Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 155

Paul Atherton


user:Itsallnewtome has now four times removed the COI tag from the article Paul Atherton. 

The article Paul Atherton was created by user:Amanda Paul, an SPA interested only in Paul Atherton and the very small number of films where he was producer or director. "Amanda Paul" acknowledged "knowing" Paul Atherton and posted images to Wikimedia Commons as "own work" while listing the creator as Paul Atherton. Amanda Paul stopped editing under that username in 2016, after questions from other editors about COI.

Unlike Amanda Paul, "Itsallnewtome" claims to have no personal connection to Atherton: "I was drawn to Atherton's Wikipedia page upon hearing about his Royal Court Judgement through the Disability News Service, as a disabled person I'm a subscriber." Nevertheless, the user has SPA editing focus on articles related to Paul Atherton and close acquaintance with details of Atherton's past including many that are not online.

The promotional tendency of many of this user's edits also suggest a COI. These are my reasons for believing that Itsallnewtome should not remove the article's COI tag -- but I welcome advice from others with more experience. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I gave the article a once-over and trimmed some items. Certain items had been puffed up to increase the ref count (a general description of Chronic Fatique Syndrome had three sources not related to the subject, for example.) To me this looks like paid or professional editing, but I say that in the least accusatory way possible, and direct it at no one in particular. It is certainly a promotional article, although it is fairly neutral. The editing is quite good, although whoever keeps putting spaces between the refs needs to stop that. User Itsallnewtome is exclusively and solely interested in editing articles on Paul Atherton, that is for certain. Perhaps some others can get to the bottom of it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed a Youtube source that led to Paul Atherton's Youtube channel. When I got to the source that was actually a letter to the editor form Paul Atherton, I started to agree with the idea that there is COI going on here. I wonder if Checkuser can help. I have added the autobiography tag, because who else but the article subject adds statements about them commenting in the press, sourced by a letter they wrote to a newspaper?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that an image of the subject (now used on the article) was uploaded to the Commons by an editor using the name of the subject. This is quite the coincidence given the recent editing activity surrounding the article. SamHolt6 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Very interesting... then user Itsallnewtome updated the photo with the summary "Updated photo profile to one taken this year", or something like that.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The thing that sticks out to me is the weird referencing style, with the ref's wikicode broken into separate lines, and then improper spaces left between the refs. It's very distinctive. That was happening years ago in the article, and it has been happening recently too.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * As a new editor I've simply copy and pasted previous referencing styles amending with new information eg. adding a new publication title and details, in the hope of it being corrected if anything is wrong.


 * Although in truth, I've added barely anything to the article itself (amended a number of paragraphs, added depth to citations, included some images when subjects were merged without them & added the MECFS reference as I felt it read way better, which you've since remmoved), instead spending most of the time here on the talk page trying to discover what is and is not acceptable (the MECFS comment and references I did add and was a direct copy and paste, from the wikipedia page on the actual subject). It's taken ages to understand referencing styles, writing and debating, plus doing the research etc. and I'm still clearly not aufait with the environment. Why is there a Tiwtter citation template, when it's claimed by HouseOfChange that Twitter cannot be used as a reference for example?


 * After an initial discussions wtih Girth Summit here I sgned up with an account and I had hoped to improve this article by giving it more depth from offline sources (something one would have expected every editor to do, but seemingly doesn't happen). For instance HouseOfChange claimed certin things weren't available online in the first instance and I discovered them easily. They then spent some time researching (after the event) and discovered other sources online that they'd originally claimed hadn't existed


 * The hours I've invested on this endeavour has meant it would be impossible (unless I did nothing else) to even engage with another subject. I don't have a general interest in ANY subject, but I do in this. I've made that reasoning extremely clear in amy communications with everyone.


 * I managed to trigger a myriad of AFDs on Atherton's other work by engaging with this article and felt obliged to defend them. The conflictory nature of Wimipedia meant I've invested hours drafting responses to things, that I felt should have been addressed years ago by experienced editors. I certainly wasn't interested in getting embroiled with his cited work pages. I've not found this environment particularly supportive, I've consistantly asked questions to understand the right processes and why some things are accepted and others not and instead of assistance found silence or worse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Atherton#Biographical_Referencing.


 * The merging of articles Colour Blind, THe Ballet of Change & Our London Lives after the AFD's, was also done extremely poorly by experinced editors. seemingly duplicating referneces, not checking links etc.


 * And I constantly struggle to do the right thing, I notice that you've removed the profile links I submitted in respect to the Freelnace Journalist articles on the Londonist & Guardian (that were contextualised in a different way previously), which I did as there is more than one Paul Atherton writing journalistically and by-lined (which is what I stated in the edit summary), this seemed a logical position to take but has been interpreted by you as puffery for example.


 * I've spent hours on editors talk pages, debating such things as why the example of a National Film Archive given for purposes of notability isn't an actual Natoinal film archive (Just a list in the library of congress) which appears oxymoronic to me. I then tried to kick start a debate about films being collected into National Archives and museums making them notable on a speicialist page (after advice fron 4meter4, but got precisely nowehre, because of the lack of interest by Wikipedia editors on the film pages.


 * When I first came to the article it read like someones extremely interesting and notable life, now it reads like a list of events with no coherent narrative.I think to best understand my engagement with the subject in is eactly the same way Russell Kane at Mens Radio Station does in his recent interview with Atherton there


 * I obviously keep a close check on Atherton's social media pages, as you'd expect anyone to do with an interest in their particular living subject. The photograph was discovered from that. The hornets nest I triggered being interested in Atherton's article, demonstrates I thnk, the main criticisms of wikipedia, in that a small group of editors have become dicatorial, swoooping in, only in cases where they can remove content, but never to engage with a discussion or a process on the subject itself. I removed the COI as the majority of this article has been re-written by HouseOfChange. My notes on the Talk page for doing so, I felt were concise and left the situation open for debate, yet garnered no debate there. Instead finding revesal of things I'm doing with no explanation. It feels that many experienced editors in this environment have forgotten just how hard it is trying to learn the myriad of things needed to do (especially now I understand that Bots are doing much of the work) to effectively contribute to the environment Itsallnewtome (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I am not buying your polished explanation. It seems fairly clear that you are a promotional editor for all subject Paul Atherton. You edit nothing else, which is contrary to the idea of building a encyclopedia. it is also promotional editing, contrary to our policy of no promotion. People ask questions, and you reply with a huge wall of text. It's obfuscation, more or less.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, am I to understand, that reasoned, honest (I told you this article was currently my only focus) evidenced answers are not what Wikipedia wants? Instead you believe, it's just your unevidenced opinion (please demonstrate what I've edited that would be considered promotional)? Mearly all of the changes you made to the entry, were to edits done by experienceed editors merging AFDs. I've barely edited the article myself, however you did take out a reference to an entire chapter in a book entitled "Crippled" referencing Atherton saying it was minor, and in so doing so you made my point about poor editing in this environment. This is an open source platform, whether I chose to focus on one subject deeply or write about many things that I know very little about, does not breach Wikipedia guidelines. People ask questions and I give them the weight and respect to answer detailed and as fully as I can. Obfusacation is the idea of avoiding answering the question, as such, do please show me how my response didn't answer your question? Whilst I'm doing my best to comply with all wikipedia guidelines you seem to breaching them all over the place. e.g. WP:GF, WP:DNB, WP:HA, WP:Civ, WP:PA & WP:5P4 to mention just a few. Itsallnewtome (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For a "new editor", you certainly know a lot of policies and guidelines. I think WP:DUCK is thing one you should perhaps read. Please don't bother with another wall of text, as it wastes precious editor time.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I can read . I have logic. It's not difficult to construct a valid argument quickly from what is available and accessible here. Somthing you clerlly have failed dismally to do. WP:Duck is meaningless in this context as you've not cited to what you are referring, either providing evidence or even example. Itsallnewtome (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

(Restart indent), if you are editing like someone with a COI (and this is the point I think makes by pointing to WP:DUCK), then the article should carry the COI flag as long as you continue to add promotional material while disputing the efforts of others to make it read more like an encyclopedia article and less like a resume/fanpage. It is your behavior at issue here, not your identity or your pure-as-a-lily motivation. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * And AGAIN I ask, can you point to the specific edits that I made you believe fall into that category (i.e. Promotional material)? I've asked you numerous times and as yet, have not received a response. Itsallnewtome (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I mentioned two above when I filed this report: First, inappropriate puffery of Atherton's thoroughly trivial freelance op-ed writing. Second, this edit. In common with many other mentions of Atherton mistakenly used to expand this bio, it is clear the Private Eye writer mentions "Paul Atherton" not because he IS notable or because he DID something notable but as a briefly-named example of something else -- homelessness, disability, adoption, etc. etc. The same edit added several more impressive citations -- but they were all about CFS, none of them mention Paul Atherton at all. you have said that (in addition to tracking all his social media) you plan serious research to find offline sources about Paul Atherton. But how on earth did you find a squib from 2010 that mentions him? That is really impressive detective work.
 * Part of the problem is that your idea of what this article should look like is the chatty, promotional bio created by "Amanda Paul," where colorful OR does indeed give the impression of an "extremely interesting and notable life," as you say above. Wikipedia, however, publishes encyclopedia articles, not colorful lively bios. Please look at some other bios to learn what Wikipedia articles look like. Filmmaker Sam Masud and disabled writer Melanie Reid -- either one far more notable than Atherton -- nevertheless have short, factual bios. Their articles cite and link to high-quality, in-depth coverage elsewhere. People who want to learn more about Masud or Reid can find lots more information in those references. No such high-quality independent sources exist for Atherton's story -- he does not meet GNG -- he is barely notable based on NARTIST (two of his films were collected into archives.) Working on other Wikipedia articles would really benefit your desire to improve this one. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear thank you. This has perfectly highlighted your bias against Atherton's article (something I still don't comprehend - eapecially as you claim to have no personal connection with him - I notice you've now challenged the copyright of the photo Atherton uploaded, without replacing it, which is surely something a respectable Wikipedia editor would have done?), your lack of understanding of British Media and your appalling research skills, really emphasises why you have no place in this conversation.


 * 1. The Private Eye article wasn't something I added. I merely properly corrected a reference that existed on Atherton's page since it was placed there in 2010. There are two articles that followed in succession that have been referenced on Atherton's article page in repect to Private Eye Magazine, one entitled "Wheels of Misfortune" (which previously linked to a copy of the article on Keep and Share) and included a detailed news story on Atherton's battles with the DWP & a Homeless hostel in Brixton which is clearly signifficant, else it wouldn't have been covered by the journalist (that's further evidenced by the significant contributiion in the Housing Chapter of Dr. Frances Ryan's book Crippled Atherton has on the same subject) and the other "A Hostel Takeover" which came the following week (the reference being previously linked to a copy of the article on Issuu). I'd taken advice from on the best way of correcting this error, as copies of articles on thrid party sites are believed to breach copright and I used that advice to correct the problem by citing the article and publication precisely and dropping the link to the third party sites.


 * Rather, than as you try to imply, being a mere mention, half of the entire article is about Atherton's situation (the other about another disabled man being abused by Leonard Cheshire Homes), the Eye intervened to get his MP Chuka Umunna to personally address his issues with Lambeth Council. The seemingly unprecedneted follow up story (I've never come across this with the Eye before) was enitrely in respect to Atherton and his continued battles he was having to gain access to the property following the Eye's intervention.


 * 2. Private Eye Magazine is one of the most politically influential publications in the British Isles and what you consider a "squib" as anyone who knows the publication will tell you is a fully fledged invetigative report by the extremely well known investigative journalist Heather Mills who was herslef impersonated by Heather Mills.


 * 3. This is the article's contents, so the notion of notability has no bearing when adding evidenced information. Atherton's notability has already been established. This then is purely down to weighting, I'd argue that with one article in a publication of this calibre it would be enough, but with two I cannot see any sensible person arguing against that.


 * 4. Again, I didn't add Atherton's freelance press articles, merely contextualised them differently, they had already been apportioned to the article when they'd been published. However, there seemed much confustion by some editors as to whether these articles were Atherton writing about himself, which they clearly were not, so I clariifed. As freelance bloggers and columnists like Dan Hodges get an entire article page to themselves, it's not clear, why you would be so degrading towards journalism when it comes to Atherton, maybe it's just your bias?


 * 5. As already stated I did add the basic description of what ME/CFS was, directy from the Wikipedia page on the subject. That had nothing to do with referencing (as the references came with the quote), but was a stylistic choice to assist a reader about the condition, without having to leave Atherton's page to do so. Atherton was one of the main subjects in a documentary film about the condition entitled What About M.E?, so it's clearly significant to his personal life.


 * 6. Some of the criteria for a biography as defined by Wikipedia (WP:BIO) is, as you know, "remarkable", "unusual" and "interesting" it's hard to see those words together without thinking "Colourful", but I've neither been salacious with my words nor efffusive and certainly not "chatty", but, as you know, I have always been open to discussion on style.


 * 7. However, none of this evidences anything promotional or conflict of interest. Do you wish to present anything else to support your claim? Itsallnewtome (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I have stated my opinion, I hope other editors will also weigh in on whether or not you should remove the COI tag from Paul Atherton. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a general statement: editors who write like the above long walls of text are usually the article subject. SPA account, and a true crusade for the article with extreme minutiae. I can't see how any other person would be able to maintain such a fervent defense of a middling notability subject. The autobio tag is appropriate.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies for being slow to chime in on this - it's a hectic time of year for me, I've hardly logged in over the last week or so. I have been pinged a couple of times in this discussion, so I'll briefly set out my thoughts:
 * I had a long conversation with User:Itsallnewtome on my talk page earlier in the year (now archived here). Their position was that they had no connection to the subject of the article, or to any of the previous accounts that had edited the article, they were just a Londoner who had an interest in the subject. Bearing in mind WP:OFWV, I was prepared to AGF and believe this.
 * I expressed my view that the subject of the article is probably just about notable, but that much of the article (at the time of that conversation) was poorly-sourced promotional material and coatracking, and that it should have been stripped back to a stub. The current version of the article is a lot better, but I haven't been through the history exhaustively to see who is responsible for which improvements. I still think there are things that should be cut - for example, I don't see why we are naming family members who aren't independently notable - but this isn't the place to discuss that.
 * Itsallnewtome's editing history does seem quite single-minded - since creating their account back in August, they have been exclusively interested in our articles about Paul Atherton and his films. There's no policy against that, but this particular article has had a history of SPAs working on it, which is bound to raise eyebrows. If we assume that Itsallnewtome really is a new editor, whose interest in this article is entirely coincidental, their indignation at these suggestions is perhaps understandable; however, rather than making critical remarks about experienced editors (some of which above border on the offensive), they should perhaps recognise that the history of the article, combined with their singular interest in it, is bound to make other editors suspicious.
 * I don't have a view on whether Itsallnewtome has a COI - the behavioural evidence, to my mind, does point towards a connection, but it doesn't seem cast-iron to me, and I'm not sure whether a Checkuser would be able to help - I'm no expert, but I think that the IP data necessary to connect their account with previous SPAs would no longer be available. Given the ambiguity, I'm not sure that any sanctions are called for here, but I would suggest that Itsallnewtome adheres very closely to our guidance on collaborative editing, and avoid reverting other editors or removing tags without gaining a consensus to do so first. Girth Summit  (blether)  19:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Rather than do a checkuser against the antique edits of Amanda Paul (who was better at spelling and typing than Itsallnewtome) I suggest a checkuser against the edits made on November 19 by Itsallnewtome on en-wiki and the upload by self-identified "Paul Atherton" on the same date to Wikimedia Commons of the now-deleted copyvio image that Itsallnewtome added to en-wiki on December 13. But my point here is a narrow one (why I filed here rather than at SPI), the article has suffers from repeated COI editing and a warning tag (COI or AUTOBIO) should not be removed by Itsallnewtome. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, SPI may not be definitive. Between the disappearance of Amanda Paul and the appearance of Itsallnewtome, Paul-Atherton-fans had brief sprints of editing from several different IP addresses in London  (e.g. adding Atherton's name to article,expanding bio, and AfD participation from a computer in an Apple Store. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It definitely seems like an SPI with a dash of CU is in order. If I understood all the machinations here more clearly, I would file the SPI myself. HouseOfChange? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

(restart indent) The article has been trimmed of most puffery, trivia, and coatrackery by and by me, so I removed to autobio tag. The early life section is still too long and detailed, but because it is based on resources now offline, I hesitate to trim it.

Continued advocacy to expand the article comes from (most recently that Atherton should be considered a "comparable figure" to Samuel Pepys.) I don't think that editor (or any future Atherton SPA arriving from London) should in future edit this article. It will be great also if his talk-page suggestions focus more on items covered by RS that we might have missed seeing and less on trying to demonstrate the inadequacy of current Wikipedia editors and policies. , what do you think? HouseOfChange (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , It seems too much of a stretch to accept that it is a coincidence that Atherton logged in himself to add an image to Commons, and that Itsallnewtome then immediately added it to an article, unless they are either the same person (either Atherton, or a different person who falsely claimed to be Atherton when they uploaded the image to commons), or two people coordinating their editing. I'm no expert on SPI, but I'm not sure about the right way to approach this - the Paul Atherton account is a commons account, so a local CU might not be in a position to investigate. I'll ask a CU for some advise on this.
 * With regard to the content of the article, I agree that it's in a much better state now, you've done a lot of good work trimming away unnecessary/improperly sourced content. The suggestion that we start padding out the article with the content of his diaries is obviously a non-starter, unless independent sources discuss them (which is, after all, the only reason we would discuss the contents of anyone's diaries.) Girth Summit  (blether)  12:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: seems to have stopped editing (as did  after questions were raised about COI.) I greatly respect the reasoning behind WP:AGF but when one particular article has a decade-plus pattern of getting puffed by SPAs, I am grateful for this noticeboard as a place to seek clarity. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been waiting for you to finish your investigations before reattmepting to edit any further. As Atherton's Video-Diary is currently aceepted as the only, into the Museum of London and has been on public display there too (as too Samuel Pepys a comparison, that the Museum made, that's why I used it as an exmaple). I can totally understand why so many people quit trying to edit here. A lot of effort for no reward, is not how most people work. Equally, as stated, all my focus has been on offline material - let me know when you've sorted yourselves out with your invsetigations and I'll supply you with the information I've gathered together from archives to date (it's the first day back in work here following the Christmas Break in the UK for the Canadian & US editors amongst you). Itsallnewtome (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit the article Paul Atherton but post your suggestions to the article talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is pretty clear that you have a COI. Your single minded pursuit of things only Atherton does not make sense. Only people like the article subject pursue subjects like this and contribute so much intricate detail. Your username doesn't reflect yoru editing skill, which is considerable. But it is skill that is consistently directed towards Paul Atherton. I agree with that the best route is for you to just edit via edit requests on the talk page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC) (plus slight refactoring of wikicode to make pings work, by HouseOfChange) HouseOfChange (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems strange to me, that Wikipedia Editors have the time and energy to do anything other than focus on a single subject. The hours of research required to cross referencing things offline for instance is a full time, unpaid job. As for my editing skills, I think you are actually referring to my deabting skills which (whilst I'm happy to take the compliement) do not reflect my edidting Skills, or have you already forgotten how my Cut & Paste edits got me into terrible trouble here at the tail end of last year. The fact you seemingly have no actual evidence to prove your COI and have yet drawn this conclusions (and seemingly breached this pages guideline by doing so), seems strange in an evironment that seems driven on the basis of fact and no original research. But my expxerience here shows Editors aren't interested in expanding knwoledge properly but simply destroying it. Amanda Paul acknowledged her COI but you've both seemingly ignored that fact (I'm unclear what's happened with her page and contributions as they appear to be now deleted) I've made my intentions and interest perfectly clear why I was engaging with this subject in the way I did, from day one. Your choice to ignore that reasoning, I can do little about.  What you have as an article now doesn't reflect any of the reasons I was interested in this person.  I've asked questions consistently and have garnered no answers (as many who've tried to contribute to this article, have seemingly done). Why for instance would you take Atherton's son from the page when he's the very subject of the film that you claim makes him notable. It's an oxymoronc poisition to me. Equally, nobody has given a clear and concise reason why his homelessness and his contributions to London don't make him notable under the banner of unusual and interesting. The written material is clearly in abundance from Academic institutions and the media at large here in the UK, as they clearly believe that to be the case, so it is hard to understand why you do not.  But as there is very little engagement here on the page (I get the sense that Londoner's seemingly have quit the idea of Wikipedia altogether with so [few numbers now contributing https://www.ft.com/content/3f726eba-bb6f-11e4-b95c-00144feab7de] to it overall globally) I feel forced to withdraw (as I suspect so many others have done). I think Atherton in a recent tweet (he says he follows closely what goes on on the page about him and I obviously follow him - which is how I found the image so fast when it was posted) said it best. "This now reads like a very poorly written inaccurate IMDb entry" Itsallnewtome (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * When you say I feel forced to withdraw, are you saying you will stop editing the Atherton article? Thank you for volunteering to do so, as it might be a good solution to this thread.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 's userpages are linked from the top of this section. removed the name of Atherton's son from the article reflecting our policy WP:BLPNAME. Use the article talk page to call attention to any "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (To complain about other editors, WP:ANI is a better venue.)  HouseOfChange (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed the user template and re-pinging — MarkH21talk 22:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: This looks like clear COI. The article seems fairly cleaned up now, so the Template:COI cleanup tag may no longer be needed. However, I would suggest adding Template:Connected contributors to the talk page with the declared parameters set to "no". — MarkH21talk 22:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to, I have added the Template as suggested. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Natalie Lefevre


This user has shown several signs of COI editing, and has deleted all COI warnings from their talk page (see here). They've had a few articles CSDd (so I can't actually see that content), but I'm particularly concerned about Natalie Lefevre and Ryan Kolar, given they have details only someone close to the subject would know. Best, PK650 (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article looks to me like it needs to be AfD'd, but I have not done a complete WP:BEFORE.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Phnom Penh Commercial Bank


The user (whose username is apparently an abbr. of the bank's name) edited the article in question back in December 2018, but nobody has noticed until now. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 07:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I rolled it back using Twinkle to the latest COI-free version. Someone had rolled it back earlier. I added back your COI tag as well as it needs to be checked further. the username can be reported to WP:UFAA.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Or maybe people noticed, and thought the edits were valid, and improved the article? I've restored some of them, not least the company's current address. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

William Gazecki


Both accounts appear to be associated with the subject, the latter repeatedly adding promotional and unsourced content and removing an AfD template. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I received an email notifying me of a potential Conflict of Interest with respect to the William Gazecki article: 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 I have asked Mediatech1 to stop editing that page. I don't think he knew what he was doing in terms of Conflict of Interest and Wikipedia policy. For anyone who reads this, I would like that article to be like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Walker_(director) She does what I do, and the article on her is the perfect model. Thank you.

User:Lee County Port Authority


Account has ignored those warnings for COI edits and paid editing as well as COI Username issue and has not acknowledged the obvious violation ofprohibition against undisclosed paid editing. The user continues to add unreferenced (COI fluff) such as awards, etc... to articles clearly connected to their username- Both articles in which they have exclusively edited for their entire editing history, Page Field and Southwest Florida International Airport are owned/operated by the organization the username references, the Lee County Port Authority. So it's reasonable to surmise that he or she works for the port authority in its public ("external") relations department. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the user. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL, you got that block up faster than I could leave a "Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion". Much appreciate the quick work, long list of blatant COI issues on that account. --Bhockey10 (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Sunilbutolia


This editor was just blocked for undisclosed paid editing by Yunshui. They've created 80 or so articles, some of which need scrutiny. MER-C 19:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Patria (company)


SPA recently removed sourced info that reflected negatively. Can't look into this further myself right now, but it should probably be restored. MB 01:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Microgaming


Randomly found using the filter log. See Talk:Microgaming for details. Cleanup help would be welcome. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Microgaming Poker Network (Prima Poker) was a big deal (no pun intended) back in the early days of online poker in Europe, and certainly ought to be notable. Wikipedia likely should have an article on this company. I'm amazed at how poor the current article is - I suppose those who might have written about the network constructively were too busy playing poker :). --kingboyk (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Keio University


Hi! The above addresses and the single-purpose account Monmow have been adding promotional marketing texts about the school over the course of almost a year now, and most recently removed a negative section that I added about the school's recent scandals without giving any reason. Is there anything that I can do? LUMINR (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please alert the users above to this action by inserting onto their talk pages.  Orville talk 20:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have done so now. --LUMINR (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Paul Akers

 * (formerly Hookandpan)
 * (formerly Hookandpan)

I just trimmed down a very POV article at Paul Akers. Near-WP:SPA Hookandpan has taken issue with this, and has proposed on this talk page that in fact I am the one with the COI. It should probably be noted that Paul Aker's audiobooks are produced by Hook and Pan Productions. Thoughts? - MrOllie (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My thoughts start with "username violation," wander past "clear COI, likely UPE," and end somewhere around "Greg Otterholt is probably also COI/UPE." Will file the username report, but can't review the articles at this time. creffpublic  a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Article content is also present in --kingboyk (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The nature of MrOllie's accusation calls his intent into question. His continued obstruction to legitimate and journalistically sourced edits gives the impression that he himself has an undisclosed axe to grind. His consistent destructive elimination of grammatical repairs and new information shows a lack of cooperation for the common good of improving the quality and content made available here thanks to the constructive work of the Wikipedia community. It was only after being cordially confronted today on his obsessant reverting of the article to outdated versions... that he took it upon himself to immediately hack the article down in retaliatory fashion to a fraction of what he deemed appropriate from what has been contributed to and improved upon by many over the years. The more egregious concern is the immediate retaliation by MrOllie then openly posting his personal accusations on this noticeboard in violation of the very warning that appears when posting here. "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline." Wikipedia is meant to be a constructive, accurate, informative, and current platform. My hope is that contributors would invest their energy in maintaining these constructive goals and actually improve the content and the experience for ALL users! Sincerely, (Hookandpan|talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * MrOllie did not out anyone: he pointed out the obvious, that the username Hookandpan is similar to the name of the article subject's publisher. The suggestion of a connection by inference is not outing, as far as I know.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Cuck (film)


Account is especially made to create the film's article in addition to his BLP. The nature of writing in those article screams COI including the poster. Whilst there is no doubt the film is possibly notable because it was released at the same time as Joker; as with the filmmaker's bio, the only reliable sources centers on the film itself, not him, therefore an AfD nomation of is recommended. 82.26.220.45 (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Fluorite, Terrace ledge kink model, Cubic crystal system, Lattice constant

 * renamed
 * renamed
 * renamed
 * renamed
 * renamed

Insertion of edits with website/publisher of same name: Fluorite, Terrace ledge kink model, Cubic crystal system, Lattice constant. The diffs contain the specific refs in question. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Yes Please (band)


COI, promotional history. May be blockable based on user name. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The draft was in article space and then returned to draft space. It seems to be sourced largely by paid promotional blog articles. here is what I wrote as a draft comment:
 * "Came here from COIN. Scrutinizing some sources used in this article led me to a service called "Pusher". The source elevatormag.com says "Need Promotion to other Sites and Channels? Try Pusher". Submit copy to them, and "If our team of A&R’s think that your music shows potential, for an additional $99 we’ll do the PR work and place your content on some of the nations most reputable music publications." Another, Xttrawave.com says you can get your music featured for cash. Another source used here invites users to submit their music for a payment. "After your payment, you will be redirected to a new page for uploading your information. Please pay special attention to this - the more info you can give, the better your chances are for landing a feature." And so on."
 * These fake sources are a real scourge. If anyone knows of a fast way to blacklist these spam news sites, please do tell. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , maybe a filter? We have filters for predatory journals and self-published sources. Doesn't seem like something that deserves to make it to the spam blacklist, since they're not spam per se. creffpublic  a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 17:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to send the draft to MFD, as it's been declined several times, continues to be resubmitted and disruptively moved to mainspace without improvement, and was clearly created with promotional intent given the writer's username and the spammy sources. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes Please creffpublic  a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The draft is at MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

American Society for Reproductive Medicine


The editor submitted a draft article on this professional association via AFC. The draft was declined because there already is an article, and any changes to the article should be requested at the talk page, rather than via AFC. The editor was also told to declare their conflict of interest, and has stated that they are not being paid directly or indirectly for the article. However, they have also stated at the Articles for Creation Help Desk that they are the communication manager for the ASRM. That is presumably a salaried position, in which case they are being paid. They may misunderstand the Wikipedia definition of being paid directly or indirectly. They need to have the policy explained to them, as well as having it explained to them that the ASRM does not control the content of an article about them, but can provide input that will be reviewed by a neutral editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The same edits are now being applied to the article by . A whois lookup of that IP address reports that it is assigned to AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR REPRODUCTIV. I have requested page protection. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done some cleanup on the article, added infobox, etc. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

General Dynamics group


This user has been editing articles of different companies that are part of the General Dynamics group. Examples of biased edits: I notified the user of my suspicion in his/her talk page almost one month ago, asking for an explation, but he/she has not replied. Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Hispalois (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * in Cineflex, removed the Multiple issues template and added information about Cineflex's products with rather promotional language
 * in General Dynamics Mission Systems, added external links to the corporate website within the main body of the article and here added info about an acquisition sourcing it solely from corporate press releases
 * in Bluefin Robotics, added details about the company's vehicles sourcing them from corporate press releases
 * in TACLANE, added very detailed product information of dubious encyclopaedic interest; in addition, edited the article High Assurance Internet Protocol Encryptor to promote TACLANE's products (diff).
 * Good catch. I gave a few of these a trim. It is obviously undisclosed paid editing. I have never seen an editor create a product template for very specialized military equipment: perhaps this should be nominated for deletion?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Without getting into too much detail, per WP:OUTING, there's very good reason to believe this is UPE.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Geophysical planet definition


I previously reported this at the edit warring noticeboard, but it was recommended that I bring it here instead. Nasaman58 has previously been referred to the COI noticeboard, but that discussion fizzled without any conclusion. At the time I was on the fence about whether there was a COI issue. I am not generally averse to scientists editing articles about their own work, but in this instance it is becoming an issue with using Wikipedia as a soapbox to push an idea. Nasaman58 has repeatedly removed wording from the opening of the article about the geophysical planet definition being a proposed definition. The proposed geophysical definition has some high profile and very vocal advocates, but I don't see evidence that it has seen much adoption outside its circle of advocates. As such these persistent changes both seem incorrect with the potential to cause confusion, and like an attempt to elevate the status of this proposed definition. Nasaman58 has ignored multiple attempts to engage them in discussion such that I feel I have no option but to ask for some external action. The interjection of Nasaman58 is particularly aggravating now because it seemed that, after an exceptional amount of discussion on the Talk page, the article seemed to have finally stabilised. To save people jumping to the old COI listing, the reasoning behind the listing is that the username is the same as the twitter handle of one of the authors of the proposed definition. Nasaman58 doesn't seem to be active very often so this listing would likely need to stay up for longer than usual to give them some chance to respond, but given their previous lack of response to just about anything I'm doubtful they would engage this time. Physdragon (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No comments at all? Physdragon (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I am slightly disappointed by the total lack of response (even to tell me I'm barking up the wrong tree) Physdragon (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Ritu Beri


I've removed highly promotional edits by apparently related editor twice. COI content restored; no response to COI notice on editor talk page. MB 14:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Reported on UAA. AmericanAir88(talk) 17:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the article a bit. For example, items sourced by Slideshare are now gone.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The username block was declined at UUFA, despite rituberidesigns being the apparent legal name of the company. The user is now close to 3RR by repeatedly adding back the same promotional junk.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * is now blocked by User:Cullen328 per spamublock. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Dag Detter


Background The two Swedes Dag Detter and Stefan Fölster have been working in the area of “public wealth” in various roles and capacities: as authors, in academia, and advising government. “Public wealth” refers to government-owned assets that could be put to better use to improve economic growth.

Apparent COI The four accounts Hollyeighteen, Timeforteapet, Tigerinthesmoke and Sakakawean have been the most active user accounts in the editing of the articles about Dag Detter, Stefan Fölster, about their books (one article about a book of theirs has been deleted), and about companies and other organisations with which they have been associated. It is obvious that all four user accounts have an undisclosed connection to Dag Detter and Stefan Fölster. These four user accounts have created the articles and have been trying to add large amounts of texts into the articles; much of the text has later been deleted by other users. I have only mentioned the three most important articles affected by the COI, namely the articles about the two persons and their book.

Evidence of sockpuppetry First, it is obvious that the four accounts are connected. They are sock puppets of one person, or a few Swedish-speaking persons who cooperate. The first attempts by Hollyeighteen, Tigerinthesmoke and Sakakawean to create articles exhibit similarities that betray that the articles have the same author; most importantly, the first versions of articles created by Hollyeighteen, Tigerinthesmoke and Sakakawean have the same incorrect referencing style. On numerous occasions two, three or four of the user accounts have made edits that prove beyond doubt that they are sock puppets. The most remarkable incident is perhaps when Hollyeighteen and Timeforteapet both wanted to add a section on Fakenham Film Society in the article Fakenham in September 2017. (On rare occasions the four user accounts have written about other subject matters than public wealth.) The probability that two unconnected individuals are familiar with on the one hand Dag Detter and his book, and on the other hand Fakenham Film Society in provincial England, is close to zero. These are only a few of the pieces of evidence, but we are instructed to keep these notices short.

Evidence of COI The allegation has already been made by other users, who have realised that Hollyeighteen and Tigerinthesmoke have an undisclosed connection (please see talk pages). Of course it’s impossible to prove anything, since Wikipedia protects contributors and they can just deny COI, which Tigerinthesmoke did. It becomes obvious to any person who studies the contributions of the four user account that there is a COI. In particular, this is obvious to Swedish editors. If anybody doubts this, further arguments can be put forward in a discussion.

Does it matter? A user pointed out that some of the four accounts have not been active lately. The four sock puppets might not add much more to the articles. However, it is possible that the person(s) behind the four accounts have added stuff that shouldn’t be in the articles; see for example ”External links” in Dag Detter. Honest users should be able to ignore the contributions of the four COI-affected sock puppets, and rewrite the articles.

What should be done? I suggest the four user accounts be blocked for sockpuppetry (I realise I have raised two problems at the same time, sockpuppetry and COI; perhaps it’s necessary to start two separate processes?). I suggest the Wikipedia community conclude that other users may rewrite the articles without considering the contributions by the four user accounts. Min hemliga identitet (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Without addressing COI, the venue for sockpuppetry is WP:SPI. You can go there to file a report of suspected sockpuppeting, but you will need evidence.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I shall file a separate report on WP:SPI. Min hemliga identitet (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. People on these boards are busy, so if you want results from contributors here it is best to keep your post short and clear. Yu could repost the COI part that needs addressing below if you like.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The sockpuppetry report has been lodged here. Min hemliga identitet (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Mark Mattson
There is a long term issue of COI on the Mark Mattson article involving the user LogicandProportion (who may be Mattson or someone associated with him). This user has been given many warnings on his user-page but has not listened. This has been going on for months. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

LogicandProportion continuing to upload excessive publications and other unsourced material. LogicandProportion's account is ten years old but every edit he makes on this website is about Mattson, for example, and using articles to promote his own papers , this goes back years. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Xtools counter shows that the user has edited 22 pages over the nine plus years they have been on WP. 100 of 141 edits were to Mark Mattson, so I would agree that your suspicions are probably right. If enough users also concur, we can place connected contributor talk on the Mattson talk page, per the proceudure described at the top of this page, requiring L&P to edit the page via request edit templates.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Alfred-Maurice de Zayas


WP:SPAs with a similar writing style (excluding Rebussicstantibus2018, which didn't edit talk pages or use edit summaries) that have only been used to edit the Alfred-Maurice de Zayas article, though never at the same time. Might be related to the Swiss residential and United Nations IPs that were editing the article before the accounts were created. The article has had a COI tag since November 2016. Hegsareta (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Checking de Zayas' blog, it might be the result of WP:MEAT or WP:CAN. He has made three blog posts about his Wikipedia articles:


 * Wikipedia disinformation (May 2018, Spanish Wikipedia, "Maybe someone should write to the administrators urging them to clean up the article and rely instead on the 14 reports of the independent expert and his dozens of press releases in www.ohchr.org")
 * DISINFORMATION IN THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON ALFRED DE ZAYAS (April 2019, "Some of you may want to go on the “talk” page of the wikipedia article on Alfred de Zayas and express your opinion on the controversy over the controversies.")
 * Wikipedia is not all that neutral or objective (May 2019, "Please go on the “talk” page and try to explain why the current version is unbalanced here two paragraphs that were deleted, allegedly for “conflict of interests“???").

Hegsareta (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll add too, who has made similar edits in de Zayas' article both in English as in Spanish. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * About the first blog post by de Zayas (times in UTC, links to the Spanish Wikipedia):
 * On May 27, 2018, 11:37, a Swisscom residential IP edited the "Polémicas" (Controversies) section of the Alfred-Maurice de Zayas article, commenting (translated by me) "UN Watch is not a credible source and its allegations have been refuted by the OHCHR. UN Watch notorious for defamation of High Comissioners Mary Robinson, Lousie Arbour, Navi Pillay and rapporteurs Dugard, Schabas, Falk, de Schutter, Jazairy, Lynk, Ziegler etc." Jamez42 then proceeded to revert this edit three times (as it was restored twice by the same IP), and on the third time the page is protected by Eduardosalg at 18:30, leaving it on Jamez42's third revert. After the page was protected, the IP made unsigned comments on Eduardosalg (19:01) and Jamez42's (19:15) talk pages saying, among other things, that UN Watch lacks credibility and is not a reliable source, and to check the 14 reports by the independent expert. Rebussicstantibus2018 (who has only made edits on the Alfred-Maurice de Zayas article, and was created less than an hour before the IP's first edit) then makes an unsigned comment on the IP's talk page saying "UN watch lacks all credibility, it's not a reliable source." (in Spanish, translated by me to English) (20:17). The next day (10 hours later) de Zayas creates his blog post (at "2018-05-28T08:21:54+00:00" according to the page's source code). Both the IP's talk page edits and de Zayas' article tell the reader to consult, on the www.ohchr.org website, the 14 reports of the Independent Expert and his press releases. Checking this page, I could only count 13 reports before June 2018. The 14th report seems to be A/HRC/39/47/Add.1. The report wasn't published until August 2018. The newest content in it is from March 2018, but it hadn't been published back then. --Hegsareta (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

David Staller


All promotional accounts. Weblingerm1 began editing just before GingoldGroup was blocked; Baxter176, whose history has focused on the same subjects, was dormant for a year and a half until now. Each has picked up the ball following warnings to the previous account, so there's the appearance of coordination, if not WP:MULTIPLE for purposes of evasion. Asking that the article be locked, and the user(s) be blocked, especially if they're socks. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

- From Baxter176: As the initial creator of the article, I had not logged into my account for some time, and when I did noticed much activity on this article. I adjusted the article, after examining previous user edits, and provided reasoning for those changes. Additionally, I provided references for all of the added material, supporting all facts stated. Requesting that my account- Baxter176- not be banned from the article and the article not be locked. Additionally, my account history shows a variety of articles I have either edited or created in my 7 years on Wikipedia.


 * , this is the conflict of interest noticeboard. Your request not to be blocked has nothing to do with the concerns expressed in this report. You haven't addressed your association with David Staller or the other subjects about which you've contributed here, nor with GingoldGroup or Weblingerm1. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, this edit speaks for itself in terms of blatantly promotional intent. It was actually a marked degradation of the article quality. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Bhawanipur Education Society College


Article has a lot of highly promotional language. I started some cleanup but there is much more to go through. This editor appears to have a COI; they started editing the article just after User:The Bhawanipur Education Society College was told that was not an acceptable username and blocked. No response to talk page message requesting they declare a COI. MB 15:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This was a spamicle, loaded with copyright violations, content plagiarized from the school website. I've reverted to the last decent version of January 25. Support blocking promotional registered and IP editors, and protecting article from long term abuse. Also, we'll need lots of rev/deletion for the copied stuff. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Warner University


This editor has indicated that he or she works for the university whose article is his or her sole focus. Despite multiple warnings and a direct question asking if he or she has a connection with the university, he or she has not acknowledged our COI policies or made the required paid editor disclosure. Since it appears likely that this editor is being paid to promote this subject and refuses to comply with our policies, he or she should be blocked. ElKevbo (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems straightforward, the COI is obvious, and while not all their edits are promotional in nature, most are, and they did not answer your direct question about whether they worked for Warner or not. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition to ElKevbo's question, the user reached out to me prior for help on that article about a week ago. Before assisting them, I posted several questions/concerns to their talk page that have gone unanswered; including the use of "we" that likely indicates a WP:SHAREDACCOUNT by PR deprt. With the unanswered questions to myself and Elkevbo, they've continued editing without COI disclosure. All highly suspicious of COI and shared. --Bhockey10 (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not an employee of Warner University. However, I am editing on their behalf--on my own time and with my own account. The editing of their page is a first for me on Wikipedia. This is why I reached out to others who have edited their page in the past. My goal was to edit the content for grammar and punctuation mistakes and update their logo. Hopefully, I've posted this reply in the correct location. Thank you. ProfessionalWriter1920 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , If you are a volunteer editor on behalf of the university you have a clear conflict of Interest. We do not do proxy editing in private here. From here on in, for any edit that is not very minor (e.g. an uncontroversial fact correction or typo) you will need to edit via request edits on the talk page (see the Request Edit Wizard), rather than directly editing the article. This is how we keep the wiki neutral. I will also place a connected contributor template on the article talk page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is helpful. Thank you. ProfessionalWriter1920 (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Wiki editing organisation


(The first three articles listed above are not a problem, just the last two) - Bilby (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm worried that this is sensitive, so I want to try and handle this with some subtlety, even though that may not be possible. I've been accused of potential outing, so if it is ok I want to keep this general unless it isn't deemed a problem to provide details.

There is a non-profit off-Wiki organisation that was formed to edit Wikipedia pages. Mostly this proves to be fine and they make good articles. According to a prominent newspaper article, recently they expanded their activities into running programs to discredit some of those people they oppose - and, to give them full credit, they are working to expose charlatans and similar, so I have no major issues with that, either. However, they have combined the two, and are writing articles about the people they exposed off-wiki and the programs which they ran to do so. This feels like a potential COI. Should it be regarded as such? If so, would naming the organisation be a concern even if it would make it easier to identify the on-wiki accounts of editors involved? I should note that the organisation publicly announces what articles they work on, but they do not do so on-wiki, so you would need to look off-wiki to get this information. I've been accused of outing for naming the organisation, so I want to be careful.

Sorry for the way I'm wording this. - Bilby (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Leave them alone. stop following them on bookfarce. unwatch their articles. If you had behaved this way on wiki you would be banned for hounding imho. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "bookfarce", but no, I'm looking for a more considered response. - Bilby (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You know full well what I mean. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No,I don't. But to be honest, your standard response has reached a point where I really don't care. Let's see what other have to say - I would like genuine advice on how to proceed. - Bilby (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This was settled years ago. Your hounding of them leaves a very nasty taste. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I'll wait for a meaningful response. - Bilby (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you hound them so much? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't. Why do you hound me? Honestly, we have an organisation running sting operations and then writing about their operations on Wikipedia. Do you see that there might be a COI in that? - Bilby (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Me hound you? Hahahaha. Evidence of a sting or it didn't happen please. I'll settle for a few links to articles on sting operations. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Will the NYT do? Hopefully linking to the NYT article isn't an issue. If it is, I'll delete the link. - Bilby (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)t and

What has that got to do with us? What is wrong with that? I repeat my question, show me where this is written about on wikipedia? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * From the NYT article: "... the group’s previous hot-read sting — Operation Pizza Roll — worked perfectly back in 2017." Check Thomas John_ Flanagan. Also from the NYT article: "The crew invited to last winter’s Skype meeting ... to participate in a mission called "Operation Peach Pit'", see the content at Matt Fraser (psychic).Given that, should the group running these sting operations also be writing about their operations and the people concerned? Or should we regard them as having a COI? - Bilby (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Those examples, have they been written in accordance with Policy? (Hint - yes is the correct answer). Where is there a COI? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The organisation that ran the sting operations also wrote the articles covering the people concerned and the sting operations that they ran. If you don't see that as a COI then that's fine. However, I'd like other opinions as well. - Bilby (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Diffs please. Showing that the articles were written by the people operating the sting. I hgave a COI in this area btw, just in case you are desperately looking at my contributions. I once asked Susan to marry me on wiki. Unfortunatly she declined, mumbling something about interspecies marriages being dubious. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I can easily link to the Facebook posts where they announced that they had written the articles, but I'm trying to avoid that as they also tend to mention the real life identities of the people who wrote the articles. Is there an alternative? - Bilby (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Link them please, then we can have you banned easily. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but no. I started this with the intention of avoiding outing. Clearly you know who I'm talking about, but I'm not willing to out another editor, even if the organisation that they are with is outing them. I presume that you are unwilling to answer the general questions, about whether or not you feel that an organisation writing about their own sting operations has a COI and if we can name the organisation involved, so I guess we end our discussion here. - Bilby (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you started with the intention of avoiding outing, you didn’t do a very good job. You need to demonstrate COI. You haven’t. Instead, you have provided a perfect example of your own Hounding behaviour. I repeat, Leave them alone. stop following them on bookfarce. unwatch their articles. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Since I edit in the topic area but am unrelated to both Bilby and the group, I'll comment. I was aware that the group existed and admire public education in the area, as well as improving Wikipedia in relation to WP:FRINGE topics and observance of WP:PSCI.  I don't know them and had no idea that they themselves participated in operations in the real world (but this NYT source says so).  If they do, then if writing on Wikipedia about those operations or about their own members, this could be a conflict of interest (I don't know yet if they do).  If so, there are two obvious solutions that I could see (other than disclosing): reporting to journalists so that they filter and write on it (they need RS anyway so probably already do), then using a talk page or noticeboard to point at sources/topics/events for other editors to assess and edit about (when in relation to something too close to objectively edit about)...  Evidence is necessary: are there diffs about content that seems obviously promotional, etc?  To put things into perspective, since they started this thread, I would also like to mention that I noticed Bilby's resistance to skeptic sources like Quackwatch, but it also seems that their approach was reasonable when confronted about it (in this particular case, the editor tended to remove them, while most uses can remain with attribution).  In relation to disclosure if necessary, the only reason I already knew of the group was because some users mentioned it on their user page already.  Groups who collaboratively edit is not a problem in itself, we have WikiProjects, etc.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 15:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This feels like a potential COI. Should it be regarded as such? Are they benefiting from this work professionally or financially? If no, then it is not a conflict of interest. If you have evidence that the individuals are benefiting commercially or in some other way (perhaps by reputation? speaker's fees? etc.) then you should offer it. Until then, this is just a group of Wikieditors no different than WP:GLAM or WP:WiR etc. jps (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The OP here is written so vaguely and circumspectly that it is, I'm sorry to say, useless for evaluating the claims made. The fact that those claims are also evidence-free does not help clarify the concerns expressed.  If  has evidence that the actual paid editing or conflict of interest policies are being violated, I urge them to present it.  At this point, it has no substance and the very worst interpretation possible is that of essentially a Wikiproject that happens to be organized off-wiki. Per WP:EXTERNALREL and WP:COINOTBIAS, that is not a CoI violation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point., the issue is not whether or not they are organised off-wiki. Let's try having some evidence down, given that Roxy has made this clear elsewhere. According to this NYT article, Guerrilla Skeptics are a group of 144 editors formed to edit Wikipedia. It also states that the group "have focused on what they call 'grief vampires'" by running real-world sting operations in which they try to show that psychics are fake. These operations are called names like "Operation Pizza Roll" and "Operation Peach Pit", in which they targeted Thomas John Flanagan and Matt Fraser. GSoW have also stated that they created the current Matt Fraser article including the coverage of Operation Peach Pit, and rewrote the Thomas John one including the extensive coverage of Operation Pizza Roll. Under WP:COI, writing about people or groups in which you have a close personal relationship or involvement can trigger a COI, even if you have no financial stake, and we've in the past regarded people writing about relatives, close friends, non-profit organisations of which they are a member, and their own research as having a COI. In this case, is it reasonable to assume that group members writing about their or their group's activities consititutes a COI? - Bilby (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , while this was interesting reading, we are still missing something: diffs to show that the Matt_Fraser_(psychic) or Thomas_John_Flanagan sections were created or edited by editors who acknowledge they were present at or planned those "stings". (Granted, WP:OUT and WP:HARASS may make this difficult.)   The sine qua non of CoI is that an editor is actually writing about themselves, or somebody closely associated.  Closely is key here and it takes a lot to get over that bar for this type of situation.  Unless an editor participated in the "stings" or their coordination they are not compromised per the CoI standards: How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense.   In this case, common sense tell us that merely being part of this group is not a significant external relationship.  This group has done a lot of things and only a minority appears to be involved in these particular activities. The NYT article specifically says that 6 out of 144 members were involved.  To make an analogy, I declare on my userpage that I am an alumn of Hampshire College but common sense tells me that merely having attended umpty-ump years ago is not a significant enough external relation to present me a CoI editing the College's article. (I wager that if student, parents and alumns did not edit educational institution articles, they would be sparse indeed, but that may be neither here nor there.) You similarly declare you work in Information Systems as an academic and despite that made the very common-sense judgment that those connections were not significant external relations to GamerGate, which certainly affected academics in IS.  On top of all that, there is the very important fact that all the text in those two sections is very reliably-sourced, so even if the editor who added it was a participant, the claims made in the article are verifiable.  To summarize: I continue to doubt that an actual conflict between the interests of Wikipedia's readers and the interests of the editors of those articles exists. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , what you are saying, if I read this correctly, is if I am in a club and that club has a team competing in a competition of which I do not personally take part, it is ok if I want to write about those activities of the club even though I'm a member. Being a member of a non-profit allows me to write about the non-profit's activities, so long as I only write about the activities that I did not take part in. Is this correct? - Bilby (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , um, maybe? As in a lot of things, the only honest answer is "it depends."  How big is this club? How closely do members associate with each other? How involved in selecting the competition team were you? Did you try out for the competition team yourself? How well do you know the people who were involved in the competition? I mean, "club" can mean a lot of things.  I'm one of 58 million members of AAA, does that mean I have a significant external relation to a triple A lobbying effort?  These are all legitimate questions that need to be answered to determine if there is an actual, realistic, significant CoI and these ambiguities are why the policy says common sense governs the answer.  I'm sorry I can't give you the simple answer you apparently want.  You seem to be asking for absolutes in an area your own OP acknowledges is full of grey.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for that. It helps. To summarise, there is a potential COI when someone closely involved in one of the programs run by a non-profit writes about the program that they were invovled in. There may be a potential COI if they are a member of teh non-profit and had some level of invovlement, depending on what level that was, but as we can't tell what level of involvement they had and that would depend on trusting the editor to make that determination. - Bilby (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's a fair summary. Unfortunately, it does not get us much closer to answering your original question than we were 13 hours ago. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , my actual issue was two concerns - is it outing to name the organisation, and my understanding now is that it is not; and is there a potential COI problem, and it seems that there is potentially one, even if it is very difficult to work out the extent without naming individual editors, and that in turn might involve outing and, if so, is not something I'd ever support. We've always had this problem - it is difficult to say that an editor has a COI without outing them, and not outing an editor always takes precedence. Although I guess that this means we have a second problem, that even if we know that someone is a member of an organisation, we still can't say that they have a COI in regard to that organisation's activities unless we know what involvement they had. - Bilby (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , potentially a COI in the sense of not one. WP:STICK time. Guy (help!) 10:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The funding does not go to editors, it goes to run training courses on Wikipedia content policies.A scientist might have a COI writing about their own research, a SCAM practitioner has a COI writing about the SCAM on which they depend for a living, but someone trained by Susan has zero COI because they receive no remuneration, only training. Antivaxers and charlatans have always claimed that GSoW has a conflict of interest, and we've never had any problem recognising that this claim is bullshit. Most people here will have no idea who is or is not a member of GSoW - most of their edits are gnomish, writing or cleaning up articles on prominent figures in the skeptical community. Quacks blame GSoW for the the reality-based state of our articles on quackery, but few, if any, editors I know to be part of GSoW are active on these and most of us predate its existence by years. I am no more concerned about this than I am with edit-a-thons, which is as close an analogy as I can think of. I am, however, becoming concerned with the extent of your fringe advocacy, . Wikipedia is unashamedly reality-based, we do not commit the fallacy of false equivalency. Guy (help!) 19:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I did say that this was a non-profit. This was not about funding. This is about whether or not someone has a COI when writing about the activities of an organisation in which they are involved. In the past you've said yes, and been quite active about it. - Bilby (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it depends. Wikipedia partners with reputable organizations (and so by some definition is "involved" with them) such as Cancer Research UK or the Cochrane Collaboration precisely to get high-quality knowledge into our pages on topics with which these organizations might be said to be "involved". So far as I'm aware, and as consensus has determined in the past, GSoW are a reputable group encouraging policy-based participation in WP and increasing the editor base. In all these cases COI editing is conceivable (e.g. writing about some scandal within the group). What is the evidence to consider? Alexbrn (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the NYT, GSoW ran a series of sting operations against psychics. According to GSoW, GSoW editors then wrote or rewrote two articles about psychics upon whom they ran the stings, including writing extensively about GSoW operations in the articles concerned. I agree that, on the whole, GSoW is an effective collaboration when writing about fringe topics where they are not directly involved, but in a case where they are writing about their own actions and about the people they acted against there might be a potential COI, which is where my concern comes from. - Bilby (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There would be a potential conflict of interest yes, though in general the Wikipedia community tends to set the bar quite high for COI and typically requires problematic editing to have some question of benefit for the editor in question. In the Thomas John Flanagan article you cite as evidence, are you saying the editor who added the GSoW content is problematic? Alexbrn (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think set the bar quite low - certainly, I've seen instances where someone is told they can't edit an article about their grandparents. We have never been very consistent on this.- Bilby (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , there's no suggestion this was added by the people who carried out the stings on the grief vampires, so it's no more of a conflict that a college student adding sourced statements about their college football team's results. Guy (help!) 19:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , please list the articles in question at the top of this COIN post, as well as the editors involved in editing the articles. This allows us to see what activity you are talking about. See other posts at coin for how it is done.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * NYT listed Spontaneous human combustion, Blue whale game, Burzynski Clinic in the first few paragraphs of their story as among the ~900 articles "written or revised" by the group -- I have bulleted them at the top. - Bri.public (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , and I am pretty confident they are wrong about the Burzynski article, though they may have copyedited it at some point. I'm very familiar with that article. Guy (help!) 19:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , and I am pretty confident they are wrong about the Burzynski article, though they may have copyedited it at some point. I'm very familiar with that article, and have edited it. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 21:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , so have I. Other sources finger GSoW for the homeopathy article, which has also seen no substantial edits from people I know to be GSoW. There's a tendency for the charlatans to blame GSoW for all reality-based content, and in some cases RS have picked this up without adequately checking it. Guy (help!) 09:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I did't list them because the issue was that I had been accused of outing the editors by claiming that GSoW edited the articles. Is there any concern is we list the GSoW editors invovled? In the case of the three articles mentioned above, I don't believe that GSoW have a COI hen writing about fringe topics in general - only in the two where they were also running the sting operations that members of the organisation wrote about. - Bilby (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. You did out them further up the thread by posting the NYT link. 2. Please list them. Please. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 21:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to wait for an opinion other than yours, given your comment above. - Bilby (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * COIN is supposed to work by a) listing the articles concerned, b) listing the editors causing concern, and c)notifying those editors. That way everyone gets a chance to rationally discuss things. I see no editors in the list at the top, and no notifications. It took me 20 minutes of reading here and off-wiki just to find the barest of facts on this. I can see you are trying to point out some kind of editing conspiracy, but it's not a vague complaints board. (Also, allow me to signal the end of my interest in this item.) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I was looking for advice on how to proceed. Before identifying people and causing more drama, my intention was to ask here about whether there is enough of a concern with this sort of practice to go through that process, as we don't really have another venue to seek such advice. Unfortunately, that was rapidly derailed and created all of the drama I wanted to avoid. I should know better when editing within fringe topics - it is impossible to do anything but create drama, and there is no alternative path. Given that we have, at least, confirmed the existance of a potential problem that we can consider, perhaps the best choice is to close this, get the ducks lined up, and go through the pain of tackling it formally at a later date. At least I now understand that there is cause for concern. I'll give it a bit in case of objections and then give that a shot. - Bilby (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, let me state that we are in fact a million miles away from Bilby's claim of having "confirmed the existance of a potential problem" except the problem of the Hounding and stalking by Bilby of GSOW. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, there is not "enough of a concern", you've identified a tiny number of articles among the thousands that GSoW editors have edited, and you've shown no issue with the content, and no evidence that there's any connection between the people who conducted the grief vampire stings and the people who wrote the content other than knowing each other through Wikipedia activities. Guy (help!) 09:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We'll tackle that if we revisit it later. - Bilby (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have a better idea: accept that it's not an issue and move on. Your tireless defence of charlatans does you credit, but is also very annoying. Guy (help!) 09:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I diagree that it is not an issue. I'm stuck with an organisation running sting operations on living people, then writing about those people and their operations on WP. We would normally regard that as a significant potential COI. But I'll wait and see how things progress later. Hopefully the issue will resolve itself. - Bilby (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * {u|Bilby}} Would the best way to identify the articles improved by GSOW members be to look at your own editing history? What proportion of your time do you spend WP:HOUNDING them would you say? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , except that's not what's happening. It's not "an organization". It's a Facebook group of people who have been helped to learn how to write Wikipedia articles. They have interests in common, but they are not "members" any more than followers of a sports team are "members". They are people who follow scientific skepticism, they mainly write about scientists and science communicators, and when one of their number did a thing which was covered in reliable sources, they included that thing from the reliable sources in articles. Since the thing was exposing charlatans, and Wikipedia is unashamedly reality-based, and the articles on charlatans, especially grief vampires, tend to the hagiographic unless rigorously policed, this poses no problem whatsoever. You'd find the same if a particular topic is covered on one of a handful of podcasts I could mention, which GSoW editors listen to. Check out The Skeptic Zone, listen to Susan Gerbic's promo, and see if you can identify anything that comes close to being a problem. This is not like Chopra, Null, Sheldrake and the like actively soliciting specific promotional edits.
 * And we know it poses no problem because you have not actually identified a problem with any of the edits.
 * So now the problem is beginning to look like you. I can find several examples of articles that have been mentioned by GSoW where you have immediately tagged the article, never having edited it before, and then gone on to tag or otherwise edit a number of articles recently edited by that editor. You appear to have appointed yourself as gatekeeper of GSoW's activities, and, given your history of defending charlatans on Wikipedia, they are unsurprisingly suspicious, to the point that a couple of them have now tracked me down and complained.
 * What you could do is engage with Susan Gerbic, whose Wiki ID is not a secret, and promte the use of better sources. About one in five of the sources used by GSoW people fails my personal test of reliability - it's self-published, for example. That would be a productive approach, in a way that stalking GSoW really is not. Guy (help!) 10:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * GSoW describe themselves as a registed non-profit with 130 team members - to use their own description. Potential members need to apply to join, and then follow their training program. They have edited 1277 pages, of which, I think, I may have touched around a dozen at some point. A non-profit with formal membership that you have to apply to join and then engage in an official training program is more than a group of Facebook friends who happen to edit together.
 * I never intended at this point to identify problems, because I wanted to know if there was a potential issue - not necessarily if there was an actual one. As someone who is active in COI editing yourself, if we ignore that this is GSoW and a generally excellent organisation, but instead just look at the issue, members from a non-profit editing articles about the non-profit's activities would normally be a concern, especially if those editors were directly involved in those activities. That was what I hoped to clarify. Whether or not there was an actual problem is a different issue, and hopefully there isn't one. In which case it wasn't my intention to go further.
 * Finally, on one issue. You have repeated said I defend charlatans. I don't. My interest is in a consistent application of policy, whether the edits are about charlatans, highly respected scientists, politicians or others. However, with "charlatans", I am interested in ensuring that we remove a weapon from their arsenal - the accusation that Wikipedia treats them differently than other people. When we allow libel to exist in an anti-vaxer's article, or we drop our normal sourcing requirements, or we write a POV hit piece, they can use those issues to discredit WP and what we do, especially among their followers. If we fix that, and ensure that the articles meet our standards, the result is almost always that the article still says the truth, but they lose the ability to discredit it. The best success is when someone describes an article as "fair" but plainly showing that the person is a charlatan, as that is hard even for a follower to completely ignore.
 * I'll happily consider everything you have to say - I have a lot of respect for your opinons, although we won't always agree. But I'd ask you to also consider if a non-profit with formal membership is the same as a group of friends, and if in another case that non-profit writing about their activities on WP would raise some flags. - Bilby (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , the nonprofit is there to pay for the costs of training resources. Headsets, conferencing accounts and such. In your desire to paint them as an evil cabal of BLP hackers you have skimped rather badly on your research. It's not hard to understand the difference - where Null tells people what to write, GSoW tells them how to write. It doesn't even really do much about suggesting what to write about, that mainly comes from individual editors' own interests.
 * Wikipedia does not treat charlatans differently from other people, or at least it doesn't until someone comes along and tries to add WP:MANDY-level denials primary sourced to the charlatan to "balance" the article. In any case that's not what's going on here: the sources added are perfectly cromulent.
 * You keep saying your interest is in policy, but it's certainly a weird coincidence how often that ends up with you removing critical material about anti-health propagandists that ends up back in by consensus. Guy (help!) 14:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, my hit rate is much higher than you suggest. But that's not the issue. I'm not painting them as an evil cabal, and I think you are misprepresnting what I've been saying. I view them as a net positive, with a few problems that need to be worked out, although those mostly come down to questionable notability and some weight concerns as opposed to anything serious (one recent BLP was different, but it was far from the norm). But again, a non-profit organistaion with formal and selective membership, that runs sting operations and then writes about their operations in WP, possibly by people directly involved, is something I have to see as a potential COI, even if ultimately everything proves to be fine and it isn't worth worrying about. I respect that you don't see it that way, but I'll have to disagree. I suspect that the issue is going to be moot either way. - Bilby (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , but one of the "problems" you identify clearly isn't a problem, and you're stalking their edits looking for these "problems" rather than working with Susan Gerbic to fix them, so whatever your intentions, it looks to them like bad faith on your part. Guy (help!) 15:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In general, they always will. Same as for dismissing well done science.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

, if I may, can I advise you to drop the stick? You started this discussion asking the editors who patrol this noticeboard if anyone thought there was an issue. Since then, not one editor has said definitely yes. The closest to support is my response, from which you seem to have drawn the exact opposite inference than I intended. Where I actually meant something like "there's nothing here that shows there's an actual problem now," you seem to think I meant "go beat the bushes for proof that there's a problem. " If nothing else, it's a rather stunning lack of AGF about your fellow editors. There is a clear and firm consensus in this discussion that there are no policy-based grounds for continuing to monitor, pursue, investigate, harrass, or otherwise bother the group members. There are a million other ways you could contribute to the project at this point, all of which would be time better spent than continuing to try demonstrating that some maybe, potentially, sorta, kinda, if you squint the right way COI exists. I hope you choose the former. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried, but the ongoing attacks keep asking questions of me, so I responded. I was about to say that I'm moving on, whatever was said. I got the answers I expected, and will be thinking on what that means. - Bilby (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this should be noted as resolved while Bilby is prevaricating, but I wanted to thank Eggishorn for trying. If not resolved here the issue will continue somewhere. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , now that the dust is settled here, have you moved on? I note some pro-fringe edits of yours on my watchlist, should I look at your contributions, or will you continue your hounding of the Gorrillaz? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not really moving on if I keep having to come back to respond to you. However, while I disagree that I made pro-fringe edits, I don't think this is the place to argue the point. In the interests of moving on, I'm just going to leave this discussion here, as I attempted to do before. - Bilby (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Pall Mall Barbers


Almost every edit by this editor is about Pall Mall Barbers or its founder Richard Marshall, or advocating for the retention of these articles.

COI has been discussed on the user's talk page and the user denies having a COI. I am not clear, however, whether this edit is in fact an admission of a COI (it might not be; as I say, the meaning of the message is unclear to me).

Draft:Richard Marshall (barber) has been declined twice. User:Nosebagbear suggested including a few lines on Marshall in the article about the shop and leaving it that due to a lack of notability, but the advice was ignored.

The draft was speedy deleted under G13 on 21 July 2019 and refunded by request of on 25 July 2019 where it was suggested that Mr Marshall is "on a path towards knighthood" (this is not public information). This claim was expanded on by this edit, which is highly dubious as neither the Queen nor Prince William decide who receive Knighthoods - the government does. It comes across to me as peacocking.

The draft was again deleted under G13 at 09:20 on 10 February 2020. At 10:42, Thedavidshow was back requesting another refund, their first edit (including deleted edits) since October 2019. kingboyk (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am going to assume that the this edit was NOT an admission of COI, in light of Thedavidshow's just-posted unequivocal statement on his user talk page. --kingboyk (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thank you for your time.  I've been editing and writing articles for Wikipedia for as long as Wikipedia has been around.  This just happens to be the only account that I still have access to. (I started out just editing pages anonymously. Then I started writing articles... I think it was still a while back then before you were really required to use an email and password.)  For a while I was making corrections to articles that I came across many times a day... but recent health problems have left me little time for Wikipedia.  I do intend to finish the Richard Marshall article and I apologize for the many delays in doing so. As for the part about knighthood... this was tied to the Prince William visit to Pall Mall Barbers and an article that I read where the Prince was considering knighthood for various individuals related to mental health and mental health awareness. Given the timing I took this to include Richard Marshall but so far nothing has come of it and I fell ill shortly thereafter. Nevertheless I intend to refine what I've already written and update the article with new sources as soon as health permits. Thedavidshow (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The unequivocal statement on the talk page and the statement above seems to be an adequate explanation. Overall I would say this is a very steadfast good faith editor trying to get a non-notable subject published. Thanks for clarifying your position. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Experts-Exchange
Bkay was warned about COI and undisclosed paid editing. Bkay then stopped, and Beedee started inserting some of the identical language from Bkay's previous promotional edits. No disclosure from either account. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  21:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The edits were first made by an IP. I'm tempted to semi protect the article and block both accounts from editing mainspace until they make the necessary COI disclosures. That said, the article is in pretty bad shape. The two AFDs it has survived both identified better sources, but they aren't currently in the article. it would be nice to see the article improve, and protecting it works against that. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 22:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Those have to be socks. Reported.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A CU has confirmed that they are socks, which I guess was obvious. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Coconutmediabox


This handle belongs to the production house as is obvious from the username. Multiple editors have warned the user and asked to disclose paid editing but the user has failed to reply or disclose. Should be blocked. Coderzombie (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hard blocked based on edits and information from a google search. Pretty obvious even without a google search. you must notify editors as it says at the top of the page that they are subject to a noticeboard discussion. You can use   for this purpose. Dreamy Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I normall notify the editors, but missed out on this occasion. Thank you for prompt action. Coderzombie (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , no problem. Happy editing, Dreamy <i style="color:#d01e1e">Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Pete Hawkes


The behaviour reported at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_128 started up again as soon as the page protection was lifted. In addition to the sockpuppets / throwaway usernames listed there, there are four new ones listed above. I recommend permanent semi-protection of the page now, as this behaviour will apparently continue indefinitely. --Slashme (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that Dudeoftheuniverse's edits consist almost entirely of arguing about the use of the COI template. The only substantive edit they ever made to the article was this one. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The documentation of COI makes clear (highlighting in original): " if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article ". This requirement is not met; and as  the documentation continues: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Very good point! --Slashme (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The COI discussion was actually placed on the talk page November 28, 2019 by Melcous.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A discussion was placed there; it merely repeats the vague and unsubstantiated accusation, and fails to meet the highlighted requirement "to explain what is non-neutral about the article". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible UPE by Nappiamore


Nappiamore is not a regular editor, (s)he only edits when they need to post an article which is common in paid editors. From March to October 2019 (s)he uploaded three promotional images at commons-wiki and posted four articles and none of them looks like created by a brand new user. I tried, but can't find those images online, this suggests a close connection between the subject and the uploader so, I feel their articles must be reviewed for notability, verifiability, and neutral point of view and sent to AFD if they don’t appear to be notable. Thank you. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 04:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The images they uploaded are interesting. All three are marked "own work" but then have two different authors:Renae Maihi for one and Catya Plate for the two files with "plate" int heir name. One file, Catya Plate.jpg has metadata that says "© Jason Walz". So at minimum, some deletions are in order.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have tagged File:Catya Plate.jpg for SD as per the metadata and the other two for OTRS permission. The user is inactive since October last year but, there is definitely a case of UPE. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 08:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. MER-C 20:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Peter Linus


Above accounts likely connected to each other and article subject. Removal of COI/PEACOCK tags, self-promotion. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 06:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The page was not created by the article subject and is in no way related to the article subject. However, the editor used a name similar to the article subject's name as its page username. The username name is currently being changed to fixed this issue.
 * Kindly suggest other ways this issue can be fixed.
 * PITA LINUS 06:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Marmalade Game Studio


As a frequent editor of video game-related articles and an active member of WP:VG, I noticed that the edits by all concern UK video game developer Marmalade Game Studio, an article they also created. While I do believe the studio meets the GNG threshold (see WP:VG/RS and the custom Google search engine), the article was POV-pushing previously. Marmalade Game Studio makes digital game adaptations of classic board games, like Monopoly, Cluedo (Clue in North America) and The Game of Life; Kiki99xtra also added information about the studio on the articles on those board games, like here and here. They are also working on Draft:The Game of Life: 2016 Edition.

Now, of course this could all mean nothing. Perhaps Kiki99xtra is just a huge fan of Marmalade Game Studios or their games. But since their first edit was on January 27 and every single one concerns Marmalade Game Studio somehow, it seems rather COI-ish. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that Kiki99xtra's userpage has a COI template that isn't complete. It has almost been a month since it was edited. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 21:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, okay, I should've spotted that! Sorry everyone. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hilligermr
Every edit made by this user has been to insert the name of Walter Hilliger and links to his works into an article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The edits insert a reference to an article linked to an external source in the Times of Israel, which features a comparison of the manna in a blog with photos and videos of a research made since 2011.
 * If the proposed interpretation or the source itself is the problem of the edit, there is a suspicion of antisemitic bias behind the reversals because such stringent criteria to exclude that source was only applied to Walter Hilliger's contribution and not to other disregarded sources with missing links and references. Whether the author himself or someone else inserts the name of the author contribution it doesn't alter the value of the contributions. The sources of the article are verifiable and advance the knowledge of the topic featured in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB20:40FD:3D00:E4E9:E206:25B2:CBC1 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia seeks to present the mainstream scholarly view based on (ideally secondary) reliable sources. Self-published sources are sometimes acceptable for basic non-controversial material, or when the author is a reknown expert/scholar in the field.  Even experts have to be careful about introducing citations to their own works, or editing topics about themselves, etc.  I have left a standard message on your user page about conflict of interest management on Wikipedia.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Emma Dalmayne


This article is a bit of a mess:
 * It went through AfC process by User:Winchswan who has made no significant edits outside of this article.
 * IP edited the article and in the edit summary here claimed to be the subject of the article.
 * An account was created using the name of the article and continued adding to the article.

I'm not sure if they are notable, and I can't be sure if there are socks involved here, but at least two of the users involved have a COI. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks very suspicious. The IP is registered to the UK via BT Broadband. The IP and Emma are definitely related. Winchswan may me a meat puppet or a sock. July 8th was the last edit for Winchswan. Seems that it was a single purpose account to create the article. Possible SPI, but not quite sure. <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 20:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Should I open up an SPI on this? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not really sure. The article is at AfD and if the consensus is delete, there will be more base for the contributions. If they continue editing in the future or recreate the article, then a SPI may be necessary. The Ip should maybe be reported though for spam and socking. What do you think? <b style="color: blue">AmericanAir88</b>(<b style="color: darkred">talk</b>) 13:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. I will report the IP at least. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Temple University


This single-purpose editor appears to have a connection to the subject of this article but refuses to address the topic despite warnings and a direct question on his or her User Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have placed a uw-paid notice on Stella's talk page, and added verbiage to the effect that this is a final warning. It's blatantly obvious (to me anyway) that this is a conflict of interest editor, and is likely performing edits as part of their job at Temple. Also of note; Stella added File:20171005 night owl 014.jpg to the article. I've nominated this image for deletion on Commons as it is a copyright violation due to freedom of panorama issues. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Editor blocked. They had enough warnings; having changed their username after the first one indicates that at very least the first warning has been read and not understood or ignored in this regard. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Stockton University


WP:SPA for Stockton University and related pages. Undisclosed COI, even after warning. BonkHindrance (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Editor has now disclosed they are being paid for their edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Selman Akbulut


Editor appears to have a strong conflict of interest or bias on behalf of the subject of the article, Dr. Akbulut:
 * User has either edited Selman Akbulut or to pages related to his editing (such as the edit warring noticeboard about his behavior.) One exception being an edit to an article on the Turkish Mathematical Society.
 * User participated in an edit war to remove a news article about the disciplinary action against Akbulut, reverting links to a mainstream news article, , ,.
 * After receiving a notice about edit warring, user then began removing information from the mainstream news article about the Akbulut attacking individuals via email. They substituted links to Akbulut's personal website, and a site called "stopacademicabuse.com" which was created a few months after the accusations and is only about the subject of the article (not academic abuse in general). They also added improperly sourced content (saying mathematicians around the world are concerned but using the aforementioned "stopacademicabuse.com" site as proof, even though it does not meet WP:SOURCES.), ,.
 * Attempts to discuss this with them during the first edit war (including a warning) resulted in no response; instead they are accusing editors who are reverting these changes of being part of a "smear campaign" and that the sourced material is "wrong/baseless"  and that media coverage cannot be presented as a fact.
 * It seems clear (WP:DUCK) that the editor is strongly biased with a conflict of interest. Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And just to put the nail in this coffin: the editor's handle is [REDACTED - Oshwah] --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Clear guidance has now been left at 's talk page (permalink). A COI declaration (or a clear refutation) is expected before the editor attempts any further editing of the article. Edit requests should be used by all users with a strong COI. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, they have declared that they do not have a conflict of interest (with "either party", I assume Dr. Akbulut or MSU.). --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I am adding another user to this case who has a conflict of interest. Note the only edits User:Ustun YILDIRIM has made outside user space is due to this article or the subject, including a RPP. Emailing the evidence for privacy concerns. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I would like to add the users Mr. Vernon and Ylevental to possible COI lists. As they are clearly misusing the references, representing quotations from third-parties as official panel results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ustun YILDIRIM (talk • contribs) 05:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Adding User:Opsrea which has only edited this page outside of a few edits in 2014. Edits include this which adds a link to this ex-professor's personal web site and removing text that got consensus on the talk page because it mentioned why he was terminated. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Imogen Cooper


Takeover and rewrite of the article today, without sources. Editor appears to be the subject's husband. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you know they are the subject's husband? We avoid WP:OUTING here unless there has been a voluntarily disclosure.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * (It’s 2601, away from home today) That the username is the same as the subject’s spouse wasn’t difficult to ascertain. It’s a rather public self-disclosure. However, I understand the issue. If my comment violates policy, I ask that it be rev/deleted, and will accept any appropriate disciplinary actions. 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:1D (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess "appears to be" is vague enough...ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

United States Army Armor School

 * Special:Contributions/150.226.142.0/24
 * Special:Diff/941601781
 * Special:Contributions/150.226.142.0/24
 * Special:Diff/941601781

Block evasion, sock- or meatpuppetry, ownership assertion. Page protected for 2 weeks, cleanup help by experienced editors welcome. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That turned out to be an effective measure. After a short discussion on my talk page, I have invited, who has commendably disclosed their conflict of interest, to make edit requests on the article's talk page. I'm happily looking forward to this. Independently of any such requests, I guess the article could still use copyediting and a stricter implementation of the verifiability policy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Southern Asset Management (and others)




I suspect a COI and undisclosed paid editor. The articles are a immaculately referenced and the articles seem rather promotional. All the articles listed are for companies/organizations, bar the SEED AWARD, the kind that would want to pay an editor to push their company in a good light. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 17:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I took a look at Southern Asset Management. I wouldn't call that one well referenced anyway. In fact, it's poorly referenced. Most of the references are either behind paywalls, don't mention the organization at all, or barely mention it. The content of this article doesn't strike me as a notable entity. Sure, it exists, but notable? No. As to the editor; account created in April, but didn't start editing until September, with a burst of 50+ edits in two days. After that, outside of a single edit to their user page (to create it), it's been nothing but new articles. I suspect this is a throwaway account. Patrolling new pages, you see this a lot. Articles (and drafts) get created and a ton of references are added to give them the air of being notable, or at least difficult to delete right off, so people run off and don't touch them. Easy to create, difficult to delete, and the paid editors (whether this one is or not) make off with the money. In this case, the editor is fitting the profile of what we would expect from a paid editor. We need better tools for managing this general issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What I'd love to see is some kind of way of checking how long someone spent editing an article between clicking "edit" and "submit" (maybe with a counter for how many times they previewed, too). Not perfect, but if a brand new editor writes a perfect 10kb article in under a minute without even clicking preview, I would be a tad suspicious. creffpublic <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"> a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * when writing this I did at first think it would be appropriate to say 'immaculately' as the referencing initially seems very good, immaculate even, but then actually turns out to be poor. Thanks for your comments and I definitely agree that we should be less restricted in dealing with cases like this. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 21:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look suspiciously like refbombed UPE. I'm going to quarantine them in draftspace pending a response from the editor. creffett (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)