Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 153

User:Virenderthind2019

 * List of pages created by Virenderthind2019

Very likely an undisclosed paid editor, creating promotional articles, uploading promotional images as his own work using sock accounts and sending fake emails to OTRS for permission and when he was asked about the ownership of those images, he claimed I took their email address from their social accounts and at that email address I asked for their photos.., I looked at almost everyone's social media profiles and none of them has mentioned their email ids so, there is definitely something fishy and needs to be investigated. do you want to add something? GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 04:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much in line with my thinking. The image behaviour set off red lights, but when you look at the articles created they are all consistent with creation of promotional articles for "up and coming" artists. On a couple of occasions the user has asked, impatiently, when Google will start indexing their pages. There seems, also, to be a possible link with . As is often the case, the articles are low quality, "ref-bombed" and stuffed with non-notable content with anything found anywhere to try to make them look substantial. -- Begoon 05:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Rising Artists is definitely connected and I raised the same concern at commons-wiki too, please see administrators' noticeboard/User problems#sockpuppetry. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 05:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have sent three or four articles to Afd + a one prod for this editor. Many of the references are disguised as YouTube videos. They will state they are Times of India reference but it's actually a YouTube vid it points to. Many of them are native advertising, using refs which are press releases and syndicated feeds. Almost all of them were like that. There was another four articles that were bordered in the same kind of state, but were tenuous. Very low quality.  scope_creep Talk  14:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * was blocked one week on 28 November by User:Yunshui for abusing multiple accounts. In my opinion an indef block would have been within discretion. We hope that Virenderthind2019 will make some progress in understanding our policies and start to make good edits. Here is a permanent link to the sockpuppet report at Commons filed by User:GSS, who has also commented above. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Pakistani Hip Hop Music


Hello dear moderator,

I am a follower of Pakistani hip-hop and have been contributing to the "Pakistani hip hop music" page. There's a user on Wikipedia "Pma94lc" who is reflecting an obvious conflict of interest that I will explain in few simple words. Allow me to enlighten you with a little editing history of this article that had occurred in the recent days, I will be covering only the parts of editing that involves the conflict of interest that I am reporting:

First Edit by me: 00:55, 29 November 2019‎ Nayabks Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistani_hip_hop_music&oldid=928416587

The article missed 2 of the most important rappers of the industry, Chen-K (the most subscribed Urdu rapper in Pakistan)(https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkIiT7UVrf0IJgqLbe8KJGA/videos) and Sunny Khan Durrani (he raps in classic Urdu, if there's an Indian or Pakistani around you, they can verify it by simply listening to his tracks: (https://www.youtube.com/user/sunnykhandurrani/videos), I gave both of them their due credits.

Later in this edit by "Pma94lc", it was all removed:

Following edit by Pma94lc: 13:01, 30 November 2019‎ Pma94lc Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistani_hip_hop_music&oldid=928608665

Instead, there was a new name added, of a rapper called "Raamis" who was equalized with Chen-K, who is not notable at all, even in the underground, here's his youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYPkdSW9O1yUiZk3_9f0Pcw/videos

Because I am aware of the whole Pakistani rap scene, I know that there was a beef between Chen-K/Sunny Khan Durrani being on one side and Raamis/Talha Younus (From Young Stunners) on the other side, both the group have been continuously dissing each other and the beef is on even right now. Here are some of the diss tracks that have been doing rounds on the internet:

(Sequenced in upload date order) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZeBEM_lX8c (Talha Younus dissing Chen-K) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9es2ruWwlE (Sunny Khan Durrani dissing Talha Younus on behalf of Chen-K) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVuD3noLwpA (Sunny Khan Durrani dissing Talha Younus on behalf of Chen-K) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBaQuZyot6A (Raamis dissing Sunny Khand Durrani) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=272B1CesqIw (Talha Younus dissing Chen-K)

Any Pakistani hip hop music fan will be able to point these edits by PMA94lc out as conflict of interest and they will be able to identify this user as either Raamis or one of their relatives, I'm not outing the user, I am simply stating what it looks like. By all aforementioned evidence, it is quite apparent that my edits have been authentic and the edits by PMA94lc are in the interest of Raamis and Young Stunners, for this purpose, I am requesting appropriate action against the violating account. I will be coming back with references to my edits so that they will be locked for future.

Thank you for your time, I truly appreciate the energy you all put in to make this place the abundant source of knowledge and information that it is today.

With sincere regards, Nayabks (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

George_Gascón


This page contains promotional language that suggests someone from George Gascon's campaign for LA District Attorney may have been involved in the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbucchere (talk • contribs)


 * In October 2019 when these edits were made, on User talk:Lunastarfish87, I asked this user about these edits and they chose not to reply to the part of the question deailing with COI. Some of the claims this user added misrepresented references to show Gascon in a positive light, such as the statement "Upon taking office, Gascón immediately implemented...DA Stat." The ref used shows that the DA-Stat system was launched in 2019, years after Gascon took office in 2011.Dialectric (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've done some trimming to remove some of the blatantly promotional wording as well as some unsourced content. Melcous (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This article has now been cleaned up by several helpful editors. As Lunastarfish87 has not edited since 7 October, this COI filing should probably be closed until Lunastarfish87 (or a similar new account) edits again with a similar pattern.Dialectric (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Augur (software)


User:MicahZoltu has had an account since 2009, but it barely had any edits until September 2019, with someone finally adding a welcome message to their talk page two weeks ago. They started their new editing career on Augur (software) - an ICO crypto-token for prediction markets - with an extensive, barely-sourced explanation of Augur (and those sources literally didn't mention Augur). This ill sourced addition was reverted back in repeatedly. RS-cited claims that were negative to Augur were removed. Admitted unsourced OR was added.

MicahZoltu has since continued to add long contributions with bad sourcing to multiple articles, mostly articles that are under WP:GS/Crypto.

MicahZoltu has posted long and querulous additions to talk pages - e.g., Talk:Augur (software), Talk:Ethereum, my talk page, and in a non-crypto example Talk:Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence - repeatedly asking the same questions of multiple editors about why their bad sources are good - and why the standard "mainstream third-party RSes" is not enough for them.


 * This is not relevant to COI discussion. David and I have some serious disagreements about Wikipedia editorial policy that certainly need to get resolved, but COIN isn't the place for such discussion. Micah Zoltu (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

As one of the editors MicahZoltu questions in this manner (others include and ), I would say there is a bad case of WP:IDHT and attempting to personalise basic explanations of sourcing in multiple contentious areas - see User talk:MicahZoltu for a remarkable list of DS and GS caution notices.


 * This is not relevant to COI discussion. David and I have serious issues we need to work through but COIN isn't the place.  Micah Zoltu (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

It now turns out that MicahZoltu is or was a consultant for the Foresight Institute - the promoters of the Augur software, its token, and the ICO for the token. MicahZoltu didn't make it clear whether or not they still had a holding of the cryptocurrency token (such a holding also being a specifically listed WP:COI).


 * This is a blatant (and I suspect intentional) misrepresentation of my quote. As you'll see in the provided link, what I said was I did some contracting work for Forecast Foundation a couple years ago, and I have liked the project ever since.  David here says MicahZoltu is or was a consultant for the Foresight Instute.  My original statement was very clear that I used to contract for them, years ago.  David could have very easily just quoted me here but he intentionally chose to rewrite what I said with inaccuracies included. Micah Zoltu (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

This is really seriously dicing with GS/Crypto, but MicahZoltu considers their problems to be due to "wikilawyers", and not e.g. themselves - c.f. this, a standard WP:1AM.


 * This is not relevant to COI discussion. Micah Zoltu (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

MicahZoltu has repeatedly removed the COI notice placed there by me and by. They said that "I think it would be best if someone who is wholly uninvolved with blockchains and crypto-currencies add one or both of us if they believe that is reasonable", Calton added it back, and MicahZoltu then claimed Calton was clearly "involved", for no apparent reason.


 * Calton has interacted with me (quite negatively) on other talk/administration pages within the past couple days and he also has interacted directly with David Gerard on his talk page within the last couple of days, in fact "notifying" David that he thought I was talking about him in one of my comments. I believe it is incredibly disingenuous of David to claim here that I claimed Calton was involved for "no apparent reason" despite David being aware of both of the above interactions. Micah Zoltu (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

MicahZoltu insists that they will continue to remove the COI notice until WP:COIN rules they have a COI. I ask editors for their opinions on this matter.


 * Regardless of how this COIN resolves, I think it is quite inappropriate for someone to repeatedly add a person to the talk page COI after they have clearly stated they don't agree with the assertion without going to COIN. I believe repeatedly adding my name to the talk page COI was an attempt at bullying. Micah Zoltu (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I have not asked for sanctions under WP:GS/Crypto - and this isn't the venue - in the hope that MicahZoltu will come to a better understanding of Wikipedia sourcing rules. Though others may think such are appropriate. I do think the COI notice needs to go on the talk page, and MicahZoltu needs to be enjoined from touching Augur (software) - David Gerard (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I did some contract work for Forecast Foundation years ago, for a short duration (something like 4-6 months, I can lookup exact duration if that is necessary). I gained interest in the project during that time and have been interested in it ever since.  I have never been directly employed by Forecast Foundation.  I have not received any compensation from Forecast Foundation since my contract work with them years ago.  I am not a member of their board of directors or otherwise affiliated in any way with Forecast Foundation aside from being a fan.


 * I believe it is worth mentioning that David Gerard has a published book about cryptocurrencies and blockchains as well as a Patreon page for a blog he runs about blockchains. He currently receives revenue from these sources.  I have not filed a COIN against David because I don't believe that receiving money for the success/failure of a project necessarily means COI.  However, if it is decided that I have a COI judgement here, then I believe it is reasonable that David also receives a COI judgement here since I used to receive payment for my work on the subject and David currently receives payment for his work on the subject. Micah Zoltu (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I suggest a TBAN, due to wilful imperviousness to Clue. Guy (help!) 01:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Clear COI. Going through David Gerard's contributions to revert him in multiple places seems rather pointy. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like this is the place to get into the pointyness of the behavior you are referring to as I don't think it has anything to do with the WP:COI claims. Do you believe that it does have to do with the WP:COI claim?  If you believe that that behavior matters in this case I will defend it here but I would rather not get side-tracked with it.
 * Do I understand your comment of "Clear COI" correctly that it is a COI to have ever worked with a particular company in the past?
 * Do you believe that David similarly has a COI, given that he has a published book and patreon page (both of which generate revenue for him) that is explicitly about the subject matter which he actively edits?
 * I have read WP:COI multiple times and, unfortunately, it doesn't provide clear guidelines on where the line is for COI, all of the examples say "business owner" and it doesn't mention employees, contractors, ex-employees, ex-contractors, people who worked for a company who worked with a company, etc. at all. I owned an insignificant amount of MSFT shares in the past, does that mean I can never edit any pages about Microsoft or any of its products?  I also worked for a company that worked with Microsoft in the past, would that be considered a COI against Microsoft pages?  I have done contracting work for a handful of random other companies, would I have COIs against all of them? Micah Zoltu (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether an actual or only an apparent COI is at play, it's clear that General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies is relevant here. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do I understand correctly that you are proposing I be blocked from editing the page? I'm assuming your reasoning is "editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process"?  If so, I would appreciate an opportunity to explain whatever actions of mine that you believe to be against editorial process (though I recognize that general sanctions give extraordinary latitude to administrators and you are not required to offer me WP:GOODFAITH like normal). Micah Zoltu (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I certainly am. In fact I am deeply suspicious that someone with so few edits appears to know our alphabet soup so well. I realise this may just be a case of "no, you are!" but it is not at all characteristic of a genuinely new editor. Guy (help!) 15:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting I'm a sock puppet? I have had this account since 2009, and periodically have made minor edits.  Previously, I hadn't run into any conflicts with other editors so things went smoothly.  I tried to make some edits to the Augur page recently after noticing the article was woefully lacking in any encyclopedic value, and immediately ran into a ton of trouble/difficulty that rapidly escalated.  This resulted in me spending a couple of weeks reading and re-reading almost all of the WP policy and guideline pages over and over, trying to understand why my edits were getting blocked.  I certainly hope that "learning the policies and guidelines" isn't the bar for "must be a sock puppet". Micah Zoltu (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * In digging for some other examples of former relationship, I came across this COI Talk discussion involving and  on the topic.  It wasn't formalized and there wasn't enough participation to reach consensus, but I think it helps shed some light on a similar discussion that isn't embroiled in an existing dispute between editors.  I mentioned the participants in case they have changed their mind since then or believe this situation is different and would like to speak in favor of me having a COI for this topic.  Micah Zoltu (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that expressed it very well when they wrote "I think that a COI occurs when the editor stands to benefit from the edit in some way". In this case, if you were say a close friend of a senior executive of Augur and editing the article in a promotional way as a favour to them, then that would be COI. Merely having worked there several years ago, with no continuing financial relationship (e.g. shares), would not in my view constitute a COI. However, in borderline cases like this is is wise to (a) declare the situation, which you have done, and (b) be unusually strict in only making well-sourced factual edits, and avoiding any edits relying on primary sources or that express a POV, even to the detriment of the article. In the case of David Gerard, merely publishing a paid-for blog on the topic is not sufficient to establish a COI unless either someone is explicitly paying him to denigrate organisations of that type, or if the success or failure of Augur would materially affect his professional reputation. If the latter is true, as you assert (I'm not qualified to judge) then that would definitely be COI. Rhanbury (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am personally not a fan of PoV sections in Wikipedia articles generally, even though I know they are encyclopedic. I'm a much bigger fan of the engineering and science sections of Wikipedia where "what a thing is" and "how a thing works" dominate the article.  Given that, I would have no problem with the remediation you have described here, since I have little desire to include any PoV content on the page in the first place.  Most of the conflict on the page between David and I lies around what are appropriate sources for factual content (what it is, how it works) rather than PoV content (what will it do, how successful has it been/will it be, what are people saying about it), so I suspect that such a resolution will not end our conflict (not that COINs are supposed to be used for conflict resolution, but I suspect some involved and uninvolved editors are hoping that is an outcome). Micah Zoltu (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have just had a look at some of the large edits and reverts on the Augur page. It seems to me that David's reverts were primarily because (a) the content is not appropriate for the subject of the article, and (b) the content was not well enough sourced. The accusations about COI in both directions are just throwing mud. As it happens, I agree with those two reasons. Much of the content might be useful in the article on Prediction Markets as a topic, but is inappropriate for an article about one specific instance. On the second point, there are some aspects of the content that are well sourced, but much is not, and however well written and accurate it might be, it still breaks WP:NOR. You have my sympathy - I too had a torrid time when starting out as a significant editor facing what I believed were un-necessarily aggressive / unjustified deletions. My advice is to back off and be "whiter than white" (extra cautious) in what you do until your reputation is established. Good luck! Rhanbury (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * At risk of dragging this COIN off topic, I agree that some of my edits were sub-par for encyclopedic quality, something I have learned after weeks of reading policy/guideline pages. I won't go into defending myself here (inappropriate venue), but suffice it to say that any future dispute/noticeboard/arbitration will not be based on a claim of "my edits were all of top notch encyclopedic quality". Micah Zoltu (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Another discussion on whether past employees have a present COI. In this one there was a bit more disagreement with  believing that COIs are permanent, and  believing that they should last about a year. Micah Zoltu (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have read over the COI Talk page archives back to mid 2014 and the above two discussions were the only ones I was able to find relating to prior employment. It is possible I missed some (I was looking for titles that sounded related, then digging in for details).  Given everything I have read, including the above two links, I am definitely an advocate of the topic and I am definitely an expert on the topic per Wikipedia Policy/Guidelines, and I believe that whether I have a COI comes down to whether once someone has a COI it means they permanently have a COI, or if a COI can change over time as the editor's life changes over time.  It doesn't appear that there is any existing consensus on this matter.  On the "present financial interest" side, I believe I have less of a financial COI than David, so if David remains without a COI then I strongly believe I should also remain without a COI on financial grounds.  If David receives a COI on financial grounds, I may also have a COI on financial grounds.  If Augur is a failure, David's claims in his book and blog will be reinforced which will lead to more buyers/patreons.  If Augur is a success, my resume will be strengthened by having worked for a company that eventually was successful (though, wasn't successful while I was working there.  Micah Zoltu (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Per immediately above "I am definitely an advocate of the topic" MZ should definitely be banned for a year. Per WP:PAYTALK he deserves multiple lifetime bans. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't agree. Being an advocate for something does not make you a paid editor (which is what WP:PAYTALK is about - it is really addressing PR and Marketing professionals) unless you are being paid to advocate for that thing (or that type of thing). Rhanbury (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * All adcovacy is prohibited per WP:NOTADVOCATE. This is part of one of the most important policies we have WP:NOT. Saying that he is just an advocate rather than a paid advocate just means that he should be banned.

"content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:
 * Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.[2]"
 * It's clear that he is disrupting the project with his advocacy. He likes to write about his (or his boss's) opinions ten times more than he is willing to listen.  Time to just get rid of him. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have citations where I am arguing for inclusion of opinions? This feels like a straw man.  Micah Zoltu (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * my philosophy is that if you cause problems with an article, and numerous other editors call you out as causing problems, you stay away. That seems sensible, at least if you are interested in getting the work of the encyclopedia done and not in preventing disruption. If, on the other hand, you make a huge issue out of it, have a clear COI and continue to push the issue, those kinds of things should be dealt with so that every one can get on with their (volunteer) work. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pings. The dispute here is more complex than I want to research or to get involved with, but my advice to editors is to look at what the effects of each editor's edits have been in regard to the POV of the pages. If the edits shift the POV balance, I would consider that to be potentially disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , good point well made. And yes, they do. Guy (help!) 13:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Was there a particular addition that you believe supports your claim that I am trying to shift the PoV? Looking back over my edits, I see one edit that added some information that shifted the PoV, which was reverted and I didn't press the issue (despite disagreeing with the revert).  There is another edit that I did press on about which was the deletion of a wholly inaccurate claim on the page.  People kept adding it back without discussion and I kept removing it, each time trying to get people to engage without success up until the last reversion (which has stuck).  Micah Zoltu (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * In an attempt to get ahead of the news: I have once again removed my name from the COI list for Augur's Talk page, but I have not resumed nor plan to resume making any edits to the Augur page until this COIN is resolved. I originally was going to leave the COI notice on the talk page until this was resolved, but  is now posting on other pages that I have a conflict of interest in an effort to discredit me and he was using the COI listing on the Augur talk page as supporting evidence, despite the COIN being still in progress.  I am willing to put my name back on the COI list until this COIN is resolved if  removes his WP:ASPERSIONS from the Augur deletion page (and I'm willing to have my response removed from that page as well).

Rubina Bajwa‎


Satdeep first contacted me at Draft talk:Rubina Bajwa two days after when it was draftified. I asked Satdeep to submit the draft for a review since it has language and claims that do not go with the policies and the article was created by a single purpose account in draftspace and moved by Meenaya an undisclosed paid editor. Today after moving the draft back to main he uploaded File:Rubina Bajwa.jpg which he received through email and claimed I was contacted by the copyright holder.. which sound quite hard to digest. There are hundreds of users on Wikipedia so why and how particularly he was contacted by them directly and espacially after the page was removed from the mainspace. He is mostly creating articles about those he possibly know personally and uploading their images that he receives through email such as "Amarjit Chandan" whose three personal images were uploaded by him today on commons. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 16:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Aah! Actually, the person contacted the facebook page of Punjabi Wikimedians User Group, I happem to be one of the admins on the page. About the other people, I took pictures of one of them and got the other released by emailing them.


 * I am keen to write about Punjabi people on Wikipedia. Mainly Punjabi authors and artists. I currently have two articles about Punjabi authors Gurmeet Kaur and Harpreet Sekha in draft namespace right now and I am hoping to contact them to release some images sometime after publishing their articles. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 16:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , all the images are violations of copyright policies. See OTRS and proceed immediately or the files will be deleted. &#x222F; WBG converse 18:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * {, I forgot to add OTRS pending template to these images. I have just added that, thanks for the reminder. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 18:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am not seeing any relevant email in OTRS. &#x222F; WBG converse 18:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's Ticket #2019120110002705. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 00:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , who sent you a message on Facebook and for exactly what? If you are saying the copyright holder of File:Rubina Bajwa.jpg then definitely their reason to contact you was not just limited to that image because all this happened after the page was moved to draft space and today user uploaded File:Rubina Bajwa 2019.jpg, another picture of the same person and added to the article using an IP address. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 09:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The person, now user Gchahal2019, contacted on the Facebook page to get help to move from draft namespace. I asked you, GSS, if there were any major issues with the article. I moved to main namespace because I thought the article is notable. He then asked to help in uploading a picture, I helped via OTRS system. This discussion was started and I have moved the article back to draft namespace and made some edits but I won't be moving it back to main namespace, now. Then, I was contacted again to upload a newer image. Instead, I asked that person to create an account and upload any images that he has owns, whenever he feels like. The IP edit is most probably by him. This person also has a Wikipedia page Gurbaksh Chahal and has seeked my help to whitewash, in hindsight I think I have overstated but I was asked to help in adding the same dating related information to his article which I have refused to do. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 10:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am inclined to assume good faith of you, in light of your explanations, AffCom membership and reputation within the Indic Wikimedia community. That being said, some pretty weird stuff has been happening over this entire group of articles (see this thread) since long and I will hate to see a re-run of ....  &#x222F; WBG converse 12:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for assuming good faith. Looking at this thread, I totally understand your apprehensions. I am happy to assist with any clean-up if required. Maybe dating related information should be removed from the draft article? --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 12:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * is valued contributor in Indic community. I am too assuming goof faith on him.  Harshil want to talk? 17:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yah Rubina Bajwa pulls up a whole group of undisclosed paid for articles.

Etc Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * User:FoCuSandLeArN connects into the whole group. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * BlueLithium doesn't seem to have independent notability under its current title, so, I guess it should be redirected to Yahoo! or renamed accordingly. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 12:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Looking at the article, I am inclined to agree on that. The information in this article can be part of Yahoo! section. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 12:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I was planning to speedy three of the advertising companies as G11, but I noticed they had been here for years. I think I'll send several to Afd. They don't pass the modern WP:NCORP standard by a country mile. They are now on the NPP so they will be reviewed. It is a good start on the redirect.  scope_creep Talk  13:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Ben Chase (musician)


I have off-Wiki evidence that User:Marknamz8931 created the Ben Chase page for money. Ben Chase openly put the job out for tender on Upwork. One only has to read the page and look at User:Marknamz8931's other edits to bare witness to this obvious COI. However, should the UPE police wish to break with tradition and see evidence I am more than happy to provide screen shots via a secure email.12.202.180.115 (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

you're trying to harass me Marknamz8931 (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Harassment? Gaslighting me isn't going to help you. Please answer the charges. Ben Chase put the contract out for tender via Upwork, tried to get the best deal possible and in shopping around told every epistemic mercenary from here to timbuktoo what his plan was. Your edit summary that states that you heard his music on YouTube and realised he was notable is total BS. You were hired. 12.202.180.115 (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also inclined to believe there's a COI here. Also, that edit summary is definitely laying it on a little thick. - DoubleCross (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Euglena (company)
I found this one under Euglena Co., Ltd in the new page feed, having been created by User:Simon.mangel. After having found that his Linkedin profile listed him as an intern at the company, I moved it to draft (as paid editors are required to run their articles through AfC). Subsequently, he changed his profile and pretended that I was lying, and then later admitted to it and requested deletion of the draft.

Then, a draft of the same name was created by User:Paul Quinney (in his first edit), then it was moved to main space User:Jean-Baptiste.Ret (a new user with a series of edits that appear to be directly related to the company). I subsequently moved the article to Euglena (company), but it seems cler to me that we are dealing with a series of paid editors working at the company who are determined to create an article in main space without going through the required channels. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    19:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Simon.mangel and Jean-Baptiste.Ret are certainly engaged in promotional editing here. Paul Quinney and Jean-Baptiste.Ret got together here to create Draft:Euglena Co., Ltd. Your suspicions sound correct to me. A checkuser or SPI might be appropriate.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've opened an investigation. TheAwesome  Hwyh  02:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , the diff is wrong on the SPI. I would correct it but I am not sure which one you intended.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , the diff seems fine to me. I don't know what you mean. TheAwesome  Hwyh  03:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * it was pointing to Open engineering below. I fixed it. Thanks for filing the SPI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for sending out the coin notices, I threw this up here right before heading off to work, so I just pinged them, but I appreciate you sending out the notices for me. Thanks for filing the SPI, although my feeling is that it is equally likely that they are just different editors, all at the same company. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  (click me!)    03:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

All of the problem users on the Euglena articles were blocked at SPI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , apparently not all of them. User:Looliloop just recreated the mainspace article. - MrOllie (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

German paid editor / wikimeisterei.info / neuinstitut.de




This user is blocked on de.wiki since a few days. It's a paid editor. You can see the de.wiki spi case here

Please block and check the edits of this user.

Truth12356 (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. I blocked the sockpuppet account too. MER-C 20:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Freebirds World Burrito
It looks like this article is essentially the sole product of the company's marketing people. Deli nk (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed numerous primary sources (Freebirds and Tavistock). There is not much that remains; possibly an AFD candidate.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

International Fund for Agricultural Development


We are requesting that an independent editor urgently address the issues highlighted two weeks ago under "Controversy" as part of the International Fund for Agricultural Development article. Please refer to the talk page for further information concerning the issues raised as well as identified broken links. [] Many thanks for your kind action. James at ifad (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for declaring your conflict of interest and editing the talk page rather than the main article. Under the Wikimedia Foundations terms of use you need to follow the guidance on Paid-contribution disclosure as well as on Conflict of interest, so I have added a paid editing disclosure to the IFAD article talk page. Edit requests explains how to request edits. Your requests ad probably gone unnoticed because had not included the tag  . I have now done this, so hopefully they will now be looked at. TSventon (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Spintendo has now marked your query answered. This was not really relevant to the COI noticeboard, so I would suggest Help desk if you have similar queries. TSventon (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Jim Bates (politician)


Repeatedly removing sourced material. Not engaging in discussion. The article probably needs more eyes on it. OrionTribute (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Still ongoing. OrionTribute (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Continuing. Is this an issue for ANI? OrionTribute (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi No. It seems to be a slow edit war going is going on. There is no talk page discussions going on. No WP:RFC's have been held and no warnings have been given regarding unexplained removal of content, unexplained blanking, addition of content without references. II would suggest holding an WP:RFC so consensus is reached in the talk page.   scope_creep Talk  21:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

There is indeed an edit war going on, and it seems that OrionTribute is the party which keeps reinserting derogatory information for some nefarious purpose. It is getting out of hand, and is reflective of some sort of animus towards Congressman Bates. These sorts of attacks, no matter whom they affect, are unfair and should not use Wikipedia as a base of attack or projectile for personal animus. This sort of vicious activity has taken over the national consciousness, and really must stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99Truthbetold (talk • contribs) 23:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on the part of 99Truthbetold. It doesn't seem like s/he is here to create an encyclopedia and the WP:COI seems rather obvious.  Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The user 99Truthbetold is way past 3rr in their ongoing campaign to keep certain well-sourced material out of the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Reynolds Aviation Museum


The user is a disclosed paid editor for the museum ("Marketing Assistant at the Reynolds-Alberta Museum"). Posting here as I am slightly uncertain of what to think of this or what precise advice to give him/her. The draft article has no independent sources, and stands little chance of being published as is. Something might be salvages from what is there. But it's pure paid promotion basically. Thoughts are welcome.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, weirdly, the Museum already has a Wiki page, which I have added above (Reynolds-Alberta Museum). Tyler has made some edits to that page without disclosing them on the talk page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:The Transportation Collection of the Reynolds-Alberta Museum was intended to be a subpage to Reynolds-Alberta Museum, similar to the relation between List of surviving Avro Lancasters and Avro Lancaster. As a museum, we frequently get questions about what exactly is in our collection. The list is intended to be for information purposes, and so people doing research anywhere in the world can know the whereabouts of some of the rare artifacts that are in our collection. While I am paid by the Government of Alberta on behalf of the Reynolds-Alberta Museum, my end goal here is not profit. Instead, my goal is to allow a wider audience to access the information that the museum is caretaker of. However, I am very new to Wikipedia, and I am completely open to suggestions on how to attain this goal. Would an external link to a similar list on our website work better (https://reynoldsmuseum.ca/land-transportation)? The problem with an external link is that the end viewer would lose the links that I included in Draft:The Transportation Collection of the Reynolds-Alberta Museum that leads to Wikipedia pages that cover the various artifacts and the companies that made them. Tyler at Reynolds Museum (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * :Without weighing in on whether there should be a page or not, I will note that even if there is not a page, the museum site itself could link to the Wikipedia pages for the individual vehicles, if they so chose. It would not be the worst idea whether or not there's a Wikipedia list page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My view is that we write on notable subjects. The museum certainly is one, but we are not here to ducplicate the museum's web site. A link from Wikipedia to the collection in the external links section would cover the collection. We're not here to host giant long lists of everything in your collection; we do not do that for the most major museums in the world. Regarding your editing, as you are paid by Alberta to do promotion for the museum, you have a conflict of interest. That means you must follow the COI policy, notably the part that says refrain from creating articles about your organization and so on. Wikipedia is not a site that can be used by organizations as a tool to promote themselves. The way we want it to happen is that individuals unrelated to the org write a neutral, balanced article. Others may have thoughts on this.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

So, the way I understand it, the best way to end this (and avoid COI) is to post to Talk:Reynolds-Alberta Museum and ask someone to post an external link to https://reynoldsmuseum.ca/land-transportation. Is this correct? If so, it would be acceptable to me. Afterwards, I will delete my draft, after maybe salvaging the Wikipedia links for the museum's website, as Nat Gertler suggests. Would this satisfy all parties?Tyler at Reynolds Museum (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but don't be surprised if your request gets turned down, due to our preference that there be only one "official" link per page. However, you have probably suggest that that page get used as a reference for some of the listing of the vehicles you have on hand, so at least it would have a presence on the page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that your scenario above is the best solution. As an active AfC reviewer, I can say that your draft would likely be declined; Wikipedia just isn't an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. Older list articles are granted some credence, but newer ones are expected to provide evidence of each item listed having a specific claim to encyclopedic significance, and your draft seems to be more of an archive than a list article. An external link to your museum's website however is more than acceptable. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will suggest that in the talk page. If this discussion continues, can someone change the title? Reynolds Aviation Museum was a separate entity from the Reynolds-Alberta Museum, and no longer exists.
 * the title of this thread isn't really important. I've added the external link you provided. I am not sure it will stick over time as it is a sub-link of the museum, which we do not normally link to per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL: "Normally, only one official link is included". I've added multiple good sources to the article as well. I can see what you were trying to do is well=-intentioned, and thank you for understanding our policies that help keep things neutral.00:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing this, and my sincere thanks for the vast edits to the Reynolds page. As you saw, it was in drastic need of cleaning up, which is my boss (the marketing director here) originally asked me (their assistant) to fix it. I will explain to them why I am unable to do that and will continue to make suggestions to the talk page as necessary. Tyler at Reynolds Museum (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have salvaged what I needed from my draft, and have moved for it to be deleted. Tyler at Reynolds Museum (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I concurTyler at Reynolds Museum (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tyler for working with us to maintain neutrality. I think this item can be closed if no one objects.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Kanyfug


The user was created only in May and immediately showed high wiki-editing skills. All contribution is solely devoted to documenting paid articles about singer Normani being the greatest, awards, charts and accomplishments. Nothing of what I regard as usual or trivial for a fan-contributing page. --Маргарита Бабовникова (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Robert Gant


There's something odd going on at Robert Gant. Two accounts, &, are actively turning the article into a resume/CV. Suspect undisclosed paid/COI editing. Could someone with more experience dealing with this have a look? Also, ping for @Marchjuly. Thanks,  F ASTILY   22:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've notified the users for you, per the policy at the top of this page. Have you considered SPI? These accounts must be working together.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * SPI filed. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. I have removed the non-sourced content per policy. I have no-doubt that somebody will be in, probably paid within the next 1-2 weeks and there will be 30-60 references before you can shake a stick something. The work will be ensuring they are decent quality. I don't mind checking them.  scope_creep Talk  01:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I only advised Freeandaware of REALWORD and COI after seeing their post on Fastily's user talk since they were claiming to be Gant. I didn't think to dig a little deeper to see whether there might be any UPE or SOCK going on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't it nice when things work out so easily?!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe COI


User is removing sourced controversial details from The Quint page and calling contributors including me as troll. First they did it here, here and again here by calling it bias. Point to be noted that all details are sourced and fake news details are taken from alt news. Same website has been given as citation in various media houses like Republic TV,OpIndia and BLP like Madhu Kishwar. Simply searching user's name google results show digital marketing company's founder. User is not engaging in talk page discussions even and just removing nehative details about this brand. It seems they have some COI with this company.  Harshil want to talk? 09:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * is now blocked indefinitely. --Yamla (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

KSbangera


This editor is only contributing in this article and adding claims like world-class, worked with 400/500 top companies, eloquent speaker and many more without any source but removing details like legal sues against subject, criticism of his sexist remarks which were sourced. In this edit, he clearly says that People wants to create the Wikipedia page to showcase their remarkable contributions to the industry, society done by them and negative things shouldn't mentioned. This person seems to be associated with either his political party or his firm. Definitely WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. -- Harshil </i>want to talk? 11:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Julie Harrington (tennis)


Placed self-promotional material on the subject, use of first-person pronouns in edit summary, and username suggests that user is the subject of the article. Hog Farm (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Appears to be the article subject, per the many I/my edit summaries. Some edits added the subject's law firm, so I warned about that and about COI on their talk page. I have reverted their additions to the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am at two reverts, and the user has not responded to the COI notice on their talk page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Oliver Kamm


I've been reported as having a conflict of interest regarding this article but I can't find any report or editors submitting evidence for this. Can this be looked into? Thanks 83.218.151.178 (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Seth Anand Ram Jaipuria School
Highly promotional article, CSD'ed by and, moved to draft, etc. COI version back in mainspace again. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 15:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Stephanie Sarley


An artist who may well be notable; the article reads like an advertorial in a free newspaper. Most of the recent editing has been by just-joined editors who are particuarly interested in this topic,, and ; the article was started by a past SPA,. I filed this after one of them removed the advert and puffery notices which the article richly deserved; I've asked to disclose if they're an undeclared paid editor. My psychic powers tell me all these editors are closely linked. The article needs going through with an axe - David Gerard (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Curlyfries01, Katybugarchm, Babpacih and I are college students working on a project together. We aren't paid editors. Monroeno (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please suggest to your instructor/professor that they review Wikipedia:Education program/Educators so that they can coordinate with Wikipedia on your class assignments. - Donald Albury 22:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * yeah, if you're doing this as an assignment then you totally don't deserve to get burnt by doing this, and my apologies for snapping! Can you get your prof in here? - David Gerard (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what happened with the article in the past few days, I have been at work. I really appreciate the effort to grow it beyond what I started a long time ago. It means a lot to me to see my article grow beyond what I created about this artist who has influence pop culture so much recently. I hope we can get the weird tags thing cleared up soon. let me know if you need anything, and good luck with your project! - Babpacih —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I had a look at the article and it is pretty good! you have definitely mastered the referencing basics, and you have some good content. It does need a trim to make it more "neutral sounding", but I think you are congratulated to have gotten this far. Thanks for giving us a heads up on the class project.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I did some cleanup, left a note on the article talk page and merged some references. It is ironic that getting called out at COIN will probably help with their homework!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I’m off work for a few days around Xmas so I’ll try to fix it up so we can remove the tag around then. I work full time so that’s the most I can do at the moment. I hope the project went well for the people who edited it!babpacih —Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Tickets4festivals
Likely COI editor, as the editor added a link to the article which linked to a website with the same name as the user. Hog Farm (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Bart Sibrel and Apollo denialism


This could use a look over generally, over recent changes, and in relation to the two specific Talk: topics:
 * Talk:Bart_Sibrel
 * Talk:Bart_Sibrel

John Hyams claims to be in Haifa (their user page) Together with their editing focus, that's getting to COI problem territory. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't "claim" to live in Haifa, I really live here. Regarding what Sibrel says, this is what he says, and it's cited. Whether we like what he says or not, that's for our personal judgement. Does he say it? Yes he does. End of story.  I am neither in favor or against Apollo, as this is an article about a living person (BLP). John Hyams (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've opened a SPI. TheAwesome  Hwyh  06:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hkmhyderabad


Subject is leader of Hare Krishna Movement and Hyderabad chapter. User is editing only articles related to him and here to promote it. Can someone block them under username policy and COI policy?-- <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 12:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I gave the user a coi-username warning. If the user does not respond appropriately to that, we can block them. - Donald Albury 20:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Datar–Mathews method for real option valuation


Primary editor would like to remove COI tagging from the article, but is one of the original authors of the research paper. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the subject notable? Three of twelve refs are by the author of the method. And there is a whole lot of unsourced math that is unintelligible to the average reader.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to be. There is several articles on it, several GBooks comparing it to other methods, there is couple of Maths stackexchange questions regarding clarification. Its fairly new, 2003 to 2004.   scope_creep Talk  22:38, 8 Decembe

r 2019 (UTC)
 * Topic is notable, but I can't see how the co-author who wrote almost the entire Wikipedia article can not have COI, and would need another editor to scrub for neutrality. I've added a criticism section to try to keep it neutral. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I am Scott Mathews, the primary author. I am not much of a Wikipedia writer, and so mostly have to read howto articles. In spite of my caution, I obviously got off on the wrong track because my intention was simply to write an extension to an existing original article that was published by Wikipedia in March, 2012. At that time and until November 2019, there have been no issues with COI. It was only my clumsy attempt to add an extension to the original article (intending to make the subject material more broadly applicable to the general business audience who are knowledgeable in this technical area) that these issues, including COI have been raised. My previous editor has been User:Fintor who is knowledgeable about this financial subject area, but he is on vacation.

I am Scott H. Mathews, the author of the prior research work. The extensions I am inserting into the article represent new work entirely of my own and that other SMEs have <U>reviewed</U> and found interesting and useful. The extensions attempt to make the findings published in the original article more understandable to a broad audience and simpler to apply.

1. The original article (from 2012) was published and no COI was flagged at that time. The article refers to me (Scott H. Mathews) and my collaborator, Dr. Vinay Datar, because we created this work which is owned by my (now) former company. At the time, this work was understood as a new contribution to this technical field of real options. This work is referenced in a number of other Wikipedia articles, for example Black-Scholes Model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-Scholes_model). 2. The extension (to the original article) that I wrote (and submitted in November 2019) is my own work and is not owned by any entity. It contains formulas, graphs and images all of which I created myself. The images I created are submitted to WikiCommons. 3. As in the original article, this extension refers to me as being creator of this work. However, the work is equations and algorithms and should not be interpreted as 'personal', but rather as generally enabling for individuals attempting to utilize the work to carry out investigations into external activities, such as the valuation of risky projects. This, of course, was the purpose of the original article. 4. I believe this article and its identification of me as the creator does not qualify as a conflict of interest. Please remove the alert on this web page.

Thank you. MathewsSH (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Scott Mathews

,, any suggestions on how to scrub this article so it wouldn't have COI? AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not my bailiwick... but The extensions I am inserting into the article represent new work entirely of my own and that other SMEs have reviewed and found interesting and useful sounds a lot like WP:OR, which is I guess what you mean. We need a mathematician for this one. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , It might be problematic finding a mathematician that works in that field and is willing to essentially edit it or even rewrite it. I've had a similar problem, 2 maybe 3 years ago and when I was looking for somebody. It was outside his specialism when I got him and in the end up wasn't much help.   scope_creep Talk  11:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing and accepting (I think?) that this article does not violate COI. WRT to your comments on "We need a mathematician" -- my editor has been User:Fintor, and has help me on the original article (March 2012). Fintor is not only a mathematician but also works in the field of analytic finance, which is a perfect match for the subject matter of my article. Unfortunately Fintor is currently on vacation, and I've asked that he provide his expertise when he returns. Please wait for his return and he can provide the editing that is required.


 * Meanwhile, I will work on addressing the other issues that were raised. Again, thank you.

MathewsSH (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Scott Mathews


 * People are saying the opposite, there is definitely a COI here. - MrOllie (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * you certainly sound like you have a COI on the article. How was Fintor helping you to edit before?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Over this holiday I was able to find (using Google Scholar and other search engines) probably more than 100 references in multiple languages to the original article (Datar-Mathews method for real option valuation). From those I have selected about 20 that are especially relevant and will include many as additional references to the article. I do have a question however: the Datar-Mathews Method was patented (U.S. Patent No. 6,862,579). In the process of issuing a patent the USPTO performs a thorough investigation of similar work with the intent of discerning the unique elements of the patent application. A link to the USPTO easily reveals all the investigation results. Given the uniqueness of the patent finding, help me understand better the Wikipedia COI finding. Will the additional references I intend to place in the article help resolve the COI finding? MathewsSH (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Scott Mathews

As an aside, to ThatMontrealIP, your question of "How was User:Fintor helping you to edit before?" should be easy to answer. When the original article was published (March 2012), there was a series of very expert edits by and helpful exchanges with Fintor. This was recorded in the View History page of the original article. You should be able to review the View History page, which would answer your question. If I remember correctly, I believe there was also a Talk page on which may have contained some of the exchanges I had as I was developing the original article. I have no idea what has happened to that content. MathewsSH (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Scott Mathews

Thank you for staying involved in this issue. As someone relatively new to Wikipedia, I am still trying to understand how best to comply with Wikipedia standards. In response to several tags that were appended to my extended version of this article, I have now added some 20 additional references that cite the DM Method and ancillary sources providing a relatively well-documented article. In my opinion this adequately addresses several tags, and therefore I removed "excessive ... references to self-published sources" and "establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources".

One tag remains: "close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." I am not sure if this is the same as COI. Perhaps you can clarify for me what are the differences. In addition to the 20 additional references, I have also tried to eliminate language that may seem impartial or biased. It appears the resolution of this tag may require a third party, such as yourself, to review whether the article complies with Wikipedia's content policies. I would appreciate your input on this subject, and if you believe it complies, then remove the tag. However if in your opinion the article still falls short, please explain how it might be remedied. Again, thank you for your time and attention. MathewsSH (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Scott H Mathews

Anitnas

 * work
 * work

User is repeatedly recreating draft related to subject even after warning issued by regarding COI. All details are copied from their website. Can anyone block them for being nothere and coi violation?—  <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 16:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , deleted and blocked, thanks <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  16:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Ariel S. Leve
is a single-purpose account; they have only ever edited Ariel S. Leve. All their edits have added promotional language or content to the article. My attempts to address their apparent COI at their talk page have not met with a response; they are either unaware that they have a talk page, or unwilling to engage there. Wham2001 (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Slight trim of duplicate material, and added to watchlist.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Çelebicihan


This user has made quite a few very promotional articles, including at least three deleted ones: Sergei Savateev, Aliya Prokofyeva, and Kseniya Shoygu. This user is definitely paid to edit, based on the blatantly promotional writing in the articles. See, for example, Andrii Ostapchuk: "In 2009, Ostapchuk studied in Chernivtsi Trade and Economic Institute. He was the only student on the course who got 'excellent' in all subjects. After a year of study, he passed the first session perfectly, decided to leave the Institute and find a job." In Nadiia Shapoval: "The first chapter is a collection of ceramics handmade in Ukraine using traditional craft techniques in collaboration with Kyiv-based artist Masha Reva. With its signature thick black lines and strokes of bold colours, Reva's art brings out the warmth and beauty of Ukrainian pottery, which has been an integral part of family and community for generations." Extremely blatant advertising, this user should be blocked indefinitely for numerous paid articles.DemonDays64 (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

User-based COI?


I have been told that I have a COI in regards to this other Wikipedia user. Is it even possible to have a COI with a user? Elizium23 (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I have been aware of Elizium23's work on the project for many years, but to the best of my knowledge we have never met. We do not have an off-wiki relationship and no COI of which I am aware. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No one suggested that Elizium23 had a conflict of interest with Slugger O'Toole. The question raised at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents was whether Elizium23 had a conflict of interest wrt Knights of Columbus and Slugger O'Toole's edits to the article given that Elizium23's user page states that he or she is affiliated with the Knights of Columbus and would be unable to contribute neutrally to the topic. Meters (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , that is not how I read it. AN/I is a behavioral noticeboard and we are not to concern ourselves with content disputes, so my response there was wholly focused on Slugger's behavior on Wikipedia, yet I was still harrassed (probably because my !vote was opposing the topic ban.) Elizium23 (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Vijay Kumar Thallam


Subject is the chairman of the organisation namely Andhra Pradesh Zero Budget Natural Farming (APZBNF) organisation of Government of Andhra Pradesh. Can someone block the editor in the violation of Username policy and COI?-- <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 06:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editors

 * Various articles - will fill in as needed, including::

An undisclosed paid (and now blocked) editor,, has alluded to the fact that they are one of several individuals who are managers/publicists and actively editing the articles of their clients. They have not (and likely will not) reveal their employer(s). They have reacted very negatively to their block and have announced their intention to pursue legal action.

Searching for the subject of their attempted WP:SOAPBOX article, I found a source listing four management and PR firms: The Bridge Talent Group, Catalyst Talent Management, The Linicomn Agency and Berry Good PR. For two of them, I was able to find their client rosters: https://www.thelinicomnagency.com/, https://www.catalysttcm.com/.

This will be tedious, but it's probably a good idea to go through these client lists, find out which ones have articles here and check for signs of undisclosed paid editing. I'll fill in the list as I find them... would appreciate anyone else's assistance. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Right off the bat Elisabetta Fantone from this website is in need of some serious repairs.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I gave that a bit of an overzealous trim. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I can do more in depth research later today. Thank you for this post. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Does Andrew Garcia pass our notability criteria? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I found one Billboard story from his post-American Idol career, but I don't know if that's enough for it to pass WP:BAND and survive an AfD nomination. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'd think that would still fail WP:GNG but I'll look into it. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Problem-based_learning
This section seems promotional to me, if someone interested in education-topics wants to take a look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really edit education articles, but this seems to me like an unsourced, indiscriminate list of trivia about random high schools. My first instinct is that it should just be removed. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed it as well as some other unsourced examples in the article. Melcous (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Internet Society


The user Wwwhatsup is on the payroll of the Internet Society. They acknowledge being "a vendor of the Internet Society", but says it is not a conflict of interest. I believe it is a conflict of interest. I know that Wwwhatsup is paid to administer at least one social media account (Twitter) for the Internet Society (I am not naming this individual publicly as this could lead to their identification), among other communications tasks. They say they are "not paid to edit Wikipedia", which I am not alleging, but they are paid to perform communications work for this organization, so I do not think they should be editing the page. They have deleted my edits to the page like the section 'Controversies', the intent of which I think is self-evident - they are being a cheerleader for the Internet Society, not an objective, neutral editor. - Ferdeline (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (up-front disclosure: I'm slightly involved - I reverted Ferdeline's use of their own Twitter posts as a source during recent changes patrol - but beyond that I don't have a stake in the article) Looking at the talk page and article history, I don't think either party has clean hands here.
 * , your edits sure look like POV-pushing and original research. There is a lot of commentary in your edits - just looking at one edit that was reverted by someone else, I see unsourced phrases like This is amazing, given the need for an organization representing the Internet in the arena of international coordination at a time (the early 1990s) when no serious competitors to the Internet Society existed. and It has consistently struggled for recognition and influence; these are rather problematic statements if not sourced. As mentioned in my declaration of involvement above, you also sourced claims to your own Twitter. You have also repeatedly accused Wwwhatsup of bad faith editing (which is itself a personal attack) and are skirting the outing line right now.
 * , if you do in fact have some kind of professional or financial relationship to the Internet Society (whether or not they are paying you), that is indeed a conflict of interest. You should be requesting edits on the talk page rather than editing the article directly.
 * Now, let's all step away from the article, take a deep breath, assume good faith on the part of our fellow editors, and then have a reasoned discussion on the article talk page about the article's content, not its editors. creffpublic <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"> a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 21:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you do in fact have some kind of professional or financial relationship to the Internet Society (whether or not they are paying you), that is indeed a conflict of interest. You should be requesting edits on the talk page rather than editing the article directly.
 * Now, let's all step away from the article, take a deep breath, assume good faith on the part of our fellow editors, and then have a reasoned discussion on the article talk page about the article's content, not its editors. creffpublic <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"> a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 21:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Now, let's all step away from the article, take a deep breath, assume good faith on the part of our fellow editors, and then have a reasoned discussion on the article talk page about the article's content, not its editors. creffpublic <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"> a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 21:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your comments. If I may, I would like to clarify that I only linked to a Twitter post which was a screenshot of the organization's IRS 990 form, as it was not online at the time. It is now online and I subsequently added a link to it in the Wikipedia article (albeit in a different location). I did not cite my own Twitter as a form of self-promotion. In later edits I thought I had added citations to other parts of the article, including the comment about the Internet Society lacking influence and recognition. I acknowledge the other sentence you highlighted was commentary, though I do believe it to be true. I have been very careful not to out Wwwhatsup, by not referencing their gender or other identifiable details. However, Wwwhatsup has named and shamed me on Facebook, part of an attempt to intimidate me. One troll (not Wwwhatsup, just responding to their Facebook post) subsequently wrote that I should delete my Wikipedia account. Ferdeline (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * As can be seen from the talk I have watched this article for 12+ years, hands off. A year ago someone pointed out that it did not well reflect the organization. I admit that 's egregious edits prompted me to action. I took a couple out, and then realized the article was a mess. So I rewrote it. I believe my edits lay a basis for what can hopefully become a good article. If wants to add decent NPOV edits to that, they can be judged on their own merit. I suggest that his current reversion be undone, so that can be achieved.  has been campaigning against the Internet Society, including on the facebook group mentioned. I thought it fair that the latest bit of forum shopping be mentioned there. No outing on Wikipedia. Their disposal of someone there that disagrees with their point of view as a "troll" is telling. Just as their dispensing with my edits wholesale on the basis of purported COI. I have asked on the talk page that they specify what exactly is wrong with my edits. I am happy, respectively. to do the same, if it is not self evident. But I think the solution I suggest above is a better one. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have asked on the talk page that they specify what exactly is wrong with my edits. Assuming you do work for the Internet Society, WP:COI is what is wrong with your edits. If you are under the pay of the subject, you are not a neutral editor. It sounds like both of you leaving the article to more neutral editors would be a good idea.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not currently employed by, or contracted to, the Internet Society. However, yes, I have a close relationship, and thus have put a COI declaration on the article. I wish more neutral editors would show up! You'll see a year ago another editor pointed out the article needed help, and I tried then to suggest they take on the task! Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I know this is not a BLP, but I don't really see why we're sourcing details to an IRS 990 form. It seems to me if these details aren't covered in other sources, they're probably not significant enough to add to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Notre Dame Shakespeare Festival


This article is about what could be a notable theatre organization, but plagued for years with COI/undisclosed paid editing. The sources that aren't primary are dead links, and I'm sure an exhaustive list of their production history isn't appropriate. Maybe someone from WikiProject Theatre could help in this case? Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Lori Verderame


User:DrLori (presumably Lori Verderame herself, or possibly someone working for her) was blocked after making a series of edits to this page on December 1 (see her talk page). Immediately thereafter edits from 71.185.245.140 came, of the same nature; and subsequently mobile edits have been coming from 92.43.227.92. Consistently the edits have been promotional and have removed well-sourced biographical material, while also correcting mistakes as presumably only Verderame herself would know. Please block both of these. — the Man in Question (in question)  01:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , an IP block probably won't be very useful when there's only a couple of edits each. If an IP pops up again and makes similar changes, I'd recommend making a request at WP:RFPP to semi-protect the article due to persistent sock puppetry. creffett (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Request submitted to WP:RFPP. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The request was declined. recommended having the 92 IP blocked through AIV, although I know from experience that it won't be done unless they get several warnings first. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If they are indeed sock/meatpuppets, individual blocks are the weapon of choice, preferrable to protecting the whole page. When this was brought to RfP, the IP hadn't even been warned. If IP begins to hop, pending-changes protection would be an option. IP 71xx edited more than 2 weeks ago. Lectonar (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Chutney music


New user Rohit Jagessar and the IP range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:E010:4B70:0:0:0:0/64 have been promoting Rohit Jagessar as a writer and music producer. Jagessar recently self-published a book called Kiss and Breathe, and he lists himself as the winner of various awards. BFI says he released the film Guiana 1838 in 2005 and AllMusic says he served as executive producer on two compilation albums. But the activity of this registered account and the IP range have moved squarely into the realm of promotion. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Back in 2011 and 2013, the IP Special:Contributions/71.249.235.169 was doing the same thing, promoting Jagessar. Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Simcoach Games: Employees making edits, non-encyclopedic info


There are a number of undesired practises going on with the article Simcoach Games:

1) Employee(s) of the company "Simcoach Games" are making edits. For example, * made it clear in their username. 2) The article content is impacted by this COI editor (user mentioned above) to such an extent that talk page resolution isn't suitable.

3) The article shows more signs of COI editing (not just by the above mentioned user) which are for example:


 * Inclusion of non-encyclopedic content, such as: a list of clients at Simcoach_Games which is rather promotional. Portfolio's do not belong on Wikipedia.
 * The tone of the article overall incorporates a lot of promotion through speaking positively about the achievements of the company "Simcoach Games" and therefore creates another display of portfolio, in multiple parts. Using common sense I would suspect that the text has been written by promotional/PR writers. It is also the case that multiple users that have contributed to the article in the past (see edit history), have only edits to this article in their user accounts (and in at least one case, that of also to another article on a company owned by Simcoach Games: Etcetera edutainment) which gives me the idea that they are promotional/PR writers.

That would mean the article has been created by personnel of the company (Simcoach Games) that the article is about, and later on maintained by personnel of the company (the blatant user . The COI aspect in most of the significant editors has by now steered the entire article in a way that cannot be easily resolved by editing, and would probably be opposed by those who have created and shaped the article to their desires (the COI writers).

If the noticeboard judges that this notice is valid and my suspicions are right, I propose either of these solutions:

- The article is removed, because the extent of influence by COI writers steered it "beyond repair", as the entire text is heavily oriented towards promotion and portfolio. To be recreated in an appropiate manner. - Neutral editors are given a green light to make the appropiate edits to remove promotion, portfolio and opinionation from the article. To completely counter the influence of staff writers from Simcoach Games, rewriting larger chunks or the entire article might be neccesary. This can be done under a green light, as so to ensure that the COI writers will not interfere with the clean-ups and repairs. This requires some past editors from the article (at least the ones I mentioned) to be flagged as having a COI for said article.


 * Note: I didn't investigate all past editors from both of the relevant articles (Simcoach Games and Etcetera edutainment, their mother company. But when I a 3rd (besides Mdenton Simcoach and Zsmitty14), the page creator of the mother company,, I noticed that the reach of their activities aren't even fully covered in this notice yet; they added "Simcoach Games" in "See also" to Strip_District,_Pittsburgh and this looks like a violation of Neutral_point_of_view due to the opinionation from a promotional/PR writer, that their company is notable and significant to a city or district.

I personally think that the coordinated actions of all of these staff members/promotional/PR writers combined have a combined influence (conflicting with Wikipedia pillars) that would really warrant manually reverting all of such edits, and the wiki articles of both companies. More investigation is needed to identify other tainted edits from users that can be identified as their staff. They are literally putting their company's stamp all over Wikipedia.. --Blooker (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I've had a go a tidying things up - removing the blatantly promotional content and redirecting the Etcetera edutainment article to Simcoach Games as the latter article says it is a former name of the same company. I've also added COI and ref improve templates. Might still be work to be done. Melcous (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your assistance, I also added an entry to the article's talk page describing the situation (besides having done it for the main COI writers individually as I submitted this notice). Let's wait and see if an administrator wants to review the situation as well, like the writers involved and designating them as having a COI so that they cannot interfere with the clean-ups after this point. --Blooker (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Barbara Lazaroff


I think this article is more of a resume than a bio. I'm not sure if there is a COI, but neither editor has worked on much else. A COI tag elicited this response on my talk page. I've done some basic cleanup on the article already. More eyes appreciated. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 00:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am glad this was reported here. Twangist is a professional-level editor is about al I have to say. COI seems very clear.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * She seems to be notable, I will remove some promo from it. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Burford Capital


More eyes watching Burford Capital are appreciated. been the target of clear COI editing, at least one is certainly an undeclared paid editor. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I just cut out the typical promotional brochure-type crap and cut it down to something more encyclopedic. Most of what was there included financials and "look at us" wording. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Rafo Khachatrian


Since December 2017, Artak Hovhannisyan has edited on only two topics here: Ani Petrosyan and Rafo Khachatryan. Those two have been repeatedly created in mainspace, and repeatedly draftified or deleted. Ani Petrosyan has been draftified twice and deleted three times, Rafo Khachatryan deleted three times, once following a draftification, twice (by me) following reversion of a cut-and-paste move: both pages are ec-protected, so the latest attempt is at Rafo Khachatrian instead (that's been tagged for deletion as WP:A7, so may not be around for long either).

The user has apparently taken no notice of the conflict-of-interest notice I left him in July, and indeed has no edits in talk or user talk space. He declares "I am Manager of Armenian singer Rafo Khachatryan", so it seems pretty certain that this is undisclosed paid editing in violation of our Terms of Use, and that this is a spam/advertising-only user who should probably be indeffed as such. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked. MER-C 07:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Douglas Gan


A couple of edits by the user that are COI/paid editing in nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Gan&diff=931484850&oldid=930080558&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Gan&diff=929939853&oldid=929523725&diffmode=source. Have received emails from user confirming paid relationship. robertsky (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've sent the dude to Afd.  scope_creep Talk  18:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Škoda 32Tr SOR


Two paid editors who have been creating Skoda bus articles in draft, and then moving them out into mainspace without any effective sources. Last night reviewed on NPP Škoda 32Tr SOR, moved back to draft and now back out to mainspace. Several times this has happened with various editors. They seem to be acting in concert. There is more several bus articles, all moved out of draft to mainspace, back to draft by various editors, non-sourced and all in mainspace.  scope_creep Talk  11:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your evidence for asserting that these editors are paid is..? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

MAXUPP referencing


New-ish user who has been persistently adding sources written by Markus Heide to above articles. Did not respond on talk page. Example 1. Example 2. Example 3. Example 4. Example 5. Example 6. Example 7. I believe there are about 20-30 more instances of them doing this over the past weeks. Adding Heide refs is more or less all they do. I have only listed half of the impacted articles. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The references are to articles I authored or coauthored. I do not do this for self promotion. I published articles on the issues addressed in the entries. I just started doing this and used my own article to learn how it works. My idea was to edit other entries as well and to add more authors and references. In case I should remove the references, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXUPP (talk • contribs) 00:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , per the policies on conflicts of interest and self-citation, you shouldn't be citing sources that you wrote. I'm sure your intentions were good, but that is considered a form of self-promotion and is inappropriate, especially when done across multiple pages. You may use the talk pages of the respective articles to suggest adding your work as a source (and letting the community decide), but again, if that's all you do and you do that across a lot of pages it looks self-promotional. creffett (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that the first words of WP:SELFCITE are Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason. perhaps you'd like to retract that bald assertion? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the edits, and left a note on the user's talk page asking them to use the Request edit template if they think the links have encyclopedic value. Melcous (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

BAITSSS


Four accounts, and  plus two IP accounts, are the major contributors to BAITSSS. A sockpuppet investigation has been requested with Dhun9265 accused of a conflict of interest based on their username and of switching accounts to evade scrutiny. -- Paleorthid (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I tagged it for jargon, as I really have no idea what this thing is, other than being some sort of computer model.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Stuart Anderson MP on Stuart Anderson (politician)
Based on the username, User:Stuart Anderson MP is believed to be the subject of Stuart Anderson (politician). This user has deleted potentially damaging (sourced) content on this article about the subject's collapsed company and controversy, violating WP:NPOV. userdude 07:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , reminding MPs and their staff of Grant Shapps's PR nightmare for whitewashing his wiki page has been pretty persuasive in the two encounters I've had. Cabayi (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Ola Tunander

 * (oldest, 2010)
 * (oldest, 2010)
 * (oldest, 2010)
 * (oldest, 2010)
 * (oldest, 2010)
 * (oldest, 2010)

I'm sorry for not fully understanding how this is done on Wikipedia, but I am trying to report that this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ola_Tunander is being edited by the subject of the article, who has turned it into a hagiography of himself. Tunander also seems to be using several different sock puppet accounts to conceal his identity when editing and debating on the talk page. I am probably not reporting this in the correct way, but I hope the point gets through. More information has been compiled on the talk page of the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ola_Tunander#Wikipedia_editors_need_to_intervene.80.216.1.242 (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks and no problem about being new to this, I have formatted your report.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There appears to be only one recent account that has added anything significant: Odvarius. I do not see sockpuppetting. Could you describe more, IP 80.216.1.242?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The only account in the above list which has edited in the last three months is, but even that one has only posted on Talk. It is not impossible that the article creator, might have been Tunander, since the original article reads like a resume dump, but the evidence is far from conclusive. I don't think what is provided above is enough to justify a sockpuppet complaint. But continued editing of the article itself by new users might prompt further attention. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Jim Bates (politician)


Looks like is back at it (previous COIN discussion is here). Pinging, who blocked the user previously. Also and. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That is some amount of tampering and a such a long time. How is it possible it still continues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 20:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the last block didn't deter them, I've blocked them indefinitely. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

User:31.47.53.126


IP address with a long history of adding articles by the same authors as citation spam - the two articles here are just the latest examples. Multiple warnings have been issued. No response by the user. OsFish (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

"How the 1% Scrubs Its Image Online" from The Wall Street Journal
On 13 December, The Wall Street Journal published "How the 1% Scrubs Its Image Online", which contains details on undisclosed paid editing performed under the direction of Status Labs, a reputation management firm connected to the infamous Wiki-PR. (See The Signpost's 9 October 2013 feature for details on Wiki-PR.)

The following is a list of users and articles implicated by the report. Feel free to add more if anything is missing. —  Newslinger  talk   10:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Directly implicated by report

 * Registered users
 * "An editing account used by Status Labs was called Jppcap, according to people familiar with the matter."
 * Edited Theranos, Citadel LLC, and Kenneth C. Griffin
 * Now blocked by for "advertising or self-promotion. Thanks, !
 * Moved Draft:Omeed Malik to Omeed Malik
 * Already blocked by due to "Excessive involvement in reviewing articles" by . See  for details.
 * Unregistered user
 * Created Draft:Omeed Malik
 * Articles
 * "Former Bank of America Corp. executive Omeed Malik also received services from Status Labs, according to people familiar with the matter."
 * "A Wikipedia page about Mr. Malik also became the first result in a Google search of his name, displacing news articles. Following a Journal query, Wikipedia removed Mr. Malik’s page."
 * Created as Draft:Omeed Malik by at Special:Diff/897415117/897417658
 * Moved from Draft:Omeed Malik to Omeed Malik by at Special:Diff/897664661
 * "Disgraced blood-testing startup Theranos Inc. also received services from Status Labs, according to former employees. An editing account used by Status Labs was called Jppcap, according to people familiar with the matter. That account made several favorable edits to Theranos’ Wikipedia page. One edit removed a reference to an article in the Journal reporting Theranos devices often failed accuracy requirements."
 * Edited by
 * Special:Diff/715443197
 * Special:Diff/719947429/720752941
 * Special:Diff/745126180/745838531
 * "The hedge fund of billionaire Ken Griffin, Citadel LLC, hired Status Labs to edit information on Wikipedia in 2015 about the fund’s investments and Mr. Griffin’s art collection, according to a person familiar with the matter."
 * Edited by
 * Special:Diff/645687479/648626957
 * Special:Diff/648735294/649085370
 * Special:Diff/649304321/651032038
 * Special:Diff/662955961/665515301
 * Special:Diff/671277219/672945705
 * See above quote about Citadel LLC.
 * Edited by
 * Special:Diff/645022241/646449033
 * Special:Diff/647267573/647652501
 * Special:Diff/656969210/659874638
 * Special:Diff/662152054
 * Special:Diff/662388851/663252389
 * Special:Diff/687780338/687958184
 * Edited by
 * Special:Diff/645022241/646449033
 * Special:Diff/647267573/647652501
 * Special:Diff/656969210/659874638
 * Special:Diff/662152054
 * Special:Diff/662388851/663252389
 * Special:Diff/687780338/687958184

Discussion
Is there anything actionable here? Are there other articles in the editing histories of the listed users that need attention, and are there other users who are potentially connected to this undisclosed paid editing operation? —  Newslinger  talk   10:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Japanelemu was fairly extensive, and there were >50 suspected socks blocked as a result. The themes of this group seemed to be PR seeking entities, as I wrote in that case "financial websites, [an] actor/personal trainer, a record producer" and so on. It is consistent with a PR firm. Since I'm also writing about this in this month's Signpost, I'll probably keep my distance from the COIN case until after publication. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There are more details on the edits made to the Theranos article at . As for the sockpuppet investigation, we can now link and others to Wiki-PR. I wonder if it would be worth making a dedicated long-term abuse record for Wiki-PR, since the SPI didn't mention the firm and the information in Long-term abuse/Morning277 (redirected from WP:Wiki-PR) mixes up Wiki-PR with LegalMorning. —  Newslinger   talk   20:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * When I was cleaning up after Japanelemu, the earliest block I could find was 5 July 2017. Does this mean that I can nuke the Japanelemu articles back to August 2012 under G5 (which means all of them in practice), block all the accounts that didn't follow the naming pattern and delete their spam too? MER-C 20:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If the July 2017 cutoff was the only thing that stopped you from clearing out the remaining accounts and articles, then yes, I think this link to Wiki-PR shows that you can go back to August 2012. —  Newslinger  talk   22:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm working through every edit on the Citadel LLC page, fact checking, updating citations and restoring removed content. I'm up to about 2008 so far. WestportWiki (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the Kenneth C. Griffin page, checking citations, removing a lot of promotional and unverified content; still working on the Citadel LLC page. WestportWiki (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I sent an email to the WMF Movement Communications email list, alerting them that (a) Wiki-PR is rearing its scaly head again (b) WP:COIN is on the case - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia probably should be updated as well. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

11 articles deleted. Not deleted: Organization of Iranian American Communities (substantial edits by others), Chris Santos (actor) (substantial edits by others), Henri Ben Ezra (survived AFD), R. Scott Oswald (survived AFD). MER-C 19:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a list of the deleted article titles somewhere ☆ Bri (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The deletion log lists these pages:
 * These sandboxes were also deleted:
 * —  Newslinger  talk   23:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * These sandboxes were also deleted:
 * —  Newslinger  talk   23:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * These sandboxes were also deleted:
 * —  Newslinger  talk   23:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * These sandboxes were also deleted:
 * —  Newslinger  talk   23:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * These sandboxes were also deleted:
 * —  Newslinger  talk   23:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * These sandboxes were also deleted:
 * —  Newslinger  talk   23:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * —  Newslinger  talk   23:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * —  Newslinger  talk   23:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * —  Newslinger  talk   23:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * —  Newslinger  talk   23:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * —  Newslinger  talk   23:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Mark P. Taylor


Repeated introduction of unduly weighted promotional statements after multiple editors' reversions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User has been blocked per WP:IMPERSONATE. If they confirm their identity as that of the subject, then they can be unblocked and should be guided to WP:AUTO. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvia Fresco


I have concerns that User:Biografer may be creating aticles in return for payment. I have put a COI advice template on the user page here to which Biografer replied ‘’ And where did you got the impression that I have COI? I have no COI with anybody. I just write articles on notable individuals, just like you and everybody else here does’’ here.

My concerns stem from the great variety of mainly biographical articles created for mostly non-notable people. Biografer helpfully lists these all here which shows a considerable number having been deleted as not notable.

The issue which focussed my attention was this recent AfD debate in which Biografer argues very strenuously for retention of an article about a New Jersey surgeon despite a patent lack of notability. Subsequently Biografer nominated an article about a Hospital for deletion near to that where Silvia Fresco works.

The range of topics, the high rate of deletions, and the lack of any discernable focus, strongly suggests to me that articles are being written to order and probably for payment.  Velella  Velella Talk 15:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you need to present more evidence than the one AfD you mention abovve. I do agree that the Contributions list of articles created is full of people with very slim notability, and usually only three or so sources are provided. There is no one on that first page that I would have bothered to create an article for, but to each his own. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It isn't just the one AfD, it is the whole history of article creation, the general lack of sourcing of many of the articles and the unconnected range of biographies. Without access to Admin tools, it is extremely difficult for any one editor to demonstrate unequivocally that an editor is being paid. The page curation advice asks that editors draw attention to editing patterns that might indicate paid editing. That is precisely what this report does. I am simply asking for a view, particularly by experienced admins, whether there is evidence of paid editing. This editor is certainly consuming significant editor resources in the number of AfDs that have been generated from new articles that have been created.  Velella  Velella Talk  15:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it helps if you compile some evidence for us all. The admins do not have special paid editing detection tools. COIN works by increasing scrutiny by other editors; it is not an admin noticeboard, although I have noticed admins sometimes take action on what they see here if it is clear enough. Which is all to say: you need to lay out some evidence. I do agree with you that there is a problem here, for example this article on a dancer has no sources, and it was created today.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I have added a dozen or so of Biografer's articles to the list above. The biggest thing I can see is that they are creating articles with very few secondary sources, basing start-class articles on a few primary sources (or in at least one case, no sources). Sometimes it is only one primary source, as in Arthur Steindler. So, instead of the article creator figuring out if the person is notable enough, the article gets created and we are left to wonder, as the sourcing is so poor.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Called here because some folks here already flooded my talkpage with accusations which I have nothing to do with. As I mentioned in a comment on my talk page, I am not being paid for whatever I do and about whomever I write. I do my research about whom to write, but sometimes, I agree, not a thorough one. I will try my best to focus on much deeper research. We need to also keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and if one person writes a Stub/Start the other can expand on it. I also would like to apologize to for my minor edits, I just looked at them, and I must agree at least two of them were not. So, my apology to the community. :)--Biografer (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I think you could improve sourcing on many of these articles. The notability is not demonstrated by sources in many of the ones above. Michel Gervais (dancer) should probably never have been created. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * why do you continue to create articles without supporting sources? Bernard Goldman has one source, but it is for his wife. This is quite poor practice that you are pumping out these articles without bothering to search for or provide sources, as you leave all the work to other editors. You have included a large amount of information that leaves me wondering where it came from, as it is not sourced. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I wrote an article on Norma Goldman, not her husband Bernard. I actually clean-up Bernard Goldman from Amazon sources which are inappropriate for our project.--Biografer (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am looking at your edits. The problem here is not COI but that you do not seem to understand notability and create articles based on thin primary sources. Also you inflate things sometimes beyond what the very minimal sourcing says. For example a few minutes ago you wrote "The Los Angeles Times praised his style and stamina in Etc! which premiered...", when in fact the source says "Canadian guest artist Michel Gervais has plenty of style, if not quite enough stamina...". So you made something up there that is not in the source.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I had restored and rewrote the sentence. You could have just reworded yourself, but you are so focused on the deletion that you turn a blind eye to a simple thing as rewording. To me, "plenty of style" was the same thing as "praising".--Biografer (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The source said he had good style as a dancer but lacked stamina. You turned that into the equivalent of them praising his stamina. You should be take more care assessing what sources say, and by extension whether someone deserves an article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And here you go again with another start class article created today (Rodney L. Belcher), with a single primary source! Where are you getting this copy, just from paraphrasing a single source? Or do you actually know the subjects?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The copyvio report on Biographer's new Rodney L. Belcher shows an over 50% match with a medical journal. See here. It seems the issue is not so much a coin issue but a basic understanding of good article creation practices. E.G. don;t copy stuff, for starters.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * In addition to 54% copyvio on Rodney L. Belcher above, Richard C. Bates from two weeks ago shows 45% copyvio. American Society of Breast Surgeons is less egregious at 18%. Michel Gervais (dancer) makes the method a little clearer, coming in at 43% copyvio, mostly for standard terms, but some of which should never have been copied. These are just examples picked form the last two weeks of article creations. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know any of my subjects personally. Just like you, I go online, look for a subject, see that he/she is known for something, I go and write about him/her. As for copyvio comparisons, are you implying that I deliberately doing it, to impose my own block? Besides, all of our articles have copyvios one way or the other, some are at a 18% some are at 50%, I think that as long as the copyvio is not above 50% it should be fine.--Biografer (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I think that as long as I steal less than half of your pizza, it should be fine. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And another 54% copyvio'ed article creation, made after this discussion! Biografer, do you not get it? Stop copying other people's work on to Wikipedia. When you added "that fractures healed well with rigid internal fixation with use of compression plates", you added text written by someone else. Do you not understand the copyright policy here? Same goes for "immobility of adjacent joints, joint stiffness, and malreduction". A general rule is not more than three original words in a row. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your copyright policy just fine. I try to rewrite as many sentences with my own words as much as possible. I think you need to change your Earwig settings. :)--Biografer (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think you can copy sentences directly from the web into WP articles, as above and as you appear to have been doing for a while, then you need someone like to explain the finer points to you.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you threatening me with a block? I'm not saying that its fine, I am saying that sometimes that will be a result. If you can rewrite it, rewrite it, I wont object. I don't use Earwig, so I don't know if I do a copyvio or not.--Biografer (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin and have nothing to do with blocking users. You do not seem to understand that directly copying and very closely paraphrasing source articles from the web is a no-no. See Copyright_violations.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly aware of it.--Biografer (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Then as of now, you are responsible for following it. It's not others' responsibility to rewrite the copyright violations you commit, and we're not allowed to host infringing content even for a short while pending that sort of followup workflow. I have no idea how you can read something, then write something, and then not know if what you wrote was the same words (or very closing matching) what you had read. DMacks (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like there's a COI issue here, but there certainly appears to be a WP:CIR issue with regards to Copyvios ("I think that as long as the copyvio is not above 50% it should be fine."). Maybe this should move over to ANI?BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed several of these article back into draft-space. They are not comparable with modern bio article standards and are woeful in some instances.  scope_creep Talk  21:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But the user continues to make them. And does not show any interest in taking advice for improvement. What next? The articles listed above were just a few days of their work. Recent articles include Marcel Kahan (no secondary sourcing), Nancy Combs, Christian Borgemeister (no secondary sourcing and 35% copyvio on Earwig), Han Koo Lee (all primary sourcing) and Arsen Pankovich (all primary sourcing). Those were all in the past two days.  ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If they are chock full of copyvio and close paraphrasing then they will all be pulled. I will check a whole bundle, starting with the first 100 now.   scope_creep Talk  21:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Pro Music Rights (PMR)


There was a COI notice on this users talk page from 5 days ago, the day of their first edit. I put one on Pro Music Rights (PMR) today and it was promptly removed, with a note on my talk page claiming no connection with the subject. Furthermore, I moved the article to Pro Music Rights and this user moved it back stating that Pro Music Rights (PMR) is how the company refers to itself in legal documents - suggesting a high familiarity with the company. Beyond that, they asked on the article TP how to protect the article - indicating a high level of ownership. I find it hard to believe there is no COI and suggest this be investigated further. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 02:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Sir, No I am Not connected, The documents are public record, all you need to do is read, and they aren't exactly hard to find https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/12/18/lawsuit-alleges-apple-music-streams-songs-without-proper-license, I believe User:MB is trying to start Disruptive editing & should be looked into further. Music Publisher s (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * A quick look at their edit history shows that any other articles they edited were related to PMR and litigation that PMR was involved in. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Bob Holz


Entire edit history consists of maintaining his autobiographical article since he created it in 2017, in addition to self-promotion in other jazz-related articles. Attempted to remove templates in article regarding this and other issues. sixty nine  • whaddya want? •  06:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Uppsala Security


The page Draft:Uppsala Security, created by user Subpark, has been speedily deleted twice for WP:G11, now the user the IP 58.72.155.170 that has been editing the Korean article started the draft again. The same user User Subpark created the article about the company on the Korean Wikipedia under 웁살라시큐리티, and uploaded 3 company logos to Wikimedia as own work, two of which have since been removed. I marked the two previous Uppsala Security drafts for WP:SPEEDY, put the COI notice and Promotion tag on the article on ko.wikipedia and the Missing Permission Tag on the logo pages on Wikimedia. I'm reporting the COI here and inform the user, and then I'm not going to take further action, since I don't want this to appear as if I have something against the user or the company. --OrestesLebt (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I was planning to G11 it, the first time around, but forgot about it. They are be paid editors. It is impossible to write such a promotional article, i.e. it only has a lede and infobox and already has seven links to their company page and products.  scope_creep Talk  12:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you! I had no doubt that others would agree. --OrestesLebt (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Alice Fabbrica


This user is obviously just here to create pages for his clients. This edit clearly mentions that the page is created with paid editing and not encyclopedic. This user has created many more such pages. Coderzombie (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User has been blocked, article has been draftspaced.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)