindustry.network links which ties into the named master's edits (diff 1 and diff 2). Also see Huon's comments at User talk:Constantprogress.

Bridgestone Golf


The IPv4 user's first edit of the Bridgestone Golf article bears an edit summary that reads "The edits include updated product descriptions, made by a Bridgestone Golf employee."

Shcooper1995 joined in on the same day, ruining the same article in a similar style to the IPv4 user. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 16:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Gold Seal


Existing dab page was replaced with an article about a company, written by Agencyblink which is also a Canadian advertising agency. That account was blocked for username violation. I restored the dab page, and now a new editor has again replaced it with the article on the company (twice) and ignored COI warnings on their talk page. MB 17:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The user in question has now disclosed their paid-editing status and begun work on a draft page, Draft:Gold Seal (company). That should resolve this issue (for now). —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "...a leading producer..." right in the lede sentence *sigh* - Bri.public (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It got deleted via G11, thankfully.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Ad blocking, Comparison of DNS server software, DNS over HTTPS, DNS over TLS, DNS sinkhole, and MAC spoofing


User Berean Hunter  suggested that I post about this COI stuff here. I'm new to this COIN thing, so this post might be far from perfect. I find it very confusing, since it's so many different puppets and articles involved, and I wouldn't be surprised if I missed something. Lists of the diffs can be reached by clicking on "contribs" for each puppet above.

A user, currently blocked for sockpuppeting, seems intent on adding links to a website, blog, and GitHub repo (which all seems to be of commercial interests). There is to the best of my knowledge no reliable source that supports the noteworthiness of this "Technitium" stuff. It seems to be pure self promotion. 185.213.154.168 (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Make sure the site gets on a blacklist. I recommend using the report button at WP: WikiProject Spam ☆ Bri (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

CharlesHolston's Response:
 * IP address 103.250.47.154 belongs to me which I used earlier and created an account to keep track.
 * The other mentioned IP addresses are from different providers altogether and not related to me. I do not have any ipv6 connectivity.
 * 185.213.154.168's COI allegations are without any basis as he has not provided any evidence other than circumstantial that all IP address belong to same city.
 * 185.213.154.168's contributions when inspected carefully revels that he/she has edited to remove content from multiple pages targeting any software linked to "Technitium" and only when pointed out on talk page, he/she then later removed other entries to show justification.
 * In case of page Comparison_of_LAN_messengers, the entry for "Bit Chat" was added by 72.128.114.238 which from IP lookup is in USA. And thus not in the same city as claimed earlier. To make removal of "Bit Chat" justified, the user removed several other entries with it.
 * 185.213.154.168's claim that "Technitium" is a commercial entity selling the software projects is also incorrect. I checked the links provided and its clear that all projects are open source and freely available.
 * 185.213.154.168 is using an anonymous proxy/VPN IP address which indicates he/she wants to hide identity. I suspect they have some motive against "Technitium" based on hiding their identity using VPN and the contributions they made to remove content from all pages no matter how relevant the content was to the page or who added it.
 * The talk page for Comparison_of_DNS_server_software already discussed to allow all DNS server software to be listed without notability criteria. 185.213.154.168 thus did not read the talk page and made removal of multiple entries from the page.
 * 185.213.154.168 didn't just stop at removal of entries, he/she made this COIN entry and subsequently also made an entry in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam to block all links. This adds to the suspicion that he/she has motive against "Technitium" and want to get it removed and blocked.
 * 185.213.154.168 contribution history shows that he/she has edited to remove content than to add something useful thus showing that their actions are overall destructive and targeted.

I request moderators to consider all the points and do their own checks before coming to any conclusion. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesHolston (talk • contribs) 07:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Infopulse Ukraine
The user might have a conflict of interest, even if denied on wiki. Not posting details per WP:OUTING. Let me know if I should email evidence. --MarioGom (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I likewise have evidence, which I've emailed to ArbCom. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And I've carried out the block. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Kowsar publishing


This user shows a clear bias toward Kowsar Publishing, and, alongside this, appears to be affiliated with them in some way. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Self-coup


User is persistently engaging in conflicts with other editors on the article. Their published Twitter account on their talk page proves their obvious conflict of interest. Link to Twitter. Another editor on the article User:Lalichii, is also going against the consensus of the other editors, however I am unable to prove whether they have a conflict of interest with the subject. Conflict has been ongoing for a month, and I have attempted to reach out to an administrator for more assistance but have yet to receive a response. Editors on all sides have came close, but haven't yet violated WP:3RR, but the whole situation is beginning to be a real mess. I hope we can get a swift solution soon, I'm growing tired of the conflict. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have fully protected the article one week to avert edit-warring. I don't believe that this noticeboard is the right venue as I don't see a COI in the above post.

KDDB


The user has an apparent conflict of interest (discussion, diff). Various editors have warned repeatedly but the user has not engaged in the discussion. A pattern of disruptive editing is also emerging. MarioGom (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to engage this user on their talk page about the matter, but have received no response. Striker force Talk 15:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Dhar Mann


This article on an entrepreneur and motivational speaker has been sent to deletion twice 2011 and in 2014 because serial SPAs keep whitewashing all of the RS from it, preferring to use promotional material from the subjects website or authored by him. As a result, it gets cleaned up and kept, then reverts to garbage again. There are quite a few decent sources around, but..most relate to criminal charges,(which of course have been removed at least twice) and there is so much rubbish in the article I'm not sure how to tackle it. Curdle (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I have sent COI warnings to the last two SPA users, which are the ones that are probably active. I bet there is a good deal of sockpuppeting there since the article creation, but most accounts will be stale, so I'm not sure if a sockpuppet investigation would be useful, except for the last 2 or 3 SPAs. I also cleaned up the article from most content that was unsourced or relying on non-independent sources alone. --MarioGom (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Call-out culture


Sridc claimed to be the ip in an article talk comment, and I suspect they have an undisclosed CoI. They have repeatedly come to the article to insert a section about a book which is not used as a reference within the article. The IP is situated in New York State, and the author of the book is also from New York, and between that and the rather singular focus of the account I suspect the user may have some connection to the author. Regardless, use of the book in this context seems to run afoul of WP:PROMO as there has been no context provided as to why this specific text should be seen as relevant to this subject considering that it hasn't even been established it contains notable and reliable information on the subject. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have notified Sridc about this report; I did not post a separate notice on the ip because Sridc has claimed to be that editor. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's much to be done here at the moment other than addressing the content dispute directly. --MarioGom (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP is not situated in New York. I had carelessly made the edits without signing in. Could we remove the IP address from this page out of concern for my privacy? I have made it clear in the Talk page that I'm only an interested reader, and is not associated (financially or otherwise) with the book or its authors. - Sridc (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed the IP from the noticeboard report here. I think it's fair since it won't be necessary. But note that it will still be available in the history. --MarioGom (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Splinternews article about potentially problematic edits by NRA employees
See here: A Brief History of NRA Employees Editing Wikipedia for Fun and Possibly Profit. Some potentially problematic edits have already been noticed by an editor named here, but not by his username (so I'll leave it to him if he'd like to self-identify), but there are perhaps others worth scrutiny. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Not an uninteresting article, but strictly speaking it goes into WP:OUTING territory, third paragraph from the end. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Geophysical planet definition


I'm not sure if conflict of interest applies to advocates of a particular scientific view, but I think there is a problem on the "Geophysical planet definition" article. One editor is MarkVSykes. He's an advocate of this somewhat controversial position, using the first person in edits (us), citing his own work and editing an article which cites his own work. Another editor, "Nasaman58" seems to be another advocate of this idea. I don't know who he is, but I've been told this account name is used on Twitter by Kirby Runyon (definitely someone with strong opinions on the subject and an author of papers cited in the article.) I know I should inform them I'm making this complaint, by putting a notice on their user pages. But they don't have ones. Any advice or suggestions would be welcome. Fcrary (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * You should put a notice on their talk pages; both users (indeed, all users) have them. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Worth noting that nasaman58 has also gone through the Dwarf planet and planet pages adding assertions that many planetary scientists use the 'geophysical planet definition' as stated in geophysical planet definition. Diffs: [] [].  'Many' is a bit of a weasel word implying widespread adoption within the planetary science community that I don't think is warranted. Physdragon (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I should add that I'm not sure it really counts as a conflict of interest, more a bit soapboxy. Changing 'many' to 'some' would probably be sufficient to remove any issue. Physdragon (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

David J. Eicher
The article David J. Eicher appears to be the work of single-purpose accounts with a likely conflict of interest. It has a long history of promotional editing. The thousands of incoming wikilinks suggest additional spamming and/or self-promotion. The related article John H. Eicher is subject to the same behavior. Also, I think there are copyright issues because the uploader of all the images of the subject spanning about 90 years are all claimed to be "own work". That would be one long-lived photographer. Peacock (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * created DJE
 * created JHE, uploaded images
 * created DJE
 * created JHE, uploaded images
 * Listed creators ☆ Bri (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What evidence is there for the assertion that "thousands of incoming wikilinks suggest additional spamming and/or self-promotion", rather than the propensity of Wikipedia editors to cite good sources? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that some of the wikilinks are due to uninvovled Wikipedians. However, in the light of multiple editors (DEicher116, Boltzens, Lincoln18612000 at least) with a many-years-long sole interest in promoting the Eichers going all the way back to 2007, I would have to be incredibly naive to think that the thousands of incoming wikilinks to the David Eicher page arose naturally from the work of individuals without some COI.  Peacock (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Dominik Gross


I suspect autobiography / self-promtion. Guy (help!) 17:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Last edit to Dominik Gross by one of above editors was four years ago. Do you think the page needs cleanup?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Openpity added references to several papers by Gross, I think it likely that quite a few of the cites we have to his work on WP were added by him. Guy (help!) 21:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Tjf5280

 * See puffery in this diff at Greta Thunberg BLP
 * See puffery in this diff at Greta Thunberg BLP



Looks like an WP:SPA to pad this photographer's BLP and promote his work NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

South Gloucestershire


The name clearly states a COI.. DTDP (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you check to see if they edited the page? -Roxy, the dog . wooF 09:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "SouthGlosCouncil" have only posted to the "South Gloucestershire" talk page so there is COI, but no COI problem to discuss here. There is a username issue so I have posted the standard request to change their account name on their talk page. TSventon (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)