Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 160

List of Street & Smith publications


Is a clear representation of WP:LINKSPAM after De2164 put over 500,000 bytes of ext links. I have put U5 on his sandbox. Edit: here should be more than enough to prove a COI. CTRL + F for "dimenovels" shows 136 results.108.21.73.223 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The sandbox does not satisfy the criteria for CSD U5; and you have offered no evidence for an accusation of CoI. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:LINKSPAM, 100s of links to the same website. Spam/advertising only account. If that's not a COI I don't know what is. Clearly it needs to be toned down.108.21.73.223 (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They didn't add "100s" of links, nor as you claim earlier did they add "over 500,000 bytes of ext links". Nor are they only adding "Spam/advertising". You have apparently made no effort to advise or assist this new editor in their prima face good-faith efforts to add cited, encyclopedic conent. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry I'm a new editor. You seem to be experienced with this, so why don't you tell me how to improve the article? Stop the biting. 108.21.73.223 (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They did add 522KB of material here, which as far as I could see is unsourced and only includes text entries and links to an external site called dimenovels. I've removed it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "unsourced and... includes... links to an external site" Only one of those two claims can be true. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I would really like a third opinion on this. 108.21.73.223 (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * IP, you can challenge unsourced material by removing it, and it is almost always safe to remove links to outside sites that appear in the body of the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:108.21.73.223 - No, you are not a new editor. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to use the Bite policy as a cudgel, you are not the sort of editor to whom it applies.  Any editor who quotes that policy is familiar enough with Wikipedia that they should not use that excuse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Franco Debono


User Fz5907 has repeatedly added promotional texts that are also copyright violations of an interview Debono gave in 2016. (Published here.) WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A COI edit notice was placed on Talk:Franco Debono, but it didn't stop this edit. I believe this user will not stop until administrative action is taken. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And again. He has been encouraged to engage in discussion rather than insisting on his own promotional version of the page (thank you,, but I don't think he's getting the message. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Left a uw-ew message... hope springs eternal that the point has been made. If not, I think administrative action is in order. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is why I've never sought the mop -- I could never muster that much optimistic hope! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I fear your hopes were unfounded. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Roseforest


Also see this diff. The account operated for years for what appears to be the main purpose of promoting Wikipedia presence of things related to Breakfast Rescue Mission or Gospel Rescue Missions and there appears to be a COI without any disclosure. Graywalls (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan Hansler


The editor is making changes to their own bio. They self disclosed on their talk page. I left a cordial message on their talk page. I think it isn't obvious to people who aren't versed in this community that they shouldn't edit articles that they have a close connection to, so I tried to be polite and understanding and gave them a link to our coi policy. I don't know if further steps need to be taken or what should be done. I am simply reporting it here to let experts in this area know what is happening. I don't really think the project is in any great danger but I don't want us to be rude to someone who might think they are being mischaracterized. AdamF in MO (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Extremely annoying.Someone set up a Wikipedia page for me without my knowledge and all my dates are on there.It is one of the first things that comes up when you google me.I cannot adjust my own page.As a performer I need an air of mystery and by dating me this I believe has cost me work.. Jonhans (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The date (1985) that the article's subject is concerned about is listed publicly at the bottom of his list of credits here, so it's hardly costing him work. Orphan Wiki  09:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I had to keep on reverting his edits to his own BLP article because I was implementing the policy regarding COI editing. I and Visioncurve gave him warnings with regards to that, but he proceeded nonetheless. While he already disclosed that he was indeed who he says he is, the account still needs to be blocked. As a consequence, he would need to proceed with OTRS verification if he still wants to continue editing. The sad part here is that this whole thing would leave a negative impression of him on whoever knows him personally or on social media, since he appears to want to clear his name of any perceived improper descriptions. We take BLP and COI very strictly here on Wikipedia. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, from what he keeps saying, his motivation for altering the article is to remove dates about his training and/or DOB, in order to "maintain mystery" and increase his chance of getting acting roles for different age groups... I can see his account has now been blocked anyway. Orphan Wiki  15:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That information is already available for public viewing, so there is nothing to hide here. The block could be lifted if OTRS verification will be successful, but he needs to refrain from editing his own article directly, much less advancing a biased opinion towards its content. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Binomial options pricing model

 * Others listed at Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Algotheorist
 * Others listed at Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Algotheorist
 * Others listed at Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Algotheorist

A series of single purpose accounts have been rather insistently keeping a mention of Evangelos Georgiadis and a citation to a paper of this in the lead of this article (a few have branched out to related articles, such as Black–Scholes model This started right around the time the paper was first published. Danielkda is the latest in this line. Something seems off here, but I'm not sure how (or if) this should best be pursued. Some of these accounts are blocked as sockpuppets, but there was no SPI that I could find, and it seems like the gaps between accounts mean they don't interleave all that much anyway. More eyes would be appreciated. MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be reasonable for an admin to block User:Danielkda as a spam-only account. A search for the string 'Evangelos Georgiadis' only finds the article on Binomial options pricing model. While we're at it, semiprotection of that article might be considered. Adding more names to the sock category may also be worthwhile, as they come up. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It would resonable for an admin to weigh in here that is a specialist in this field and considers adding new contributions of this field. Like the article by closed form solutions. Your accusations this account representing any puppet accounts is incorrect. Editors having no clue about this subject and insisting to remove latest contributions to this field should be banned from editing these sources. (Danielkda (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC))

HPFanSF

 * Please see Sockpuppet investigations/HPFanSF

UPE likely but I wasn't able to connect to an existent master. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There are some hallmarks I see that make it 100% certain in my opinion. Should either move all to draft or G5. SmartSE (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They were all in draft space at some point - the two that have made it to mainspace did so courtesy of AFC. MER-C 17:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Openthewaygate


Given Openthewaygate's contributions, I strongly suspect that they have a COI or have a UPE relationship with the two articles I've linked and/or Alpha Vantage (a startup they've namedropped in the vast majority of their edits). Further, some of the terminology they've used on their talk page (particularly repeatedly referring to things like "organic content" and "brand mentions") really sounds like SEO language, which is always a red flag for me. They deny being compensated for edits and any relationship with Alpha Vantage, but frankly I find that very difficult to believe. To be blunt, I'm just about ready to unilaterally block for UPE and/or undisclosed COI despite their claims otherwise, but I'm bringing this here for review by other editors. Courtesy ping, since you interacted with them extensively on their talk page and may have other impressions to share. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't have a lot to add, you've covered the situation well. This strikes me as a content marketer who doesn't really grasp the difference between Wikipedia and a social media site. - MrOllie (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both the editor and MrOllie. I don't have any affiliation with the companies mentioned (also not a "content market" or "SEO" person as you have alleged), and the companies are primarily from the Harvard educational ecosystem, and I thought it would be ok to enrich the two Harvard-related Wikipedia pages. I still stand by my opinion that it is natural (@editor seems to be frowning upon the term "organic" so I am using "natural" here) for a startup incubation program such as Harvard Innovation Lab to showcase a small sample of the startup coming out of the program. Nevertheless, I respect your editorial decision and I'm willing to over-correct in this case: I will be solely making Wikipedia edits that don't involve any companies (like the one I did for Technical Analysis and approved by MrOllie). Openthewaygate (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "enrich" and "showcase": two hideous euphemised marks of the beast that betray the promotional orientation of the marketing mindset. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  19:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Experience has unfortunately shown that most (but not all) people with experience in PR cannot be taught to write a proper article, because they are so completely oriented to writing advertisements or quasi-advertisements that they honestly cannot see the difference between that and a proper encyclopedia article." -- User:DGG -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  19:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * my take is that this is a (paid or not) promotional editor with an undisclosed COI. The sample edit comments sound like the many emails from university-employed marketers that I have had the displeasure to receive and read:
 * it contains biased opinion on an otherwise organic and natural content for Professor Cohen's Field X class
 * Adding links to HBS COVID-19 Business Impact Center
 * Provided information on VIP teams' actions to the COVID-19 pandemic.
 * Adding notable graduates of the VIP program
 * Adding graduates of the Field X / Field Y class taught by Professor Cohen.
 * Harvard Innovation Labs, by its mission, is a program for entrepreneurial ventures
 * The comments reflect a devotion to institutional interests and promotion. The kicker is where they say on their talk page: "If I can secure an email from Professor Cohen that approves the mentions of Alpha Vantage and other Field X companies to his personal Wikipedia page, is it OK?" Meaning they are in touch, and have COI. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * do you work at Harvard, or have you met with, or corresponded with, any of the people or companies you write about?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Siyatha TV


While the username kinda gives us a hint, this SPA has been editing articles about entities of the Voice of Asia Network since 2017 and has never complied with our UPE rules. Now he's done a smarmy bio about his obscure boss. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  19:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , they've had a COI warning for years but only got a UPE warning today - I know, they should have seen it in the paid warning, but I'll give them a little more rope. If they edit again without dealing with the UPE warning I will block. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I dropped the UPE warning today for precisely that reason. Perhaps he just didn't notice the paid warning in the COI notice before. Who knows. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hamis Kiggundu


I'd like to bring to a wider audience a series of ongoing conversations about a number of articles created by the user named above. The author or primary editor of those article identified as social media marketer here. There are conversations at Articles for deletion/Hamis Kiggundu and his talk page about managing conflicts of interest and required paid editing processes. The editor confirmed having worked commercially for the subject through an agency before. He claims to be making undirected Wikipedia edits on the articles above as he perceives there to be a gap. The articles are all about the business interests of Hamis Kiggundu, his companies or his brother. It has been recommended to the editor to use the AfC process, however article creation continued with Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality. In the meantime, images uploaded at wikimedia commons are evidently used at the copyrighted company website, while being claimed "own work". In any case, they are another sign of closeness to the subject. Any views are much appreciated. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 00:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

CORE (formerly J/P Haitian Relief Organization)


This is an article which does not have many readers and edits. Suddenly, this user came and added several amounts of information, most of which are either unsourced or use a primary source. He was trying to defend the content that he added, saying that they are sourced. However, his edits were reverted at least twice by Bangabandhu (see this and this). A lot has changed in the article, and much of the new content comes from primary sources. I have not yet seen if copyright violations have been committed. The user is just new and has edited only that article. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi LSGH. While I appreciate your concern and sincerely laud your gatekeeping of information, I would like to clarify that my intention is to update the CORE page so that it reflects current information given the COVID-19 pandemic. I plan to update other non-profits as well when I have the time. It's an important time for correct information to be out there, and I want to do my part in any way that I can. Please leave the revisions. I originally did not properly source, which is why Bangabandhu rightfully undid my edit. I apologize for that. But now I have gathered the sources.

Heads-up for any unusual activity timestamped June 26
There was a server mis-configuration reported on wikitech-l about 12 hours ago that let some users access other users' accounts. It was corrected by requiring everyone to re-login. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Black Mesa (Apache-Navajo Counties, Arizona)


At 14:49, 17 June 2020, the Black Mesa (Apache-Navajo_Counties, Arizona) page was edited by a user without an account, with the IP address 24.115.226.137. This address leads to PenTeleData, a Pennsylvania-area corporate Internet service provider. The text added violated NPOV standards and contained unverified and disproved information favoring continued mining efforts and attacking the Climate Justice Alliance (CJA). It is possible this was an attempt to discredit the CJA and the associated Black Mesa Water Coalition, who have both fought strip mining in the region. It is possible that Peabody Energy, being the strip mining company which operates in Black Mesa and the 12th highest ranked polluting company in the world by the Guardian, has edited the article to defend itself and attack its detractors. In quotes below is the text added on June 14th.

"The alleged 'success' of the Climate Justice Alliance (CJA) resulted in the 'benefit' of job loss for Navajo and Hopi citizens. This was caused by the termination of mining activities in the area which then significantly drove up the price of coal due to a lack of availability.  As many homes in this region use coal for heating, it placed low-cost heating out of the range of the local inhabitants as this coal would no longer be readily available at low prices. As well as exorbitant heating costs and job loss from the end of mining, the closure of 4 Corners power plant - coal fired - will also result in further job loss and the loss of megawatts of generating capacity that helped support the electrical grid in the region.  Groups such as Climate Justice Alliance (CJA) have ignored the low emissions of modern American coal-fired power plants, instead using inaccurate statistics, falsified European Union reports, and constantly changing, fraudulent 'climate change' science promulgated by self-serving researchers who put their junk science ahead of jobs, modern industry, and low-cost power. Unfortunately the Hopi and Navajo are the latest victim of the myth of "green jobs." Although rejected and ostracized for pointing out the 'green jobs' lie and the costs of killing energy industry jobs, the Spanish government and other European governments were finally forced to face the reality of Gabriel Calzadza's research. Those have come to pass here as well: every green job kills 2.2 real jobs. As Calzada explained, 'American jobs will suffer the same fate if the United States similarly attempts to promote renewable energy at the expense of conventional energy sources.' The 2009 Calzada report is 'Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources,' Gabriel Calzada, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, March 2009: http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf"

The aforementioned Gabriel Caldaza is an economics PhD with close ties to the Heartland Institute, an institution which has repeatedly engaged in climate change denial and has received nearly $800,000 from ExxonMobil. 173.2.121.44 (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not really possible to prove a conflict of interest here, and they've only made one edit. The best course of action is probably to put a WP:OR / WP:CITE notice on the IP's talk page, for the time being. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added article and user links to the top. I hope you don't mind, but I also converted your external links to Wikipedia pages into internal links, to help with readability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Synergy Pharmaceuticals


VineetGupta777 is a relatively new editor who has focused mostly on Indian film and music articles. Their longer edits tend to have grammatical and capitalization issues that are somewhat common from new editors in those areas (see for example). And then the Synergy Pharmaceuticals article is created. Lots of complicated grammar, all pretty well done, no capitalization errors and a really, really promotional tone overall. I also found Plecanatide which had a huge section related to Synergy added by a two-edit editor years ago that I've deleted. I've asked on VineetGupta777's page about paid editing, but this is so obvious and related to a pharmaceutical company I felt raising it here was appropriate. I'll notify VineetGupta777.  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The unexpected change in grammar and the wording of the subsequent text screamed copyvio to me. Turns out, I was right. Made a revdel request, but that explains that part. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Sam Ayoub


I believe this user (Kirsh80) to be the individual this page is about (Sam Ayoub), or someone working for them. The page is about a rugby league manager. Every edit made by this user has been to update pages to include hyperlinks to the individuals personal linkedin page and the individuals personal business website. This is clearly promotional. The users most recent edit is predominantly self promotional of Sam Ayoub, and describes the individuals personal business and its practices, while also linking to the personal website again. It provided no citation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:c84a:a401:d479:cd17:7dfc:a4bc (talk • contribs) 15:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * These are contribs from 2019. There's not much to do here, since they've made none since, but that's not to say a dormant account can't come back (as they did from March to Dec 2019). I'd agree that all their edits are related to promotion of Sam Ayoub, though a block at this stage might not be worth it. Worth keeping an eye out on the case, should the user come back. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Newsmax-related articles


The editor above had not declared a previous COI with Newsmax as a freelancer hired by Mr. Ruddy updating facts and figures about its properties and founder/client, but I had reverted their edits several times going back to the end of 2019 because of some WP:PROMO toning and removal of out-of-date information still relevant to the article, unaware of their connection until I left a COI template inquiring about their bonafides. Anarchristian needs help about how to edit the mentioned articles within our bounds and in my eyes seems willing to learn, and as I'm unfamiliar with the COI process, I'm hoping someone sees this and can give them the proper guidance and apply the proper templates to the article talkpages to list them as a declared contributor. Thanks much in advance.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I, anarchristian, have thanked Mrschimpf for his efforts to get me "proper guidance," but I now appeal to you directly for help in (1) declaring my COI and (2) restoring the changes I had made earlier this year to articles on Newsmax, Newsmax Media, Newsmax TV, and Christopher Ruddy, when those changes are consistent with WP's policies. I want to know if a particular deletion must be restored or a particular quotation crosses the line from informational to promotional. I've reached out to you. Please reciprocate. Thanks.Anarchristian (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Anarchristian (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Beyond telling us the deal (that you are a contractor hired by Newsmax to edit Wikipedia on their behalf), you should also use UserboxCOI on your userpage to list the articles you've been editing as well as Connected contributor on the talk page of each article. Now that you've announced your CoI, you may no longer edit those articles and you must restrict yourself to asking on each article's talk page for edits to be made. This restriction applies to all articles where you have a CoI. I would like to point out that it's foolish to seek pay while ineptly doing stuff on our private property (this website). You might try looking for other work. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think what Chris Troutman means is that you are strongly discouraged from editing the articles directly. While there is no direct prohibition on you editing the articles, we usually consider it best for neutrality if COI editors suggest their changes on the talk pages. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If I can't update, I'm ruined. I'm desperate. Please help. must be a difficult position to be in. This will be a continuous problem for anyone who expects their livelihood to be dependent on real-time edits here. Chris' advice is sage. Bri.public (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for getting back to me. I'm sorry Chris Troutman responded so un-Wikipedianly, which moved Elizium23 to interpret CT for me. I wrongly, but innocently, thought that making changes on these sites was as uncomplicated as, say, correcting a date on someone's biography or adding to an article's "Further Reading" section, things I've done for years. There was no intention to violate the Wikipedia's Foundation's property rights. I assume that the Foundation wants editors to improve articles by updating them when needed. I understand that a suggested update may be deemed promotional, and I'll leave that to the gatekeepers. But sometimes it's honestly informational and comes from an authoritative source. I hope we can go forward in a spirit of cooperation on the talk pages. I've created a user page for Anarchristian. I've inserted at the top of the empty field. Is that where it goes? Below that, I listed four Newsmax-related articles for which I will suggest changes on their talk pages in the coming days. I DON'T expect "real-time" edits, but what would be a realistic expectation for a verdict on a given suggestion? (E.g., a few days? A week? A month?) And if a suggested change were to be approved, would I make the edit, or someone else? I'm sorry if my questions annoy you, but unlike me, you're "old hands" at the policy level. Again, thanks for giving me a chance to do things the right way. I look forward to hearing from you at your convenience.Anarchristian (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , an edit that has consensus will be made by someone else. As to time, there is no SLA, but widely watched articles will get picked up more quickly. If you edit those articles directly, and your edits are reverted, then you will be on a fast track to a ban from those articles. Paid editing of articles is something about which the Wikipedia community is deeply ambivalent, and paid editing that promotes a subject can result in significant adverse publicity (as we saw with the congressional editing scandal). Your best bet, by far, is to propose edits on Talk in the form "change X to Y using Z source", ensuring always that your sources are both reliable and independent. Guy (help!) 15:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy, for clarifying that I won't be making any edits that have a consensus. I spent the day compiling suggested edits for the Ruddy and Newsmax TV articles; I'll check the references before listing the suggestions on their respective Talk pages. Thanks also for adjusting my expectations: I'm not sure what "SLA" means, but I suppose it has to do with how soon a suggested edit might be reviewed. I hope, of course, that these two articles are "widely watched" and therefore will attract oversight. Will I be alerted to verdicts on the Talk pages? FYI, for what it's worth: over the years I made many edits to articles with which I had no CoI, and wasn't aware of the CoI issue when I was asked if I knew how to make edits to Newsmax-related articles. I said, "Sure, I can do that." So I was (naively) surprised when my edits were reverted. As I said earlier, I thought it would be "as uncomplicated as, say, correcting a date on someone's biography or adding to an article's 'Further Reading' section." That was naive of me. I wasn't cognizant of the issue, and now I am. My awakening was panic-inducing, for now I got on the bad side of two parties: my client and Wikipedia gatekeepers. Thanks again for your help and for listening.Anarchristian (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Maryphillips1952 and Horacio Gutierez edits
It really doesn't take long on Google to establish a very strong COI between this user and the pianist Horacio Guttierez. The editor Maryphillips1952 has contributed 248 edits to Guttierez's article. They have been called out for COI and said they were a "fan", but that was for a different subject (Stacy Schiff). The edit history and the offsite links (happy to provide to an admin) show that this is just another run of the mill long-term promotional effort. Bringing this here as the user has recently started a thread at WP:AN challenging edits to the page by an actual NPOV editor. There was a previous COIN thread, where I unfortunately did not see the very obvious connection between the editor and the subject. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ah, here we have it, in the history. Maryphillips1952 says "I am a professor at Tulsa Community College (redacted@tulsacc.edu) and would like to contribute to Mr. Gutierrez's biography to reflect the body of work and legacy. Now you can take that clear voluntary disclosure of name, email and employer on-wiki and match it to these news articles that talk about Guttierez's sister Mary who lives in Tulsa and teaches Biology at the same tulsatcc.edu in the email. Given the nine-year obfuscation of COI and persistent promotional editing, this is a case where a pblock would rid us of an obvious long-term COI editor.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Article text:
 * "Gutierrez has been a frequent guest artist in Tulsa because his sister, Mary Phillips, is a long-time member of the TCC faculty.”
 * “Horacio Gutierrez, a virtuoso classical pianist who will be performing this season, is Cuban-American. I talked to his sister, Mary Gutierrez Phillips, who happens to teach biology at Tulsa Community College.”
 * “Also in September, world-renowned pianist Horacio Gutiérrez returns to Tulsa, appearing on the TCC Southeast Campus, the same campus where his sister, Mary, has been an associate professor of biology for many years.”
 * ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I have provided connection in previous posts, but Graywalls and That MontrealIP have not provided their connect to Horacio Gutierrez. Are they critics, colleagues, or? They, too, need to be transparent. At one time, Graywalls thought i was getting paid to post on various wikis. I do not get paid. It is my hobby. I am a fan of music, musicians, fims, science, and artists. I have many posts, My concern is if there are critics, colleagues, and rivals who are based and delete content or find fault with certain posts (Gutierrez - Hispanic), but not others with similar posts and claims, then, there exists an inherent bias of the so called editors that must be more closely reviewed. I believe unbiased and well supported posts is a must across the the board. Not just some artists. I have not done the research for GrayWalls or ThatMontrealIP and have no numbers or connections to offer about their posts and specific edits. I have edited many Cuban posts (including Gloria Estefan), film, and others. My concern is that there may be music people who are editing and revising or calling into question some posts but not others for similar errors or content. I will have some free time this summer and may follow up on biased reviews and reporting of information. My goal... Let's make excellent a wiki article posts. I am willing to learn and help resolve this issue. But, everyone here needs to be transparent as to their connection and interest in Mr. Gutierrez' post. Please review osts from 2006 by many editors. Thank you and I welcome your help. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see above, where it is made clear that you are his sister. Sorry, the jig is up.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , I have no connection to the subject of article in question. I have worked on this article before which places it into my watch list, therefore changes made to it show up on my end. Myself and at least one other editors have advised you on specific concerns, such as picking out sources that give opinions and giving a factual statement based on your own research. Presenting your own research is not allowed, per WP:NOR. If you run into similar errors or content, the right thing to do would be to try to address issues you're aware of. I would liken this to someone addressing littering/disallowed contents at one location, then pointing out to them there are a lot of other litter sites to justify the littering at the location being picked up. Nobody can address all the litter in the world. Please take a look at WP:OSE Graywalls (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to be the standard modus operandi of POV-pushers to accuse those trying for a neutral point of view of pushing the opposite POV. User:Maryphillips1952, don't you realise that the world doesn't revolve around your brother, and that the other editors here are simply trying to improve Wikipedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This is also being discussed at NPOVN, and apparently was moved there from AN[i?]. Please try to keep it in one place. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I posted it here as the user has been masquerading as a neutral editor for years, when in fact it appears she is extremely closely connected. See the disclosure above and the related links.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

As stated previously, I am a fan of classical music and artists. I do not receive payment for posts. As I stated in previous posts. My concern is inherent biases. I will work hard to resolve issues as always. But, it appears there are music critics, colleagues, and others who are biased towards some posts and not others. This is a real issue. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Maryphillips1952 indefinitely from editing the pages Horacio Gutiérrez and Talk:Horacio Gutiérrez (i. e. one of those newfangled partial blocks) for obfuscating their conflict of interest as well as persistently attacking another user for being "biased" etc against Gutiérrez. As Phil Bridger says, that's the standard modus operandi in these cases. Bishonen &#124; tålk 17:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC).
 * Note: my partial block has been upgraded to a sitewide indefinite block by User:El C. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC).

Radha Mohan Singh


I have recently edited Radha Mohan Singh article, the edit of which has been reverted by 2 IPs. Since religion was removed from Infobox, I thought of removing it from description too. I think the caste info needs to be removed but the IPs are still undoing my edit. Adithyak1997 (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't a COI issue. Consider taking this to the BLP noticeboard. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Eurasia Group campaign




This involves extensive, years-long, undisclosed paid editing by a corporation. Please see this page for full account of the problem as I have been able to figure out thus far. I am posting this here because I am unsure how to otherwise address what I believe is a systematic, undisclosed, years-long effort of paid editing by Eurasia Group. There are several other minor accounts and articles involved besides the ones listed above, see the linked page. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * : Pinging you two since within the last year you've noticed and undone frivolous puffery, etc., on these and/or related pages. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I did some more trimming on Eurasia (Having done that, a proper expansion might be possible--it is influential. Further revisions of the Bremmer article   involves first reevaluating the articles on each of his individual books; I've started reducing them to size, and then most can probably be merged into his bio . He's notable enough that there should be an article, tho perhaps at his pt it should be rewritten from scratch. For me, it's always easier to rewrite.
 * What to do further: all editors should be blocked as violators of TOU/meatpuppets (2010 is before our current TOU, but meatpuppetry has always been blockable)  and all relevant articles semi-protected. I don't want to do this myself--some other admin should, as I'm technically involved with the articles.
 * , you've done a magnificent job.  DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding three more SPAs to the list:, , and (not sure how I didn't catch that last one earlier...) WhinyTheYounger (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello to all of you. I am one of the users you flagged on the Eurasia Group and Ian Bremmer pages. First, I wanted to apologize--I do work for Eurasia Group and wasn't aware of Wikipedia's policy that we needed to disclose such affiliations as a conflict of interest in a user profile or edit to a page. I don't mean to make an excuse for not knowing this; I simply say it because I want you to understand there wasn't any malicious intent or effort to hide my affiliation when making these updates. While I don't know all of the other editors you mentioned above, two of them are current colleagues, and we sincerely want to participate in Wikipedia while adhering to its policies. To that end, I tried to add a COI declaration to my user page. I believe I did this correctly but would appreciate any feedback if I didn't. I also understand that I should disclose this COI any time I proposean update to either the Eurasia Group or Ian Bremmer pages going forward. I appreciate the need to avoid promotional information that reads like advertisements but also want to be sure that these pages reflect up-to-date and complete information about our company and Ian Bremmer; I'm concerned they don't at the moment. Any recommendations you have on how to achieve this end while ensuring we're adhering to Wikipedia's policies would be greatly appreciated. Thank you all, and I'm sorry again. --Brianharper89 (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out and taking the time to fix things--I responded on your talk page with some links and an explanation of how paid editing ideally goes. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * COI editing is an enormous problem on Wikipedia. Good job on exposing these particular COI accounts. I very strongly suspect that a large share (if not the majority of) pages about companies and wealthy have been largely written by COI accounts. On the few occasions when I've checked pages for companies and wealthy individuals, I've been struck by how blatantly COI-ish they look. If someone wants a clan-up project, I'd recommend just going through the pages of "philanthropists" (99% of whom are millionaires and billionaires) and companies to clean up puffery. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would go so far to say every article with a philanthropy section should be checked for appropriate tone and sourcing. Often the philanthropy section can be deleted without any impact wrt reliably sourced material. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Maryphillips1952 and Horacio Gutierez edits
It really doesn't take long on Google to establish a very strong COI between this user and the pianist Horacio Guttierez. The editor Maryphillips1952 has contributed 248 edits to Guttierez's article. They have been called out for COI and said they were a "fan", but that was for a different subject (Stacy Schiff). The edit history and the offsite links (happy to provide to an admin) show that this is just another run of the mill long-term promotional effort. Bringing this here as the user has recently started a thread at WP:AN challenging edits to the page by an actual NPOV editor. There was a previous COIN thread, where I unfortunately did not see the very obvious connection between the editor and the subject. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ah, here we have it, in the history. Maryphillips1952 says "I am a professor at Tulsa Community College (redacted@tulsacc.edu) and would like to contribute to Mr. Gutierrez's biography to reflect the body of work and legacy. Now you can take that clear voluntary disclosure of name, email and employer on-wiki and match it to these news articles that talk about Guttierez's sister Mary who lives in Tulsa and teaches Biology at the same tulsatcc.edu in the email. Given the nine-year obfuscation of COI and persistent promotional editing, this is a case where a pblock would rid us of an obvious long-term COI editor.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Article text:
 * "Gutierrez has been a frequent guest artist in Tulsa because his sister, Mary Phillips, is a long-time member of the TCC faculty.”
 * “Horacio Gutierrez, a virtuoso classical pianist who will be performing this season, is Cuban-American. I talked to his sister, Mary Gutierrez Phillips, who happens to teach biology at Tulsa Community College.”
 * “Also in September, world-renowned pianist Horacio Gutiérrez returns to Tulsa, appearing on the TCC Southeast Campus, the same campus where his sister, Mary, has been an associate professor of biology for many years.”
 * ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I have provided connection in previous posts, but Graywalls and That MontrealIP have not provided their connect to Horacio Gutierrez. Are they critics, colleagues, or? They, too, need to be transparent. At one time, Graywalls thought i was getting paid to post on various wikis. I do not get paid. It is my hobby. I am a fan of music, musicians, fims, science, and artists. I have many posts, My concern is if there are critics, colleagues, and rivals who are based and delete content or find fault with certain posts (Gutierrez - Hispanic), but not others with similar posts and claims, then, there exists an inherent bias of the so called editors that must be more closely reviewed. I believe unbiased and well supported posts is a must across the the board. Not just some artists. I have not done the research for GrayWalls or ThatMontrealIP and have no numbers or connections to offer about their posts and specific edits. I have edited many Cuban posts (including Gloria Estefan), film, and others. My concern is that there may be music people who are editing and revising or calling into question some posts but not others for similar errors or content. I will have some free time this summer and may follow up on biased reviews and reporting of information. My goal... Let's make excellent a wiki article posts. I am willing to learn and help resolve this issue. But, everyone here needs to be transparent as to their connection and interest in Mr. Gutierrez' post. Please review osts from 2006 by many editors. Thank you and I welcome your help. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see above, where it is made clear that you are his sister. Sorry, the jig is up.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , I have no connection to the subject of article in question. I have worked on this article before which places it into my watch list, therefore changes made to it show up on my end. Myself and at least one other editors have advised you on specific concerns, such as picking out sources that give opinions and giving a factual statement based on your own research. Presenting your own research is not allowed, per WP:NOR. If you run into similar errors or content, the right thing to do would be to try to address issues you're aware of. I would liken this to someone addressing littering/disallowed contents at one location, then pointing out to them there are a lot of other litter sites to justify the littering at the location being picked up. Nobody can address all the litter in the world. Please take a look at WP:OSE Graywalls (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to be the standard modus operandi of POV-pushers to accuse those trying for a neutral point of view of pushing the opposite POV. User:Maryphillips1952, don't you realise that the world doesn't revolve around your brother, and that the other editors here are simply trying to improve Wikipedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This is also being discussed at NPOVN, and apparently was moved there from AN[i?]. Please try to keep it in one place. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I posted it here as the user has been masquerading as a neutral editor for years, when in fact it appears she is extremely closely connected. See the disclosure above and the related links.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

As stated previously, I am a fan of classical music and artists. I do not receive payment for posts. As I stated in previous posts. My concern is inherent biases. I will work hard to resolve issues as always. But, it appears there are music critics, colleagues, and others who are biased towards some posts and not others. This is a real issue. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Maryphillips1952 indefinitely from editing the pages Horacio Gutiérrez and Talk:Horacio Gutiérrez (i. e. one of those newfangled partial blocks) for obfuscating their conflict of interest as well as persistently attacking another user for being "biased" etc against Gutiérrez. As Phil Bridger says, that's the standard modus operandi in these cases. Bishonen &#124; tålk 17:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC).
 * Note: my partial block has been upgraded to a sitewide indefinite block by User:El C. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC).

Radha Mohan Singh


I have recently edited Radha Mohan Singh article, the edit of which has been reverted by 2 IPs. Since religion was removed from Infobox, I thought of removing it from description too. I think the caste info needs to be removed but the IPs are still undoing my edit. Adithyak1997 (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't a COI issue. Consider taking this to the BLP noticeboard. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Eurasia Group campaign




This involves extensive, years-long, undisclosed paid editing by a corporation. Please see this page for full account of the problem as I have been able to figure out thus far. I am posting this here because I am unsure how to otherwise address what I believe is a systematic, undisclosed, years-long effort of paid editing by Eurasia Group. There are several other minor accounts and articles involved besides the ones listed above, see the linked page. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * : Pinging you two since within the last year you've noticed and undone frivolous puffery, etc., on these and/or related pages. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I did some more trimming on Eurasia (Having done that, a proper expansion might be possible--it is influential. Further revisions of the Bremmer article   involves first reevaluating the articles on each of his individual books; I've started reducing them to size, and then most can probably be merged into his bio . He's notable enough that there should be an article, tho perhaps at his pt it should be rewritten from scratch. For me, it's always easier to rewrite.
 * What to do further: all editors should be blocked as violators of TOU/meatpuppets (2010 is before our current TOU, but meatpuppetry has always been blockable)  and all relevant articles semi-protected. I don't want to do this myself--some other admin should, as I'm technically involved with the articles.
 * , you've done a magnificent job.  DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding three more SPAs to the list:, , and (not sure how I didn't catch that last one earlier...) WhinyTheYounger (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello to all of you. I am one of the users you flagged on the Eurasia Group and Ian Bremmer pages. First, I wanted to apologize--I do work for Eurasia Group and wasn't aware of Wikipedia's policy that we needed to disclose such affiliations as a conflict of interest in a user profile or edit to a page. I don't mean to make an excuse for not knowing this; I simply say it because I want you to understand there wasn't any malicious intent or effort to hide my affiliation when making these updates. While I don't know all of the other editors you mentioned above, two of them are current colleagues, and we sincerely want to participate in Wikipedia while adhering to its policies. To that end, I tried to add a COI declaration to my user page. I believe I did this correctly but would appreciate any feedback if I didn't. I also understand that I should disclose this COI any time I proposean update to either the Eurasia Group or Ian Bremmer pages going forward. I appreciate the need to avoid promotional information that reads like advertisements but also want to be sure that these pages reflect up-to-date and complete information about our company and Ian Bremmer; I'm concerned they don't at the moment. Any recommendations you have on how to achieve this end while ensuring we're adhering to Wikipedia's policies would be greatly appreciated. Thank you all, and I'm sorry again. --Brianharper89 (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out and taking the time to fix things--I responded on your talk page with some links and an explanation of how paid editing ideally goes. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * COI editing is an enormous problem on Wikipedia. Good job on exposing these particular COI accounts. I very strongly suspect that a large share (if not the majority of) pages about companies and wealthy have been largely written by COI accounts. On the few occasions when I've checked pages for companies and wealthy individuals, I've been struck by how blatantly COI-ish they look. If someone wants a clan-up project, I'd recommend just going through the pages of "philanthropists" (99% of whom are millionaires and billionaires) and companies to clean up puffery. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would go so far to say every article with a philanthropy section should be checked for appropriate tone and sourcing. Often the philanthropy section can be deleted without any impact wrt reliably sourced material. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds Fake But Okay

 * (formerly User:Kayla kas)
 * (formerly User:Kayla kas)
 * (formerly User:Kayla kas)
 * (formerly User:Kayla kas)
 * (formerly User:Kayla kas)

has tagged basically everything (formerly User:Kayla kas) has ever edited with "connected contributor" templates. While I highly object to it being on the page in it's entirety, I am reluctantly willing to allow it be. But what I won't allow is the addition of the "conflict of interest" and "neutral point of view" links within the template. No discussion has taken place about the content of the article itself. So, how can one say if Kayla wrote it in a neutral or non-neutral style. I tried to explain this to, but he didn't seem to interested in carrying on a conversation. , on the other hand, does agree that the COI and NPOV additions should not be there.

I believe we are prematurely and unilaterally declaring this article is something it is not before a proper discussion of the content of the text of the article can begin. So, either here or on the talk page, one should begin. Until then, a different template or none altogether should be used. Thank you... Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 06:57 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) •  #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter
 * User:Beepbopwhy (formerly User:Kayla kas) has written two articles, one about her company Draft:InGenius Prep which was declined at AFC by an admin User:Justlettersandnumbers and one article about her podcast Sounds Fake But Okay which was moved from draft by User:Neutralhomer. User:Justlettersandnumbers tagged it for COI and notability, these tags were removed. As the article creator was one of the presenters it seemed routine to add a conflict of interest template on the talk page as I have done many thousands of times.  I review around 30 draft articles a day, and do not need the drama of this, I have removed the article from my watchlist. Theroadislong (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I assumed that this would end up either at AfD or here sooner or later. There seem to be some grounds for concern. is not an AfC participant, and might perhaps have done better to leave this review to someone who is, and has the necessary experience to evaluate it. The reaction to any questioning of notability, sourcing or COI has been (to my surprise) noticeably more combative than collaborative (e.g., "That's insultive"). It'd be good if others would look at this.
 * Neutralhomer, who were you talking about when you wrote "leave my friend and this page alone"? Do you in fact have some connection to this person? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Gonna answer these one at a time, in no particular order. (sorry, I had to change your post links around, they were confusing. same links, just not using the oldlink template.)


 * We have talked on Twitter and here on Wikipedia (more Twitter than here), "friend" might not have been the best word. But "leave that person I know well but not well enough to call my friend yet" just doesn't have the same ring to it.  So I went with "friend" for brevity's sake and moved on.


 * As for the notability tag, with 14 sources on the page, 3 news sources, links from multiple episodes described within the article, AVEN's on blog (and AVEN is, itself, highly notable), and a UofM event site (the hosts are alum of the University of Michigan)...I think that's FAR more than some articles have. Could more be found?  Sure!  Would it still be notable?  Yes!  Would it still be insultive?  Absolutely!  That's not combative, that's just facts.  14 sources, 3 news, all reliable, all meeting RS and V in one way or another, still meeting N and GNG, makes that notability template insultive...hence what I said and my revert.


 * Plus, you didn't "question...notability, sourcing or COI", you just placed a notablity template on the page. That's not a question, that's a drive-by statement.


 * No, I am not an official AFC reviewer, but I do have the "reviewer" and "autoreviewer" flags on my account. I can review articles for creation.  I don't do it often.  Typically it's radio stations, but when it's something that piques my interest, I will give it a look-see and check it out.  Typically, nothing comes of it, this did....and I'm glad I looked at it.  This is, has, and remains an attempted erasure of a young woman's work from the get-go, and an LGBTQIA+ woman at that.  Now, you all can say "oh, that has nothing to do with it", but if this was an article about a podcast about plants and it was written by the straight white male host, no one would bat an eye.


 * As for 's assertion that the COI and NPOV tags were removed, that clearly is incorrect as you can see by the template that remains (and HE added) and the template (or a portion of it) for which this discussion has be started about. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 10:23 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) •  #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter
 * Friendly suggestion: you've just accused another editor of homophobia, with not the slightest shred of evidence, solely on the basis that the connected contributor in this case was a LGBTQIA+ person. This isn't going to add any strength to your case. You might want to tone it down a few notches. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I accused everyone of treating a female editor differently, not just one editor. If one editor had read the content, including you, you would realize, that "homophobia" would not be the word to use.  Kayla is Demisexual.  So, "demiphobic" would be a more apt word.  Though, again, I was not accusing just one user of something, but all users.  You misunderstand. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 12:54 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) •  #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

I've read the lengthy discussions on the article talk, and on the user's talk pages. As far as connected contributor goes, which you've disputed many times on both talk pages, the editor is undeniably classed as a paid editor according to Wikipedia's policies. Additionally, your argument that it was written in draft and then moved by you doesn't negate that. Indeed, WP:DISCLOSEPAY is clear about the issue. Your arguments are clearly not neutral, if you're trying to dispute the fact that the individual here is the (as stated on their talk) of both the only major contributions they has made on Wikipedia, or your attempts to compare this to your position in a school system.

The user in this case has still not made the necessary declaration. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries. Given your connection with the individual, it may be prudent that you advise them to do so.

Finally, the policy is clear about the "I moved it to draft so it's OK" argument as well. It makes no difference if the paid editor writes the content off-site or in userspace and then another editor moves the material into mainspace on their behalf. Both editors are required to make a disclosure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Completely missed the point of this discussion the "the addition of the 'conflict of interest' and 'neutral point of view' links" parts of the template in question. I'm not asking for a run down of past events, I'm asking for a discussion of the text of the article in question. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 12:54 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) •  #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter


 * If I understand you correctly, you object to the second sentence of the connected contributor template displayed on Talk:Sounds Fake But Okay:


 * You feel that it is bitey and/or a badge of shame to say, "Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography and neutral point of view." You want the code of connected contributor changed to remove that text. You have other issues, but so that participants don't "completely miss the point of this discussion", is this a reasonable summary of what you hope to achieve in this thread on the Conflict of interest Noticeboard? --Worldbruce (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ...or the addition of a field to turn those parts off (which is very easily done). I made my "issues" very clear at the top of the discussion.  The additions of COI and NPOV (autobigraphy isn't listed) is incorrect and shouldn't be listed since the content of the article hasn't been discussed.  You can't tag COI and NPOV without first discussing the content of the article.  Clearly some (ie: ProcrastinatingReader) need to read it in full. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 22:22 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) •  #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

Note: the template has been adjusted by Neutralhomer for the subject in the article, in Special:Diff/964886719. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Side Discussion
I would like to know why you had your comments from this edit to this edit RevDel'd. They included my response to you and an admin's response. The comments remain on the page. Why the RevDel? -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 23:55 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) •  #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter
 * , I didn't have them revdel'd, I requested to have them suppressed. The reason they're suppressed is due to WP:OUTING, specifically the outing of Beepbopwhy's personal information. The comments have also been suppressed on their talk. Unfortunately, because the outing spread across many revisions, many had to be suppressed. That editor is entitled to their privacy, and shouldn't have had their personal information published publicly without their consent. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Suppressed" is "RevDel'd". What are you talking about?  It has been already been established that Beepbopwhy is Kayla Kaszyca.  She has said that herself.  I'd link to it, but you had that RevDel'd too.  That's never been been in dispute.  So, connecting herself to that account, connects herself to the podcast Sounds Fake But Okay, which then shows "Kayla Kaszyca" and "demisexual".  She "realized" her own sexuality, no one was "outed".  It's on the show's own website.  So, you aren't doing anyone any favors, you are just trying to erase her (once again) from Wikipedia.


 * I think the bigger question is "Why?". -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 00:34 on June 27, 2020 (UTC) •  #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter
 * , the part that was suppressed was her job role, which she hasn't publicly stated. She didn't state the company she worked for either, until someone did for her. If she wants to state her job at the company, that's fine, but in the meantime it constitutes outing and should be suppressed. There is nothing improper about this, and the decision to suppress is not mine but of an oversighter, who is adequately familiar with the policies on the matter. Perhaps you should stop thinking that we're all out to get you and her, and that everything here is about sexuality; that's really not the case. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You had where I mentioned she was LGBTQIA+ on here RevDel'd too. So, forgive me if I don't believe that "only her job" bit.  From what I have seen across many pages and many discussions, as I said earlier, if this had been about a podcast about plants hosted by a straight white guy and he wrote the article, no one wouldn't have batted an eye.  But because a young, LGBTQIA+ woman wrote the article and co-hosts the podcast with another young, LGBTQIA+ woman, and she was the one to write the article, all hell has broken loose.


 * In this day and age, nothing surprises me....and on this website, nothing surpises me either. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 00:53 on June 27, 2020 (UTC) •  #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter
 * the LGBTQIA+ text is still there and hasn't been removed; the revisions suppressed in the history were just collateral losses but their text remains. You should pop over to WP:AFD sometime. We delete articles on "white people" all the time. If anything, I'd argue that the only reason there hasn't been a WP:UPE block and this article hasn't already been sent to AFD is because the person is "a young, LGBTQIA+ woman". This article doesn't meet GNG and anyone here could've sent it to AFD already. AFD has, many times, understood that sometimes 'minority groups' (for lack of a better word) don't get the coverage required, and have hence let some articles be. This site really isn't as '*-phobic' (again, for lack of a better word) as you think. Policy has been bent in your favour already, and havoc isn't being broken loose except by you. WP:PAID is a policy that applies to every editor equally. All this editor has to do is place the required notice at the appropriate place (which they haven't done yet, in violation of WP:PAID and the WMF Terms of Use) just like everyone else, regardless of their sexuality, and get on with it. Nobody here has requested anything further. Most editors don't argue with it, I don't know why you are. Your concern is that the notice on the talk page states that they might be a connected contributor, and that the COI and NPOV policies may apply. You're at the wrong venue for this anyway - COIN is the wrong venue to change a template. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's COIN's template, so yeah, you can. Plus, I was told to come here by mutiple people.  I'd link, but that got RevDel'd too.  She mentioned she wasn't paid for her work, I'd link to that, but I can't.  So why would she add a template to a page for something she isn't?


 * Yes, this is about gender and sexuality, as much as it is about a template no one will fix and the content of an article no one will look at, no matter how much you don't want it to be. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 01:38 on June 27, 2020 (UTC) •  #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

About Draft:TutorsMedia


The draft seems to be subjected to WP:UPE and WP:PROMOTIONAL. ~ Amkgp 💬  02:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Digital Finance


Please read my synopsis of the situation at User talk:Curb Safe Charmer. While the draft has been deleted at the user's request, their message to me on my talk page makes it clear that they are still intent on creating an article about the company. Given the WP:GAMING, COI and SPA I think some administrator action is appropriate. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Joey French


Repeated reverts against MOS:BOLD and adding links to his YouTube channel against WP:LINKFARM Leijurv (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Martin Newman


On comparing the history of this article and this draft, these appear to be the same person, and both have a history of editing by fly-by-night accounts, most recently User:AmyHarper77, who has not replied to an inquiry about COI. This history of puffery goes back to 2011. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Creep Catchers


The user downright admits in their edit summaries that they are the owner of Creep Catchers, and is requesting another editor on their talk page to edit for them. Super Goose 007 ( Honk! ) 01:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

is clearly a sockpuppet of them, pretending to be an unaffiliated third party. JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 02:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Drmies has blocked both accounts making this discussion moot. For the record, I couldn't even find a source that they were purchased by an American company, and that doesn't even seem possible because of how they're made of non-affiliated individuals and groups. JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 02:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * CU confirmed your suspicion, . Let's see if they can do it properly--with reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Pulsion Medical Systems


Shameless spamming, often in first person plural, and block evasion. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  20:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Gardner–Webb University


This appears to be a clear case of undisclosed paid editing and a conflict of interest. This editor has exclusively edited this one article and almost certainly works in the university's marketing and communication unit. Our policy against outing does not allow me to directly state why I believe this editor works for this university but I am confident that other editors who spend even a few seconds investigating this will come to the same conclusion. ElKevbo (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, blocked. MER-C 13:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * the same is true for most articles about a college in WP.   DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Charlie Buhler


Appear to be an undisclosed paid editor repeatedly creating Charlie Buhler and not responding to warnings on their talk page. The draft was declined by and  and Courtofmiracles98 copy-pasting the same version in main repeatedly. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 03:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The subject author may be promoting the movie Before the Fire. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked. MER-C 16:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Invento Robotics
Editor has not responded to COI notice on their talk page and gone ahead an removed the COI and other maint tags on the article MB 17:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't smell too good. Their only other major edits (other than "grammatical changes") was to Mitra Robot to promote a robot designed by Invento Robotics (which is the 2nd page they've edited on). The page reeks of promotional editing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Page seems AfD-worthy to me, so I've thrown it into the pit. GeneralNotability has left another COI notice on their talk. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * See also, whose contributions overlap and also appear to be pure PR. Guy (help!) 21:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This really does stink of COI. They clearly gamed autoconfirmed (12 fairly minor edits) to be able to publish this directly into mainspace then post a bunch of promotional rubbish. It's since been cleaned up a bit, but they're clearly not declaring their conflict of interest. Waggie (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with the analysis by and others.  This editor clearly gamed the auto confirmed and is only here to publish PR content based on this article and their edits to the Mitra Robot. Their lack of response to the COI notices is strange - hoping they respond and admit their conflict of interest. --  Dane  talk  03:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for spamming. MER-C 08:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hoshinoya


Promotional editing to related articles by multiple editors. Both have been warned; mentioning here because I don't know if there are more articles or editors involved. Hoshinoya may be an AFD or G11, searching hits on dozens of hotel booking sites so it's hard to tell what actual coverage there may be. MB 18:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , another one. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 06:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Movies Time
This is at the top of User:Movies Time.

''Movies Time is a site that brings you the highlights of Movies from past, present, and future. Movies Time also brings you the highlights for entertainment like music and television.''

Okay, so blatant advertising and bad username. So obvious that I deleted the userpage as an ad. But then I looked and that this person has done quite a lot here. So, I'm stumped. The username SEEMS to be an advertisement for the user's YouTube, Instagram, etc., etc. brand name, and the userpage reeks of advertisement.

Advice?

-- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  14:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They have their email and shit on their user page. Is the any policy that states that their username and userpage are problematic? Then they could be renamed? --FFS19 (talk | contribs) 16:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Editor agrees with my reasoning, is petitioning for re-name and promises to remove promotional content from userpage. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  18:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Funding Societies


Glennice.yong did a series of potentially COI edits on the article on 3 July. The edits were reverted and tagged as COI, with the standard COI message left on the user's talk page. Similar edits were made again via IP address on 6 July. Similarly, edits were reverted. – robertsky (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Collabora Online ‎


This editor has disclosed their paid editor status on their userpage, but has also deviated from best practices by 1) writing an article on his product himself in the main space without using WP:AFC and 2) is in the process of adding wikilinks to that article to several list and comparison articles. Thoughts? MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks like the user is now blocked, but the article remains. - MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Ro'ya


Editor repeatedly add un-encyclopedic/promotional info. Has not responded on their talk page. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 14:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this an opportunity to partial block? The user was really pressing the company line, but has now been educated. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 00:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * There has been some further discussion at User talk:Materialscientist. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Peter Schwerdtfeger


User Wranxisys is a single-purpose account editing Peter Schwerdtfeger. They say they are "Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger himself". Their interest in the page is a bit unhealthy, neutrality-wise. Mostly I think they just need to understand that they should leave the page alone and not edit it, at which point the COI template can be removed. The username Paschwer, with 60 edits to the article, has a lot of similarity to the article subject's name. They also uploaded a, with the caption "One of our staff members in 2014 with my own camera:, which implies they are the article subject.

Pinging as they also interacted with this user. Given the long-term COI, use of multiple accounts, lack of disclosure and the fact that they have ignored and not repsonded to a COI warning, this seems like a good candidate for a pBlock. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * ThatMontrealIP I am not Peter Schwerdtfeger, however i know his work. Of course i am not going to deny that "i know the subject" however there is no COI in my edits. The problem with my "bit unhealthy" edits was only in response to Melcous continued addition of "issue" tags to the article without attempting to offer a significant and specific reason(s) why. Apart from the links to articles about COI, reads like résumé etc which are "blanket" reasons. What Melcous fails to understand is that most biographies of living (academic) persons read this like. One can see easily that Melcous edits biographies with a template that is not suitable to academic profiles/articles. I encourage anyone attempting to edit this page to find any real COI with any of the content and/or references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wranxisys (talk • contribs) 03:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello and thanks for your reply. Why did you say in the linked edit above that is was "request from Distinguished Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger himself".ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP in discussion on Melcous talk page. thank you for your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wranxisys (talk • contribs) 04:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have said on my talk page, any further discussion about your conflict of interest,, which you have now acknowledged in at least two different places, should take place here, not there. Melcous (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

User says of the article subject that "I have contacted him and had a long set of discussions with him", and apparently the subject says they won't do it again. The idea that editors are in touch with the article subject is a bit of a bad idea all around. what do you make of that policy-wise, contacting subjects off-wiki?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , it sounds like they knew each other in passing before this, so this isn't exactly a Jytdog situation. I don't think it's a huge issue, we've certainly had cases where editors contacted a biography subject to request a freely-licensed photo or something similar. Might have been better to keep the communication on-wiki, but what's happened has happened. I wouldn't encourage contacting article subjects off-wiki, but I don't think any lines have been crossed. (Also, I think you meant, not Budke). GeneralNotability (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify, Peter_Schwerdtfeger now understands that he is not to edit the article about himself. At least, I think that is what he agreed and I expect him to be bound by it. He clearly did not understand that earlier. Bduke (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Dudva, edits primarily consisting of adding images




Much of user's edits don't make significant contributions to the article prose, but are predominantly pushing/shoehorning their self-created images into articles, and sometimes replacing existing images with their own as a minor with vague comments like "more colours". There might be a conflict of interest of their primary purpose being publicizing their own photographs, which isn't consisting with WP:GALLERY policy.

Here are some examples of their displacement of existing photos with a vague summary Special:Diff/962550137, Special:Diff/962677089 Graywalls (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, adding images one has taken is 100% fine, as long as it is not self-promotion. Whether they are an improvement or not is a content issue. The user also needs to stop marking edits as minor and start leaving edit summaries. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "as long as it is not self-promotion." this is what we're trying to determine. Since images at Wikimedia Commons are Creative Commons licensed, anyone can use any image form existing pool of images there. When a user's edits predominantly consists of findings articles to insert images they have created and sometimes over-writing existing images on subjective ground, I believe we're stepping on the fine line of promotional COI much in the same way as looking for articles to insert citations to your own book. (which should not be happening anyways per WP:GALLERY it could possibly be WP:NOT. This series of edits for example is an introduction of a number of images into an article in which an effort has been underway to trim down on excess images. Graywalls (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying. I looked at the most recent diff that had the edit comment "more colors". Dudva's photo (right) is indeed better and has more colors than the original (right), and Dudva's photo has better composition and more even lighting. I don't see any promotion in it; the image credit is "Dudva". After seeing the image comparison at right, I restored Dudva's image at right. Hope that is OK Graywalls. I would take this as an improvement of the image, in the same way we would overwrite text with something better. But maybe I am missing something? I didn't look at any others. It's quite time-consuming to assess image-based COI!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I also looked at the first diff mentioned above (this one) and Dudva's image was clearly not as good as the original; reverted. I do not think there is much COI or promotion here, beyond a subjective feeling that their image is better than someone else's. Regarding the second diff mentioned in the initial post above, from the images at right, Dudva's is a clear improvement to the article. But they should not have been marking the image additions as minor edits, as it makes it look sneaky. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If these two edits were out of many ordinary contributions, it would be one thing, but look at their contribution as a whole. There's hardly ANY contribution that isn't piling up and exhibiting images they authored into the gallery section of articles. Some target are already overfilled with pictures. Adding sources unrelated to the editor to improve unsourced articles is encouraged, but looking for unsourced, or inadequately articles to mold around sources related to the editor is likely COI. The same may apply when editor goes to look for articles to which they can insert photos they have taken especially when the article does not have encyclopedic merit from having additional photos or there are plenty of photos not related to the editor to tap into in Commons. The possible COI arises from the observation that essentially all their edits consist of inserting their own photos into articles, sometimes a bundle of them at once. Graywalls (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I hear what you are saying, so I went and looked at a dozen more of their image edits or additions. I am not seeing anything but good intentions in their edits. If it is COI, then what are they gaining? The images are all credited to the anonymous Dudva rather than any particular photographer or company. If there is a particular diff that shows COI, it would be good to see that.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Deepak Mittal


SPA not responding to warnings on their talk page and only edits are to create Draft:Deepak Mittal. The draft was declined by multiple users so they choose to post it under Deepak mittal. WP:NOTHERE applies imo. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 12:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Bodiadub

 * SoftServe
 * Biosphere_Corporation
 * Dragon Capital (company)
 * NIX (company)
 * Kvartal 95 Studio
 * Oleg Bakhmatyuk
 * Norebo
 * Andrey Stavnitser
 * Darnitsa (pharmaceutical company)
 * DLC InterChem
 * Draft:DLC InterChem
 * Boris Lozhkin

For everyone's awareness, we worked our way through a pile of possible Bodiadub (long-time UPE) socks in this investigation. I'd appreciate it if folks here could take some time to look through the socks' contributions in case cleanup is required. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a lot of material to go through. It would be really helpful if you at least point in the direction of what you have concerns on. Graywalls (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up Boris Lozhkin back in April over "a bunch of socks". Prior sockfarms included WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Issack.build & WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Claíomh Solais and CU-blocked user:Imrelaxed. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

MCPCG


Articles and drafts are about non notable companies founded by Mason Piscitelli, who was also added to the high school article. User appears to be here primarily to promote Mr. Piscitelli's endeavors. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: Promotions have continued with meat/sockpuppets, as added above. 2601:188:180:B8E0:8582:E7C7:C0B6:2FB7 (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Romesh Wadhwani


Contributions show that the editor has been only active on the article. The editor removed information from the article for "security concerns", giving me the impression that the editor might be working for the Wadhwani family. Super Goose 007 ( Honk! ) 23:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * agree about the likely COI. The edior summarised removal "at child's request". I'd agree with this if this would be about welfare of a minor, e.g. WP:CHILD. However, the subject's daughter is an adult and details of her wedding are widely published, including wedding glamour pics, etc. A sentence about his daughter in this respect are not undue. The editor has been warned correctly. Let's see how they respond. Some of the edits need clean up.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 23:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Easchroeder response to COI--I also put this on my user page but putting this here too, since I'm not totally sure where I'm supposed to be responding.


 * The page for Romesh Wadhwani (the founder and chairman of SAI Group) is wildly out of date. This is coming up this week because the Wadhwani Foundation announced an initiative so people are looking him up on Wikipedia and it incorrectly cites his current role as head of STG. He left STG in 2017.


 * The page is also missing info about the Padma Shri (awarded Feb 2020) and a bunch of other items. I'm happy to provide external citations for each needed change. I don't know how to get the information updated so would love some help in that.


 * My main concern is getting Romesh's info up to date. I do not work for "the Wadhwani Family." I work for SymphonyAI Group.
 * The secondary concern is the mention of Melina and Patrick. Patrick (Melina's husband) works at SAI (so the information about him is wrong anyway). They do want their mention removed from Romesh's bio. I did not say welfare--I said security concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easchroeder (talk • contribs) 00:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, many thanks for the clarification. If you are employed by SymphonyAI, a company founded and led by the subject of the article, you are a paid editor under Wikimedia's terms. Any edits to articles about the company, its products, key personnel, etc. are subject to disclosure. For details, see WP:PAID and WP:COI about how to disclose and suggest edits as paid editor.
 * In a nutshell, the wishes of people connected with the subject are irrelevant as long as there is sufficient publicly available coverage in reliable media and a mention is not undue or otherwise violates Wikipedia's guidelines. If the place of employments of the subject's son in law needs to be corrected, that's fine. Removal of mention is not necessary as there is sufficient coverage about the daughter and her relations. A sentence is not undue weight and it is relevant.
 * Factual updates are fine, but they must be free of puffery. "Fast growing", "leading AI", "driving ... operational excellence", etc. are all marketing hyperbole. Whatever is referenced will also need reliable secondary sources. Company websites, press releases or closely authored articles are not sufficient. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 00:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

EAschroeder responding again: OK. So I don't violate anything, where/how do I put recommended edits to factual info on Romesh? Noted about "puffery." --Easchroeder (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You can make an edit request on the talk page of the article. Create a new section, and put at the top of the section, and that'll put it into the COI request queue for a neutral editor to come and review your suggestions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thank you ProcrastinatingReader -Easchroeder

Cathy Marie Buchanan


Despite and notices on her talk page, she is continuing to add her current and forthcoming works to articles and to edit her own article, adding quite a bit of unsourced or self-sourced material. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Tagged page for COI, added another warning to user page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that user General Notability had already used the extremely handy partial-block button to limit the user's editing of the Cathy Marie Buchanan page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since her response was to go edit other pages and write about her connection to them, I'm going to go ahead and upgrade that to a full block. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

SocialChorus
Hello, I have a conflict of interest related to a software company called SocialChorus, so I don't intend to make any direct edits to Wikipedia myself. I have created a draft for you all to review at User:JeffreyArthurVA/sandboxB. Could an uninvolved editor review this draft and, so long as it meets your criteria, move it to mainspace? This falls into the category of business software companies along the lines of something like Slack_Technologies so if it would be best to bring this over to an area such as WikiProject_Technology I'd be happy to do so. Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for your disclosure. This is not the page to submit articles for review. I moved your draft to draft space and attached an AFC template. You will see a blue button that you can press to put it in the review queue. You need to also look at Paid-contribution_disclosure to make sure that you have the proper disclosures on your talk page, in case this is paid editing. Question: is this paid editing? You should also be disclosing your COI there for the SocialChorus article. Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello and thank you. I will submit it for review through the process you've recommended. I'll clarify that this is not paid editing; I do however know many people in the business software industry, including the founder of this company, so I wanted to err on the side of caution and refrain from making any direct edits myself related to it. Much appreciated. JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the disclosure. It might be wise to put something like the above on your user page. The draft itself is tagged for COI so reviewers know to check carefully, and some other editor will remove that template once they have checked it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do, that is a great idea. I get how important it is to be clear with disclosure so I will update my user page to reflect this. Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , there is an easy template for that, which creates a little box with the COI info on your user page. See item #3 at WP:DISCLOSE.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, that is much cleaner than my bullets. I'll add that. You have been quite helpful -- thank you. JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Toptal


Both accounts have recently edited Toptal. We could be dealing with SPAs with COI. While their edits are not disruptive in nature, it may be worth having the admins remind them of what they can/cannot add to the page considering their COI.
 * Nickhartley27707 - recently added edits in the article and may have close affiliation with the company.
 * Jakozloski - SPA which recently editedthe article. Could be worth looking into whether they're connected or not. Infogapp1 (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You need to notify those editors they are under discussion. You can use the template in the red box at the top of this page. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's done. thanks — Infogapp1 (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I imagine both accounts are related to the subject, but tidying up an image isn't too big of an issue (though I've left a paid note on their talk). I'd say just keep an eye on the page. As a sidenote, do note that you shouldn't out other editors; that comment was suppressed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes. Thanks for the reminder and it's noted. I meant for it to make it easier to double-check the report (like the requirement for diffs), and shouldn't happen in future reports. — Infogapp1 (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Naked Elvis


Good day everyone! I recently reverted flagged for  after adding a self-promotional external link to the article Naked Elvis. After that, the user dropped by my talk page to demand that I revert my previous revert of his edit, in doing so admitting that he is personally interested in the page, as he himseld played Naked Elvis as seen in this talk page discussion. I came across said edit as I am currently enrolled in the CVUA program and would like to know if the situation is a potential conflict of interest problem.

Gardo Versace (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , as COIs go, this isn't that bad. That doesn't mean the link is appropriate, however; off the top of my head it violates WP:ELNOT and WP:YOUTUBE, especially the latter - Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying that up. Will ping so that he'd also be aware why I removed that link in the first place. Warmest regards 15:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

New York City Police Department
The New York City Police Department has had issues with confirmed COI accounts recently. Today, a freshly created account started a RfC, which leads me to wonder whether COI accounts are allowed to start RfCs, as opposed to making edit requests? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is not hard evidence that is a COI account as far as I can see, but an SPI is in order if you suspect they are abusing multiple accounts. Added links and notified.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Katey Cattlehand Pluck
Article Katey Cattlehand Pluck has been edited by User:Katey-cattlehand-pluck, including adding herself to the 1993 and February 3 articles. Editor identifies herself as the subject of the article in this edit, saying This article is about me, including my childhood memories.

I'm not convinced the article meets WP:GNG, but I'm not going to pursue that until we deal with the potential COI of a person editing her own article. <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 21:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's already at AFD and doesn't look long for this site. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 22:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , please note that you must notify editors when you discuss them at this noticeboard. I've taken care of it for you this time. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Bnguyen1114 and Kamala Harris


Previous discussion on the Kamala Harris talkpage.

This situation arose because The Intercept wrote a piece called There’s a War Going On Over Kamala Harris’s Wikipedia Page, With Unflattering Elements Vanishing on July 2, 2020. was mentioned in the article by his username only. On his talkpage, Bnguyen1114 has stated that he has been doxxed as a result of the article.

Bnguyen1114 himself has said the following about his possible COI on-wiki:
 * I'm just a constituent of Kamala Harris who volunteers for Democratic candidates
 * a California Democrat who has worked in a volunteer capacity for many candidates
 * I am not affiliated with the Harris campaign, but I do volunteer and attend Democratic events

However, the material which cannot be linked here due to WP:OUTING, actually details that he had a far more direct COI while editing the Kamala Harris pages.

WMF CEO Katherine Maher also has commented this issue in Twitter and stated that conflict of interest editing is against Wikipedia policies.

So far Bnguyen1114 has continued to edit the Kamala Harris talkpage. If the nature of his COI is more than "just a constituent" per the information elsewhere, how to proceed? Should functionaries process the private evidence?

In any case, the COI is "apparent" without a doubt. His 200 first edits were adding endorsements to the Kamala Harris campaign.--Pudeo (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Being a member of the Democrat party, heck even volunteering for Democrat party events isn't a COI. A lot of people might be members of a political party, it costs a few bucks to be one and doesn't carry really any obligations.
 * You mention that you have private information which can show a COI, which cannot be posted here due to WP:OUTING. You can email your information to: paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Private information can be sent here, volunteers for that email address are bound by confidentiality agreements. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I sent them an email. --Pudeo (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I request that an administrator delete 's sentence invoking the authority of Katherine Maher. Given her status as chief executive officer and executive director of Wikimedia Foundation, which owns and hosts Wikipedia, Maher's public off-wiki insinuation that is guilty of conflict of interest editing is outrageously prejudicial and should have no place in this COI discussion. NedFausa (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to object to Maher's statement; you are not welcome to edit another's comments to remove the statement. ElKevbo (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I will note that Bnguyen1114 has recused themselves from editing Kamala Harris due to an apparent COI. Unless there is proof of paid editing, I'm not sure what the goal is here. PrimaPrime (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the goal in throwing Bnguyen1114 under the bus is twofold: signal Wikipedia's virtue and appease The Intercept. Such are the times we live in. NedFausa (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * He hasn't really recused, he said that he will recuse "until some editors go through it". Since then he has participated on the talkpage and argued about content. Plus, he has racked up hundreds of edits which will need to scrutunized if there is a COI. That's what this noticeboard is good for. --Pudeo (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since 's last edit, four dozen unique editors have closely scrutinized Kamala Harris and cumulatively made nearly 200 good-faith contributions. It's absurd to suggest that your COI noticeboard report, filed five days after The Intercept′s exposé, was needed to remediate his overzealousness. Repairs are ongoing and will continue just fine without formally scapegoating our fellow editor. NedFausa (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't really been active other than adding Robert Redford and Ady Barkan's endorsement to Joe Biden's page. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to say I will recuse indefinitely? I will recuse indefinitely. What more do you need to know about me? In 2017, I donated money to Ralph Northam. In 2018, I wrote letters, phonebanked, and textbanked for Claire McCaskill. In 2018, I volunteered to knock doors for Josh Harder. In 2019, I volunteered on Kamala Harris' presidential campaign. In 2020, I phonebanked for Joe Biden's presidential campaign in the run up to the New Hampshire primary. I've taken pictures with Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Jill Biden, and Jay Inslee. I mean seriously, I'm an open book, people. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for that information. The above means you have a conflict of interest in relation to these people and you should not edit articles about them on Wikipedia. You're welcome to make suggestions on the talk pages, but you should signal your COI when you do. SarahSV (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for being up front. Can I just ask, did you do any of the editing in coordination with the Harris campaign? You have said earlier that you have volunteered for them, but the siginficant issue in situations like this is whether there was any coordination or direction. It sounds like there isn't, but just to be clear it would be good to know. Thanks for bearing with us here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course there's no coordination. As I've explained before, I worked this project while in quarantine with long stretches of free time. I haven't been anywhere since the Stay At Home orders have been issued, not even my own office. I saw that Harris' page missed a great deal of information, so I began adding it on my own initiative. The same way I started adding campaign endorsements to hers and Joe Biden's page when the primary was still going on. Moreover, there is no Harris campaign. She suspended in December. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Thanks to Bnguyen, to Slim, and to user:Drmies who I think summed up Bnguyen's edits quite well with this comment: "Bnguyen seemed to be a COI editor who's prime interest was the flooding of these articles with every bit of information, whether relevant, reasonable, well-sourced or not--not overly promotional stuff, or I would have blocked them, but just too much stuff. It's the kind of editing that turns articles into swamps." It was my impression that this editor did not intend to bias the article but perhaps (and hopefully) unknowingly put in so much "stuff" that the article was indeed swamped.  I know that I tried to wade into that swamp to improve the article several times but quickly felt I was being sucked under in quicksand and could not go on.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is the right outcome. Restricting Bnguyen1114 as an arbitration-enforcement action from editing articles having anything to do with Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Claire McCaskill, Josh Harder, and their opponents, based on Bnguyen1114's self-disclosure, is reasonable. Since he is not blocked, Bnguyen1114 may now contribute to Wikipedia however he likes, providing he does not breach the limited restrictions that SarahSV has imposed—and, of course, adheres to our other policies and guidelines. NedFausa (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please confirm this is a permanent sanction. If so, I will abide by it, though I don't think there's any reason for me to contribute to any wiki article going forward if this is how volunteerism is rewarded. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You've only been restricted from editing a dozen or less articles. There are still 6,117,931 ( that's 6,117,943 - 12) articles that you are free to edit.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I take your point, but your count is way low. Bnguyen1114 is restricted from editing articles having anything to do with Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Claire McCaskill, Josh Harder, and their opponents. Wikipedia presently mentions Joe Biden in 2,620 articles, Kamala Harris in 815, Claire McCaskill in 379, and Josh Harder in 138. And their opponents! My god, Biden's likely opponent in November, a guy named Trump, is mentioned in 18,549 articles. NedFausa (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That sill leaves millions! Lots of volunteer opportunities.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, just seven hours after administrator imposed arbitration-enforcement restrictions on him,  has defiantly flouted those restrictions with this edit. By thumbing his nose at our COI process, Bnguyen1114 has earned an indefinite site block. NedFausa (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks from the block log like it's actually a one-week block, not an indefinite block. No matter; a one-week block is sufficient for now. —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

wikiprofessionals inc
Posting this here as a courtesy; it was originally posted at the Teahouse.
 * Articles
 * (Pages listed in the Wikiprofessionalsinc.com portfolio)
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors
 * Editors

"Hello fellow Wikipedians, I would like to report a couple undisclosed editors working for a company called wikiprofessionals inc. They have an online profolio (can't post link because it won't let me due to the filter) and that the page creators from the page creation log does not appear to have disclosed their editing. I also had a live chat with a rep and that they have admitted these accounts, but claim it is allowed. On their FAQ, they say that wp:iarpermits them to do so, except they actually don't. What should I do now? The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 11:21 am, Today (UTC−7) (reply)"

We don't have a list of involved editors or an article list to look at;, perhaps you could post below if yoiu know of any involved editors or articles?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I practically have a incomplete list! They have a profolio at (can't post link because of blacklist) and that they are all page creations.  so, one could look into the page creation log of each one of the pages and find out.  The thing is, there are way too many people and I am quite busy at this time.  I would also like to post a excerpt of my conversation with the company here:


 * (The rep admits one and Denys one of the accounts.) So, that is the evidence for now.  Also, it would be very helpful if someone could look through the page creation log of all of the pages in the profolio. BTW I'm Joe and it is not my real name  The creeper2007Talk!   Be well, stay safe 19:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will notify those users. I am not sure if what they say is true or not. It would be quite easy for them to pick any editor and say "this is one of our paid editors?.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, that's not all, there are much more because that they have a profolio that we can track with the page creation log, but I can't post the link due to blacklist. The creeper2007Talk!  Be well, stay safe 19:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You can add the names of the pages they claim to have edited, just paste them into a post here without the actual link to the portfolio page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sure there is also a friendly admin who would receive the link by email.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Probe them a bit. Ask them if I am an account they use to edit Wikipedia.  We all know where my affiliation are so it will be a way to test and see if they are honest about it. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 20:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Like, should I ask them if they use your account to edit? Not sure what you mean  The creeper2007Talk!  Be well, stay safe 20:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes. Exactly. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 20:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * After a long conversation, they said that they did not use your account to edit. Here's the transcript:


 * I'm John in this instance. The creeper2007Talk!  Be well, stay safe 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , so this likely increases the chance that they are telling the truth about the first two users. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 21:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the portfolio of articles, you don't have to paste the whole link. Just remove the part from the beginning through "wikiprofessionalsinc.com" and post the rest. Or you could just paste the list of articles (though this is not as good as having the links to them). —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 21:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help! The portfolio's address is wikiprofessionalsinc(dot)com/wiki-portfolio/  The creeper2007Talk!  Be well, stay safe 21:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is an admin looking at this already, or is there any value to my posting the list of articles and/or researching the contributors? It doesn't seem as simple as looking at page creator (though for many of them, it is). —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 22:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added the list of articles at the top of this section. These are the ones that they mention in the portfolio link. Who knows if these pages have any COI or paid editing at all, as they could easily say something was their product when it is not, but it bears examination.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with ThatMontrealIP - there is no way to be sure that they aren't lying about what work they've done to impress potential clients. Neil Young? Really? BD2412  T 00:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's linked to the wrong Neil Young. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 02:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you know which Neil Young it is (or which spelling of Neil Young)? I'll pick a handful of these to look over. BD2412  T 02:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: I went to the website, and I see four testimonials there, from Sam Alvey, Ekaterina Zakharieva, Full Tilt Poker, and Dechert. BD2412  T 02:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Alvay, for example, was created by User:Udar55 and largely expanded by User:Ppt1973, both of whom seem to have been a fairly consistent MMA editors since long before this article was created. If there was paid editing in the article at all, it was probably something more minute, like adding or removing some key item. BD2412  T 02:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I did create Sam Alvey's Wiki page, but have created a ton of MMA fighter pages. However, I have no idea who or what this company is. Udar55 (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have corrected that one as it have should read Neil Young (video game executive). I checked the others and they are correctly named. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Created by User:HappyKatsu, which looks like a fairly shady account. Their second-ever edit was this highly precocious addition of a ref tag (I didn't even learn the | trick myself until I had been here for several years). They made 265 edits over a period from November 2017 to July 2018, and their created pages were Brian Farrell (video game executive), Frank Gibeau, Project Alamo, Mike Verdu, Aaron Loeb, ‎Kevin Chou, Eric Schiermeyer, Roger Dickey, Bill Jackson (video game designer), Neil Young (video game executive), John Schappert (video game executive), and Mark Skaggs. These are all in the area of video game design or social media operation, and each one is created with an edit asserting the notability of the subject (e.g., "Added Kevin Chou page, notable for founding Kabam and growing it to over $400MM in revenue and then selling it for between $700MM-$1B. Also notable for his foray into eSports with the Overwatch League and the $25MM pledge to UC Berkeley"). BD2412  T 03:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , can you tell me how to find their portfolio? BD2412  T 03:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Here you go! Also, again, this link is not linked to. The chat rep gave it to me. wikiprofessionalsinc(dot)com/wiki-portfolio/  The creeper2007Talk!   Be well, stay safe 03:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Very glossy. I have no confidence in their honesty in putting out this list, but I will go through them all, probably a handful per day for the next week or so, and I'll flag those that are suspicious. If User:HappyKatsu is a model, they are using dedicated throwaway accounts to make groups of articles within a relatively narrow field, and each account will have a disproportionate number of articles created relative to their total number of edits (i.e., very few edits to topics other than their own created articles, with those tending to be the addition of links pointing to the created articles). BD2412  T 03:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree about having no confidence about what they are claiming. At the same time, the video exec biographies that you point out above do have the atmosphere of promotional/paid editing. Such an easy business to start: they have millions of example articles they can claim as their own.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I looked through a few of the users, many appear to to make 10 edits marked minor and then start creating the page, and then cease editing  The creeper2007Talk!  Be well, stay safe 04:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Investigation of wikiprofessionals inc
Note: Articles believed to have been created by this entity (or otherwise under COI circumstances) are marked [X]. BD2412 T 22:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * [X] Wissam Al Mana was created by User:Qatar1123, who only made a handful of edits, mostly that page and then disappeared. Funny story: the second edit to that page was by me, gnoming away at disambiguation links.
 * Anne-Marie Baiynd was created by User:Gene Hobbs, a long-time well-established editor in the area who was around from 2006 to 2018. Other than a few IP edits, the rest of the editors who have contributed to the article are equally known. I would not consider this a likely candidate for paid editing.
 * Ciro Guerra was created by User:Lugnuts, a well-established Wikipedian, and was created well before the period in which this company seems to be active. If there's paid editing going on with this article, it would be somewhere later in its history.
 * Thanks BD2412. Looking at the edit history, I created this back in 2009, inline with a load of films and directors linked to the 2009 Cannes Film Festival. If you need any more info from me, just ping/drop me a note. Thanks again.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The one thing I would ask is that you take a quick look at the page history and see if there is any obvious removal of negative content or addition of boosterish content. Cheers! BD2412  T 14:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * [X] Gaby Natale was created in draftspace by an IP, and then twice declined as a draft before being promoted to article space by User:Leran Chip, whose only edits were to that article. This sort of bespeaks the problem of allowing any editor to come along and make a handful of edits and then be able to promote previously declined drafts to mainspace. Tagged as COI.
 * [X] David F. D'Alessandro was created by User:Tegeril, whose grand total of 16 edits were almost entirely to that article. Tagged as COI. BD2412  T 05:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * [X] Rachel Cruze is one of five articles created by User:BloominOnion27 between July 2015 and April 2017; the others are Avrom Honig, Mustaq Ahmad, John Carrafiell, and Academy of Art University Automobile Museum, all of which are suspiciously boosterish and commercial-focused.
 * Rick Riordan is a fairly famous author (the Percy Jackson and the Olympians series), and was created in 2006, with no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
 * Aliko Dangote, also created in 2006, with plenty of back-and-forth but no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
 * [X] Shaherose Charania, created in 2011 (so a bit early) by User:Virgilia.singh, whose only two edits were the creation of this article.
 * The subject of this article also founded Women 2.0, which was subject to likely COI editing by user (if any doubt, confirmation of paid editing in Special:Diff/444348620, indication of copyvio in Special:Diff/444383518) as well as possibly . ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Gavin Arthur, created in 2013, is the grandson of President Chester A. Arthur. It was created by a well-established Wikipedian, and has no obvious paid editing in its edit history. BD2412  T 14:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Should we open a SPI into the matter? Super Goose 007  ( Honk! ) 15:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, there would likely to be groups of socks from each ip. also, it is also likely that they have teamed up with well established Wikipedians. Please see transcript below:

Joe: like it is a part of the company? Will: No but We have good relations with them since long time Joe: Like are you paying them to edit? Will: Yes Joe: ok then.
 * In the discussion about the users the company uses*


 * It can't hurt, but let me finish going through these initially so I can pull out all the suspicious editors. BD2412  T 15:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , perhaps pop like a [X] or something before suspicious entries, so the 'likely not related' entries can be distinguished from the 'perhaps problematic' ones? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will do that when I get through the list. Almost done. BD2412  T 16:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * : SPI filed at Sockpuppet investigations/Belmop. Cheers! BD2412  T 23:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Next group: BD2412 T 15:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * [X] James D. Marks, created in 2012 by User:Danielj55, whose only edits appear to revolve around the creation of this article, and making links to it.
 * Ali Azayku, created in 2007, with no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
 * Ben de Lisi, created in 2009, with no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
 * Helen DeVos, created in 2017, but by User:Edwardx a well-established Wikipedian, and has no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
 * Robert Citrone, also created in 2017 by User:Edwardx, and has no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
 * [X] Pete Flint, created in 2014 by User:Edcowin, whose only edits appear to revolve around the creation of this article, and making links to it.
 * [X] Linx Cargo Care Group, created in 2018 by named paid editor User:Belmop
 * [X] Standard Media, created in 2019 by User:Spizbo, who only made a handful of edits, mostly related to this and another company, Media General.
 * Should probably be merged into a section at Media General, who acquired them, anyway. Insufficient notability on its own. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * [X] Odibets, created in 2019 by User:Kripticjay, who only made a handful of edits, mostly related to this topic (which is their only page creation).
 * [X] XING Mobility, created in 2018 by User:Sam.w.90, who made fewer than two dozen edits, many related to this topic.
 * Big Red Group, created in 2017 by a well-established Wikipedian, and has no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
 * Caliburn International, created in 2019 by a well-established Wikipedian, and has no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
 * Dreamscape Immersive, created in 2017 by a well-established Wikipedian, and has no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
 * Blendtec, created as a redirect in 2006, and expanded into an article in 2010, no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
 * [X] Russell McVeagh, created in 2006 by User:Lawgeek18, who had all of seven edits (of which three were page creations in the New Zealand legal services area). There was an attempt to introduce promotional content in 2017 by User:Tessatelle, who only ever edited this article.
 * Do you think I should alert the company after the investigations(so they won't interfere) to give them a chance to provide their thoughts on this matter? The creeper2007Talk!  Be well, stay safe 17:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point, frankly. They are up front about their claimed activities, so what is there for them to explain? BD2412  T 17:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is, you would never know if there is something until you ask  The creeper2007Talk!  Be well, stay safe 20:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, this is true. On the other hand, presuming that they do not yet know of this investigation, we don't want to give them an opportunity to cover their tracks, to the extent such a thing is possible here. I imagine that if we are able to query some of their current work, that will alert them enough. BD2412  T 20:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

If User:Lawgeek18 is one of their paid editors, then we need to list the other two articles created by that user. Or am I missing something? Thanks.  Schwede 66  20:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * [X] Fay Richwhite
 * [X] David Richwhite
 * It is not possible for User:Lawgeek18 to have been one of their paid editors, since all of that editor's edits were performed in 2006. The issue with the article, Russell McVeagh, is that it appears to have later SPA editing. BD2412  T 20:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck the above additions. But in that case, I don't understand the purpose of the [X].  Schwede 66  20:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Last group: BD2412 T 17:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hornblower & Marshall, created in 2011 by a well-established editor, an historic architecture firm and not at all a candidate for paid editing.
 * [X] Delivery Hero, created in 2012 by User:Ponpinketo (user's only two edits were to create this), and has had much activity from short-lived SPAs (User:Margarita77; User:CaroStephenson who also worked on Hungryhouse; User:213.61.228.26; blocked sock User:Kshitizgarg45; User:Stanislavlabamba; and several other blocked accounts or single-edit accounts).
 * [X] BATS Chi-X Europe, created in 2007 (before our time frame) by User:Cyrus.kapadia, whose only edits were the creation of this article. Some other suspicious accounts in the edit history are User:MarkWDowd and User:SCL2010, both highly focused on this article and adding promotional content.
 * [X] Brown & Brown, created in 2012 by blocked sock User:Candleabracadabra. Some other SPAs (e.g. User:Zenglhtao2012) are also in the edit history.
 * [X] TheBlaze (since moved to Blaze Media), created in 2010 by User:Difluoroethene (now blocked by his own request as "retired"), some suspicious SPA/low-edit accounts in the article history (e.g., User:Gwvest, User:Yestetyear, User:38.92.73.174, User:96.229.11.125).
 * [X] Firefly Aerospace, created in 2014 by User:Chris prophet, as one of only a handful of edits.
 * [X] Day Software, created in 2007 by User:David.nuescheler, as one of only a handful of edits.
 * [X] Pedego Electric Bikes, created in 2015 by User:EBikePro, as one of only a handful of edits.
 * VinFast, created in 2018 by a well-established editor no obvious paid editing in its edit history.

Arbitrary break
I'm going to propose deletion of several under WP:G5 criterion. It might help if we had a formal community ban of this outfit, if there isn't one already. I looked at WP:AN and didn't see one (yet). ☆ Bri (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. Super Goose 007  ( Honk! ) 21:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that some of the stuff they claim to have created is junk, and who knows what the quality is of stuff they haven't claimed, I strongly agree. BD2412  T 22:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Moving to WP:AN to generate wider consensus. Super Goose 007  ( Honk! ) 23:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly confused what's going on here. As I said at AN, Administrators' noticeboard, Russell McVeagh was created in 2006. The editor was only active for that short time, so paid editing can't be ruled out, but if this farm only came about in the early 2010s, how on earth would they be responsible? The other major edits are by User:Tessatelle who may have had a COI but seems to have failed (rejected by User:Drmies), Special:Contributions/Sammy2008 who seems to have a wide ranging interest in NZ (and Tongan) law over a long period of time i.e. probably wasn't a paid editor, an IP from the Lower Hutt library system [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:122.56.100.98&diff=875494153&oldid=869239567] and Special:Contributions/MarkoMetal who seems to have been identified as editing for Wikiprofessionals Inc back in 2018. But that editor is interesting because they added [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russell_McVeagh&diff=prev&oldid=828258131]? As I said at AN, would the law firm pay to add that to the article on them? I guess it's possible it was recognised there was no way it wouldn't be covered so they tried to add something as innocuous as possible before someone else did, but IMO there are many open questions about who is paid who for what in that article. Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned this discussion and the AN one at New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In the conversation it is mentioned that HappyKatsu is involved, but Belmop is not a "named paid editor"; also Standard Media is a subsidiary of Standard General, not of Media General (which was sold to another company before Standard Media was founded). It's also possible that this is just a random list of articles and accounts provided as an experiment to see what is deleted and what isn't. Peter James (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC outcome
RfC just ended with a site ban for WikiProfessionals. Plus, anything they created is eligible for deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Additional articles

 * (tagged, UPE evidence emailed)
 * The article Alaba Lawson is claimed by the firm, I need to send off-wiki evidence. Is there an admin who wants it? given your deletion nom of an article by same creator, maybe you are interested? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you would be better off directly contacting admins, because that this thread is moved to AN and was closed.  The creeper2007Talk!  Be well, stay safe 22:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I sent my evidence via email to paid-en-wp and will tag it g5 for any admin to consider. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * G5 tag was removed by article creator, apparently before the evidence has been considered. Certainly before there has been a response to the evidence by a third party. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * G5 tag was removed by article creator, apparently before the evidence has been considered. Certainly before there has been a response to the evidence by a third party. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Another one – according to, Delyan Peevski is linked to the same firm, also through a customer testimonial . Bri.public (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)