Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 171

Tenebrae


Additional possible conflicts of interest:
 * (an edition was published by Apex Comics, which Lovece has a part of)
 * (Lovece "oversaw" the production of God Woke, Nicieza was co-author)
 * (Lovece "oversaw" the production of God Woke, Lee was co-author)
 * (Lovece's current employer)
 * (comic written by Lovece)
 * (published Atomic Age)
 * (Atomic Age co-author)
 * (Lovece co-wrote " Hailing Taxi: The Official Book of the Show")
 * (Lovece wrote "The X-Files Declassified")
 * (Lovece was author)
 * (artist for Hokum & Hex)
 * (published Hokum & Hex, imprint of Marvel}
 * (published Lovece}
 * (Lovece was author)
 * (Lovece wrote for it)
 * (both Lovece and McDonagh wrote for it)

The Arbitration Committee has published a motion indefinitely banning from mainspace edits (broadly construed) to Frank Lovece and Maitland McDonagh "due to a conflict of interest". The committee was apparently contacted by multiple editors following publication of an article in The Daily Dot. The motion does not make clear or even hint at the extent of Tenebrae's 15 year history of promoting Frank Lovece.

I compiled this list mostly just by going through Frank Lovece and looking at some of the blue links. It does not include the literally hundreds of references to Lovece in articles, generally as a film critic (currently 379 hits for "Lovece, Frank" and 104 hits for "Frank Lovece"). I'm starting a discussion here in hope that a more complete list can be generated and the articles checked over. Mo Billings (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * is probably a better starting point than those. Izno (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Lovece without the Frank appears to be mostly false positives . Izno (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Try 'Lovece' and 'Newsday'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that Tenebrae previously admitted to editing as an IP in a manner which led to a block. It should also be noted that an external source (the Daily Dot linked above) has linked Tenebrae with several other IPs and named accounts, such editing similarly promoting Lovece and his employer Newsday. While any sockpuppet investigation might well be turned down as 'stale', I would suggest that the circumstantial evidence for socking to promote a CoI might be seen as a great deal stronger than is customarily seen as sufficient to sanction a contributor with less history. Such edits also merit investigation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I've edited out the link to the article, because I think that leaving such a link likely violates the WP:OUTING policy. I hasten to add that I don't think that anyone did anything with bad intent, and admittedly, the decision by ArbCom comes awfully close to saying the same thing. It's enough to say that Tenebrae has an apparent COI here, without getting into who Tenebrae might or might not actually be in real life. I hope that no one will restore the link. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You have got to be kidding. The Daily Dot article on the Tenebrae COI issue is already out there. It has been published. In a source widely cited as 'RS' by Wikipedia. An ArbCom member has just, on an external forum, issued thanks to those partly responsible for its publication (I'll not link it, but I'm sure you can figure out where). Not linking the Daily Dot here seems like sheer pettiness at best, or an attempt to sweep the matter under the carpet at worst. Per WP:AGF, I'm going to assume the former. I suggest you reconsider. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We have advised the oversight team that after careful review, we do not believe linking to the article constitutes suppressible outing. The article includes Frank Lovece's denial that he is Tenebrae, and per WP:RSP the Daily Dot is considered a generally reliable source for internet culture. Whether any link to the article should be on-wiki is therefore purely an editorial decision. It really does not matter if Lovece and Tenebrae are the same person or not, the COI is manifest and well documented. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Per the above, the Daily Dot article can be found here: . AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've restored the link in my original post. Since it was used on the ArbCom talk page where the motion was being discussed, I assumed that there would be no issue using it here. Mo Billings (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I was not kidding, but after the clarification from Beeblebrox, I'm fine with the link being restored. Wikipedia quite properly takes the harassment policy very seriously, and it's reasonable to be cautious. As I said before, I don't think anyone did anything wrong. And I apologize to anyone who felt that this got in the way of the discussion here. We are all just trying to do the best that we can. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In order to satisfy the confusion over the application of WP:OUTING I have started a discussion here to alter the policy such that this situation doesnt continue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Just a note that the sanction is: "Due to a conflict of interest, User:Tenebrae is indefinitely banned from any mainspace edits related to Frank Lovece or Maitland McDonagh, broadly construed", not just from the Frank Lovece or Maitland McDonagh articles themselves. So it should already cover the articles listed above which have a direct connection to one or the other. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It should probably be pointed out at this juncture that even if Tenebrae never edits Wikipedia again, the successful 'product placement' of Lovece and his employer into many highly-visible articles is going to stand, unless something is actively done to rectify it. I see no reason to assume that Lovece isn't capable of writing competent movie reviews etc, but I likewise see no reason to assume that where it not for Tenebrae's efforts, other equally-competent reviewers might have been cited instead, in a more balanced (or at least less blatantly unbalanced) manner. This isn't just a problem with a contributor, it is a problem with the way Wikipedia articles have been systematically misused. They need fixing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. He even inserted McDonagh into the lead of Tenebrae (film), which seems especially egregious. I've removed that one. But yes, I think the chronic promotion should be undone (though I'll have precious little time to help, myself, unfortunately). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , just coming to this. I’m not in a position to organize an effort for some nearly 400 articles, but if someone did, I could help rewrite movie review sections. Feel free (you or whomever) to ping me. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to recommend that folks take a look at the thread posted my at WT:Harassment. I do have a COI concerning this discussion in that I write about similar situations in The Signpost. The possible addition 'Add a sentence to outing (this is an example) that states that the section "does not apply when reliable sources have made the connection between a wikipedia article and a wikipedia editor engaging in COI editing." ' would help in general, but I believe that would usually be allowed now for the type of PAID/COI story I write about. The only thing that concerns me is that when you add something as sensible and concrete as that then some people conclude that the addition is the absolute limit, whereas I think there's a bit more allowable. I'll give 3 concrete examples that may be in the next issue:
 * High gov't official and Wikipedia named in multiple RS, the affected articles very obvious. (No problem IMHO)
 * Notable person receives gov't benefit. COI editor named here and in SPI investigation and indef blocked. (be careful, but should be publishable in SP)
 * Criminal indictment, Wikipedia not named in press but major PR effort by the firm is. Had been mentioned here, and *mirrors* a previous case mentioned in the Signpost. Enough for me to investigate. One declared paid editor editing the article, many SPAs, a few socks blocked for other articles also edit the article. (be very, very careful but should be OK for The Signpost. No outing because just 2 real world names (the indicted people - now on the lam, who probably aren't the Wikipedia editors) and no workplace given except possibly a company that has been bankrupt and closed for 2 years.) Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As a note, I do not think the policy considerations should be discussed here. WT:HARASS seems to have a start on it already, and I expect WT:COI not far behind. COIN should be for the notification and/or possible cleanup associated with this case. Izno (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned at WT:Harassment#Outing I'm reluctant to change the rules to allow outing in cases of COI. However, paid editing situations do pose an interesting situation. Here we have not a violation of a guideline but of the Foundation's terms of use and Wikipedia policy. That's a different kettle of fish. I think that Smallbones raises some good points above. Coretheapple (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * FYI: . --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Journalism_and_the_online_information_community.pdf this demonstrates, surely, is that whistleblowers observing a situation like this should not waste their time here, but do what whistleblowers everywhere do: go to the press. That tends to galvanise action within Wikipedia more than years of wrangling.
 * Generally, there is a shortage of in-depth reporting on Wikipedia (see WikiConference USA presentation right) – partly because Wikipedia is fairly impenetrable to outsiders, but partly also because Wikipedians rarely reach out to the press. The resulting lack of public scrutiny is ultimately to Wikipedia's detriment.
 * I hope to see more Daily Dot articles by Michael in the future! --Andreas JN 466 17:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor at the very top of that WikiConference USA list runs a paid editing service. Was there much discussion about in-depth investigative reporting into paid editing? Coretheapple (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, with prominent examples: WikiPR (another story broken by the Daily Dot that was going nowhere in Wikipedia itself), Orangemoody and the IIPM – which you wouldn't have to ask me about if you'd bothered to read it (Slides 11 to 12). As for William, he runs a white-hat service and is two of my favourite Wikipedians (User:WWB, User:WWB Too). Do you have a problem with him? --Andreas JN 466 20:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I also was wondering if you felt there was a conflict of interest in the Daily Dot article being authored by a banned editor who had a problem with Tenebrae. That OK? No problem there? I think it's peculiar. I don't see most reputable publications allowing that degree of COI. Don't get me wrong, after wading through the two garbage biographical articles at the top of this section, I feel no sympathy for Tenebrae whatsoever. Coretheapple (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, then please consider the fact that if it hadn't been for Michael, this fellow would most likely have been at it for the next fifteen years, constantly massaging those biographies. It took that Daily Dot article to get things moving here in Wikipedia, just like it took the "sockpuppet army" article to get the WMF to move on paid advocacy. The Wiki-PR situation had been known for over a year, and nothing was done until the Daily Dot article dropped. Within months, the WMF terms of use were updated. Things are better as a result of that story, which is basically my point.
 * Now, the Daily Dot article on Tenebrae actually provided a disclosure of Michael's involvement here, including his ban. This is more than Wikipedia did all those years with Tenebrae's favourite articles. And in the world outside Wikipedia no one cares whether someone is banned here. Moreover, many of the journalists covering Trump, or Zuckerberg, or whoever, "have a problem" with the gentlemen in question. Think about Mahesh Peri, the journalist who first went after IIPM in India, at considerable cost to himself, including libel suits – should he have stopped writing about IIPM because he "had a problem" with them, and thus a "degree of COI"? Hell no. This sort of history is why and how some people become investigative reporters, and good ones too. Without Peri, IIPM and Wifione would still be at it. --Andreas JN 466 23:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If Wikipedia starts discounting external sources because the author 'has a problem' with a Wikipedian, or because the author is banned here, it may as well give up any pretence whatsoever at neutrality (i.e. assessing sources according to their credibility for what they say, not the specifics of who they are saying it about), and rename itself the Wikipedia Chum's Mutual Protection Society. Tenebrae is now banned because external sources aren't obliged to behave according to the rules (inevitiably applied in a partial manner - see how frequently less-connected contributors get 'outed' and booted off for 'CoI' without anyone blinking an eye) that the 'community' has set up to protect it's own anonymity at the expense (as demonstrated here) of its trustworthiness as an encyclopaedia. The internal system failed, miserably, to do anything about an issue which has been self-evident to outsiders for years. Or rather, it did something about it, by handing out bans etc to those that pointed out the problem. Rejecting sources because they point out that Wikipedia has been sweeping things under the carpet really wouldn't look good. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * To me COI is akin to a minefield. Once the mines care cleared, you can deal with the problems in articles without COI editors breathing down your neck. The question is how do you clear the mines? That's what it comes down to. Using the "reporting" of banned editors out to settle an old score smells to me. It doesn't make the COI less toxic but I still don't like it. That's all. Your mileage may differ. If you feel that strongly about Tenebrae, perhaps you could join me in cleaning up the crap he left behind? Coretheapple (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of a specific conflict between Tenebrae and Hillbillyholiday, but a search pulls up these two discussions at ANI from 2017 and 2018. Tenebrae appears to be a minor player in the dispute. I suggest that the comments of Frank Lovece regarding the motivation for the Daily Dot article may be self-serving. Mo Billings (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The author's conflict with Tenebrae is acknowledged in a note appended after the Dot article appeared. Quoted above. So happy there is so much passion over this. I trust that all those messes Tenebrae created will be cleaned up real fast now. I'm taking Maitland McDonagh off my watchlist, as I have every confidence that its sourcing and tone issues will be rectified without further delay. Don't bother nominating it for deletion, as that was just tried unsuccessfully. I suggest running database searches. I noticed that there was no mention of the article subject's father, who was very prominent, far more prominent than her. That was an odd omission and perhaps there are others. Have fun! Coretheapple (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to take your comment. Is it intended as sarcasm? In any case, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Mo Billings (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the other articles at the top of this section, as they are out of my area of interest, but the two BLPs (Lovese and McDonagh) need work. Their sourcing is shaky, the tone of the latter is promotional, and both may benefit from being stubbed.  Coretheapple (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Tank Cleaner


User:Redi Productions created Draft:Tank Cleaner on 24 February but was soon soft blocked for username violation and immediately User:PavinderWraich continues editing it, removing review comments on several occasions and being warned about COI editing here, here, here, here and here by User:Spiderone. Redi Productions is the name of the company producing the film Tank Cleaner and Pavinder Wraich is the director and the author of the screen play. No response has been made to any of the warnings and despite the warnings Draft:Tank Cleaner was again submitted for review at AfC.  Velella  Velella Talk 13:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * you need to notify the user ParvinderWraich mentioned above. See top of this page. Possibly (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies. Now done.  Velella  Velella Talk 21:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ParvinderWraich has ignored every warning and still hasn't declared their obvious UPE. Possibly (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And now he's created an autobiography 49.144.207.182 (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (this thread was archived to Archive 168 at this point on 7th March with no resolution)
 * And still it continues with all the reviews of the Draft removed and the re-submitted for review with the addition of a single unreliable sources that showed that two people had reviewed the film. Is there nothing that can be done to deal with this COI ?  Velella  Velella Talk 22:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I did strike this report through as the issue is now at SPI as it appears to be sock editing rather than the original editor  Velella  Velella Talk 11:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but somehow the  tags weren't closing properly and the report I added after this one was also showing as struck.
 * It is helpful to explain why you wanted to strike a post, as you have now done. You shouldn't strike other people's posts, although that could have been done by mistake. I would suggest linking to the SPI from this page and updating with the result when available. TSventon (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Groundfloor and paid editing


TyronTO has previously removed the COI tag at Groundfloor (company), which I reverted, suspecting paid editing again. They added a paid disclosure to their userpage after my reminder. Their latest edit is marked minor and I haven't had time to review it other than to note it isn't what we usually call minor in size (over 4 kB). ☆ Bri (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A paid editor shouldn't be working like that, nor requesting such edits be restored in their entirety without a lengthy explanation.
 * I reverted the most recent edit with instructions to work from edit requests on the article talk page that are at most a section at a time. Glancing at the refs, I think they need a careful review. --Hipal (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * About half of that edit was sourced to crowdfundinsider.com, which says of itself "Crowdfund Insider is the leading news and information web site covering the emerging global industry of disruptive finance including investment crowdfunding, Blockchain peer-to-peer / marketplace lending and other forms of Fintech." In other words, it's a promotional source. --- Possibly (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I reverted editor at MinIO, same sorts of problems, not disclosed on their userpage so I am presuming more forgetfulness AGF. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * pblocked from mainspace (went for all mainspace since after "forgetting" to disclose once, I'm not really willing to extend much trust here. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

SPA editor adding unstructured lists of investments to investment/fintech companies


Seemingly a SPA editor who says she hasn't got a coi. The editor is adding long unstructured lists of company investments, often reams of blue links to company articles of that type, often with no references. It's is pure advertising and tendentious editing. This is an example: August Capital. I asked about it and she offered a very simple slogan Capitalism needs transparency!. I posted a paid notice, said she wasn't being paid, but there is some kind of COI. It is all the same type of company.  scope_creep Talk  11:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is the information coming from?   scope_creep Talk  12:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This looks more like WP:NOTHERE as they seek to right great wrongs through advocacy. This talk page comment Special:Diff/1016301102 sums up their position. Slywriter (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * pblocked them from mainspace. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

La Voce di New York


This individual works with that website (see https://www.lavocedinewyork.com/author/luca-passani/ for example) but refuses to disclose his COI. He went berserk and keeps accusing me of having some kind of "counter-COI", of being a "hacker", a "vandal", a "hater", a "cyber-attacker" you name it… just because I nominated his article. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 08:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I DO NOT work for La Voce di New York anymore that someone with a Facebook profile works for Facebook. I did not receive any compensation from them, I do not have any plans to receive compensation from them, my job is in a totally unrelated field, and I don't own shares/stakes in VNY (nor do I plan to own), I am not part of any board or editorial board. So, I maintain that there is no COI. I have simply been following the newspaper close enough that I know about it and figured that creating an article draft and submitting it was the right thing to do about a newspaper that, while a US newspaper, is highly regarded among Italian expats in the US and among journalists in the Italian news media landscape. VNY accepts contributions from anyone, not only professional journalists but also academics, field experts, and everyone who has something meaningful to say about a wide range of topics. As an aside, while I have no COI, I did not hide that I wrote articles for them in the past (Articles_for_deletion/La_Voce_di_New_York). Anyway, all of this discussion is not relevant. Whether I have a COI or not, and I think I don't, I did not publish the VNY article. Rather I followed the same process that someone with a COI would follow: work on an article in Draft mode and submit it for an admin to review and decide whether to promote to the Article space. Also, I have always declared myself open to address any changes that other users would suggest. As an important aside, I have asked the reporting user to clearly state that he does not have a COI in VNY, but the user has carefully avoided addressing that question User talk:Modulato. Passani (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Having written for them in the past does create an apparent COI for Passani. Had the discussion at the article's AfD stayed on the merits of the article (subject's notability, coverage in reliable sources, etc.), then I'd say there's nothing to see here, move along. However, the way the discussion turned toward Modulato's motives changes the optics: it looks less like a good-faith effort to defend the article and more like an attempt to preserve the article either due to ownership feelings toward it or the COI motivation of wanting to have a byline in a notable publication. —C.Fred (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This interpretation is all wrong. I simply reacted to what appears to me as a fully fledged cyberattack on the article staged by sockpuppets and meatpuppets. I think I have enough evidence to demonstrate it, but I am not sure who to trust at this point. Can someone please advise on how to escalate and report this? User Modulato has a HUGE undisclosed COI in NVY. And when I say HUGE, I mean REALLY HUGE Passani (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

AAR Corp (again)


The AAR Corp, a page with historic COI problems, has another likely-COI editor working on the page without disclosing the COI: Fgbwashdc. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

IphisOfCrete sockfarm

 * (author)
 * (Rory J. Cutaia fmr CEO Greenfields Coal)
 * (Digital Realty Trust)
 * (Claus Bury artist)
 * (author)
 * (Rory J. Cutaia fmr CEO Greenfields Coal)
 * (Digital Realty Trust)
 * (Claus Bury artist)
 * (Rory J. Cutaia fmr CEO Greenfields Coal)
 * (Digital Realty Trust)
 * (Claus Bury artist)

This sockfarm with 16 CU-confirmed socks seems to have been very active at financial company articles, possibly entertainers, entertainment productions, and some other orgs as well. Does anybody here have more information on who they are so they can be added to WP:PAIDLIST appropriately? A sampling of their creations or interests is listed above. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Space and Missile Systems Center


Has been replacing sourced article content with what reads to be promotionally written content which the user claims are "Language & date edits provided by the SMC historian." Put notices on the user's page, but no responses. Garuda28 (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * More notices have been placed, but no response and the user continues to edit.--- Possibly (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

SPA user adding self-published sources to articles


Hello, I hope this is the right place to put this. I saw a suspicious edit on my watchlist and after looking through 's contributions I noticed that their only edits consist in adding references to self-published papers by a single author to various articles. I think these edits need to be reverted, is that correct? In any case, this is my first time posting here and I'm looking for advice :) Thanks! -- Mvbaron (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, this is the right place. Good catch. seems to have been adding sources written by R.R. Trail, starting in 2008. I would not day that that was their only contribution, but it is concerning. Let's hear what they have to say by, way of explanation. --- Possibly (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * is edit-warring about the same self-published, non-RS content above, and which I have tried to contact them about on their talk-page, in edit summaries, and here. Mvbaron (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked more closely at their contribs; they ,have frequently added the thesis work of R.R. Trail, going back to their first edit in 2008, 13 years ago. Much of their contribs concerns adding Trail as a source. A small selection includes 2021, 2019, 2016, 2015 and so on. 2014 was spent adding sources on the author Anna-Marie Cushan, published by Ondwelle, which also publishes R.R. Trail. Those appear to be the only two authors they publish. so, yes, this does seem like a 13-year campaign to place self-published work. --- Possibly (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

William Scott Page


The history and tenor of this article is as fishy as the sea. I would not be surprised if later substantive contributors to its advertorial tone were the same editor under a different name, or another UPE. BD2412 T 01:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Miaminsurance seems suspect too, BD2412. Their username is the same as a former insurance company web domain in Florida, where Scott Page's company is based, and their first edit was to pick up on editing the draft left by the obvious PR account you linked to above. Their editing since has mostly been to companies and they have lately been posting on article talk pages asking for possibly stale COI templates to be removed, though I think not on articles they've edited. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with your analysis. BD2412  T 18:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with your analysis. BD2412  T 18:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I do not have a relationship with Page. I am familiar with him because he ran a company that helped many people with HIV/AIDS in the 80s/90s. His company was targeted by a ponzi schemer which was huge news in my community. The story was eventually profiled on American Greed. I am not in the insurance industry but I do know of Page. If based on this description, you think I have a conflict, I will add it to my page. I have been more active on Wikipedia and was following a debate about the COI template. I checked a bunch of pages that had the templates on them but did not have any discussion as to why they were marked as COI. Honestly, it was a test on my part to see if anyone would react to it. Please advise. Miaminsurance (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, Miaminsurance. If you do have a WP:COI or you are WP:PAID to edit on any articles, please declare this. Knowing of someone or an organisation is not, however, a COI. Testing the COI templates is a bit WP:POINTy - COI templates are a touchy area as you know, so it'd be best not to do mass challenges. It would on the other hand be helpful to check the history to see edit summaries and whether any major contributors added promotional wording and then see if the page still needs cleaning up. Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Miaminsurance is CU-confirmed to and related to, see SPI. They're also related to this paid editing operation. Blablubbs&#124;talk 08:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Muhur


Muhur and I have been having a bit of a disagreement about some self citations that he added to Medical device. He's moved to using the talk page now, so fair enough, that should be fine. What is not fine, though, is that Muhur has now taken to following me around and leaving trolling comments on the talk pages after I open discussions, see here and here. I would greatly appreciate it if some uninterested parties could take a look at the situation and have a word with whomever is in the wrong here, even if that turns out to be myself. - MrOllie (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear MrOllie. Thank you for asking for clarification. I do not consider myself as "trolling" or "silly". I am actually not used to such interpersonal dealings. I informed other users that were confronted with COI issues about the user who confronted them. A user that may respond with degradation due to mockery regarding COI questions. I do not consider such behaviours as "irrelevancies". The web tells many things about busy wikipedia users such as MrOllie, and since it would be indeed silly to trust such sources, I took the chance to ask directly. Unfortunately this ended in a very unexpected behaviour, rather than a simple answer.
 * Moreover, I do not consider the disagreement mentioned above as "a bit", see our discussion. I moved to using the article talk page because of a very kind hint of the Wikipedia help team. I wonder why an advanced user as MrOllie foremost invites unexperienced users (as I am) to discuss their issues on his talk page, rather than on the article talk pages. Thank you for your thoughts. Muhur (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If I understand this right, was caught adding material for which he has a COI (re: Dr. Muehlematter) and ever since that he spends most of his time wasting other people's time on talk pages. I'm getting that from his Xtools contribs (talk pages: 50 edits, article space 7 edits.) It sounds ideally like a WP:NOTHERE item for ANI, but maybe it can be dealt with faster (and less traumatically) if we ping someone appropriate like  or .--- Possibly (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think Possibly's summary falls short. I think missing guidance and mockery from advanced wikipedia users lead to 50 edits on mainly 3 talk pages. One has to consider, that an experienced user with up to 120457 edits, many of them regarding possible COIs, refusing to answer a COI question, responding with mockery and calling this question silly, may have a disturbing, great impact on the Wikipedia community (and especially on unexperienced users like Muhur). I just learned that this page is for determining whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. I am not sure to which article MrOllie is referring. If he refers to medical device, you will find my COI statement that I made days ago on my talk page. Thank you for your considerations. Muhur (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * MrOllie has already answered your question. You are just trolling, wasting everyone's time. Have you considered making some constructive edits to Wikipedia? --- Possibly (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So what was MrOllies answer to: "Do you, or have you, or expect you to receive compensation for any contribution you made/make on Wikipedia?". If you want to discuss this matter, please open a new section here regarding MrOllie. Thank you. I think my edits here might be considered constructive for other users who share my opinion on this matter. Again, I did not open this section and I think you are not talking about the aim of this section (determining whether a specific (i.e. Muhur) editor has a COI).Muhur (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm feeling generous right now, so I've pblocked Muhur from Medical device (and, for good measure, blocked the role account that they followed MrOllie to in order to complain). I will not have much patience if they continue bludgeoning or following other folks around. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear GeneralNotability. You blocked me from Medical devices because of ongoing COI and SELFCITE issues. As a new user I try to understand this. How did you draw this conclusion? According to the initiator of this board section, these issues were "fine" (I tried to follow the advise by naively editing my content on the artice page directly rather than moving to the talk page (which is the desired solution as I learned meanwhile)). Moreover, I do not unterstand your remark "I'm feeling generous right now". What do you mean by that? Thank you for clarification. Muhur (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume you'v read WP:SELFCITE and WP:COI, as well as WP:MEDRS. Do you explicitly deny that you have conflict-of-interest with the study link that 100% of your edits revolve around? OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I read these topics. I never denied a COI regarding my contributions, see my statement on my talk page. Muhur (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I drew the conclusion that you are trying to cite a study you are involved in based on the discussion in this thread. When I said "I'm feeling generous" I mean "I'm only going to partially block you from this one article, instead of judging that you're uninterested in building a collaborative encyclopedia and blocking you completely." SubjectiveNotability  a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 20:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarification. Yes I cited studies where I have a COI, but in my opinion I did it according to this guide. I hope you resisted temptation regarding NOTHERE since you saw my interrest in building a collaborative encyclopedia (one reason why I moved the issue to the talk page, as soon as I learned about it (and yes, I wish I would have been clearly informed about this possibility immediately)), rather than because of your feelings. Muhur (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Now, GeneralNotability and Ohnoitsjamie, I really need your help regarding the potential Elephant in the room: Muhur (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what elephant you're talking about, but the rest of us have wider interests than the inclusion of your study in a Wikipedia article. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I used an idiom to refer to a help request that everyone can read below but no one wants to answer since it might be uncomfortable. Obviosly many users have time to trample on missteps of new users, despite I already asked unprejudiced users to decide upon what to do with the references I gave and the initiator of this section already acknowledged this. The avoidance of my particular help request indicates, that it might be a true elephant in the room. Muhur (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining what an idiom is, that's most helpful. I'm closing this issue, because as I alluded to above in a non-idiomatic fashion, you seem to be the only one here who thinks that including a link to your study is of the utmost importance to the Medical device article. You've already suggested that edit on the article's talk page; if someone there thinks it's worthy of inclusion, they can add it. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 13:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear GeneralNotability. Where can I settle this issue that was discussed in this section? I think this board is not the right place since this issue is not related to a single article. Thank you for your help. Muhur (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Any further hounding of User:MrOllie will result in a free upgrade of your current partial block to a full one. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Is my creation of the redirect Nowhere at the Millennium of Space a violation of the COI guidelines?
Nowhere at the Millennium of Space is a project very similar to the album Everywhere at the End of Time, aiming to replicate it with music from the 1980s to the 2000s. I did contribute a bit to it during its production, but those contributions never made it in the final product. I'm wondering if this is enough for me to need to declare a conflict of interest, and if I would need to delete the redirect. Nowhere at the Millennium of Space is briefly mentioned in the Everywhere at the End of Time article, so I think the redirect could stay.  Invalid OS talk  12:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is at very least sufficient COI that you should have declared your COI either in the initial edit summary for the redirect page or at Talk:Nowhere at the Millennium of Space -- yes, redirects can have talk pages. I suggest you go add one to the talk page now. It is a sufficiently cromulent redirect that, while there is an argument that you should not have done it, it should not be undone. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'm pretty sure the mention of Nowhere at the Millennium of Space was removed from the article, though.  Invalid OS talk 
 * It was. Only source was Bandcamp as well. I'll make sure to declare a COI in the future if it ever reappears. Just gonna G7 it for now.  Invalid OS talk  01:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Sandy Roberton
The article on this British record producer has been edited by several apparently COI editors, most recently and most extensively by who has said in the edit summary here that they are the article subject. They have not responded to any messages on their talk page, or on the article talk page. Some of the edits are unproblematic - changing referenced information to no great effect, marking major edits as minor, and so forth - but the article could benefit from some admin oversight. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Ireland’s Late Late Show.


New to Wikipedia I was pleased to add the name of Tom McGrath, Producer as the person who introduced the idea of the Late Late Show. This fact has been recorded many times in newspapers and on RTE. I am now aware that I should perhaps have first used talk and also I would mention that now 85, I am a younger cousin of the producer who died more than 25 years ago. Baile Atha CliathachBaile Atha Cliathach (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * provided an RS for the claim, and I've added the information to the article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia for Content Marketing, SEO
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * SEO is a species of vandalism: changing Wikipedia, not for any valid reason, but for your own commercial purposes. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  17:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It links to How to Create a Wikipedia Page (Step by Step), which apart from neglecting to mention that we don't want articles "about yourself or your company", is a surprisingly good introduction to notability and article creation. It seems like paid editors have gotten savvier over the years and better understand how Wikipedia works. I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes that is quite an excellent guide, setting aside the disagreeableness of their business. At the same time, they only seem to be interested using WP as a means to an end; their account here does not extend to any interest beyond their own page.--- Possibly (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice, they're encouraging people to create copyright violations on their own website. TAXIDICAE💰  23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, surprisingly good, and "good guy". I suspect "dark arts" versions don't get as openly published. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Epos 257


This editor has been around for over 18 months and their first edit was to declare that they've been paid by the artist Epos 257 for their contributions to Wikipedia. Over those 18 months their only edits have been to what was a draft about the artist. So far so good. However that draft is now in mainspace, and the editor has not paid any attention to the two messages I've left them on their talk page about the need for them to make edit requests now, rather than edit the article directly. They just need a bit more weighty encouragement to do so. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to apologize, next time I'll do it as you say...I´m sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiří Gruber (talk • contribs) 15:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One hour after your apology, you created a new article Fire Mountain (art project) which is about the work of the artist that pays you, so I don't think you've really understood your responsibilities as a paid editor? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I´m sorry once again, I hope it's better now :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiří Gruber (talk • contribs) 16:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Small Ashok Soota walled garden
Promotional editing on pages related to Ashok Soota. The user Vtamagond has not replied to any of the COI messages that have been left (starting about a year ago) on his/her talk page. --- Possibly (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Account was blocked for spamming.--- Possibly (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Tushar Rayate


He created Tushar Rayate, which was speedy deleted in 2016. Then he created it this time again. It is possible that this is probably an autobiography, probably because of his name or conflict of interest, which can be he is talking about his boss at work, the manager, or the owner of the company he’s working at. Kaseng55 (talk) 06:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Repenning


Both users were brought to my attention by, who found a connection between the two users and the pages that they were editing. Username represents a company headed by Repenning named "AgentSheets Inc. (Dragentsheets) and has edited pages related to Repenning and Repenning's field of interest (information technology and computer science) for the past 14 years. On one occasion, Dragentsheets signed off on a talk page with the name "Alex". A related account, KaptainFire, has also been editing articles related to Repenning and Repenning's field of interest, and uploaded File:The Computational Thinking Process.jpg, which Dragentsheets warred over on Computational thinking. Among both users' contributions include questionable addition of links to AgentSheets which appear borderline promotional and (assuming that this is Repenning editing) addition of self-made research papers and primary sources on articles. All linked pages above have evident issues with encyclopedic tone and have a biased point of view. Chlod (say hi!) 13:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing "Dragentsheets" = Dr. AgentSheets. Woodroar (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's right. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 14:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above, KaptainFire identified as Repenning in these revisions on Commons. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 14:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Relevant to note that has since blocked Dragentsheets.  IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 19:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * With a name like that, its no wonder. It all goes back to his product.   scope_creep Talk  19:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Guidediary


Added an external link to a website that has the same name as the username as seen in a contrib to Wireless. Kaseng55 (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * An advertiser and spammer.   scope_creep Talk  19:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Mark D. Siljander

 * (active)
 * (previously blocked as a prohibited shared account)
 * (previously blocked as a prohibited shared account)

The user at issue has a user page stating that he/she is "paid employee of the nonprofit associated with the work of Mark Siljander." There has been repeated inappropriate COI editing from this account over a series of months. The specific flavor of COI editing here is promotional whitewashing: removal of well-sourced, cited, appropriately weighed content; inappropriate threats in edit summaries; use of multiple accounts, etc. Neutralitytalk 17:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The COI editor is now edit warring. Neutralitytalk 18:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I am going to indefinitely block the COI editor. This is a clear case of a user who is here to promote and not to improve the encyclopedia, and the editor is now removing my comments on the article talk page (despite a clear warning that such deletions are unacceptable). I have been warding off the promotion here, but I do not think that I am sufficiently involved to preclude my block. To the extent that I'm involved, I think the COI and other considerations are so obvious that I think this is in IAR territory. If any other admin believes this should be handled in some other way, I give permission to modify the block or to give a conditional unblock. Neutralitytalk 22:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

As a COI editor, I request the two following edits:

1) The Justice Department's press release states, "It is important to note that the indictment does not charge any of the defendants with material support of terrorism, nor does it allege that they knowingly financed acts of terror."

2) Judge Nanette Laughrey is quoted during sentencing saying: "But the truth is, when you look at this objectively, this is not a case about [Siljander] aiding a terrorist, it just isn't..."

Please endeavor to publish without personal bias and with a complete and accurate context. The following reference provides a decent summary overview which indicates all ties to terrorism were merely alleged and suspected and that no defendant was charged with any such violation or association with terror funding:

{Blpwatch|from=04/2021|reason=incomplete context related to alleged terror claims}

--GWaldron88 (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Our article does not say, at any point, that Siljander was ever charged with or convicted of terrorism. It says, correctly, that he was convicted of obstruction of justice and acting as an unregistered foreign agent for a specific, now-defunct organization with ties to terrorism.
 * Your attempts to promotionally edit are unacceptable and are not going to work. Our article summarizes, accurately, the reliable sources, such as this Wall Street Jounrnal article ("Former Congressman Gets One Year For Lobbying For Terror Sponsor ... Siljander was indicted in 2008 and pleaded guilty in 2010. He admitted that he lobbied on behalf of IARA and repeatedly lied to Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and prosecutors about it in two separate interviews.").
 * I have also removed your template. As the template documentation specifies, this template is for article talk pages, not for noticeboards. Neutralitytalk 18:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Linkspamming and COI by User:Rezimmerman
I was having a really hard time explaining to this user that they could not have thirty external links in the body of an article. They are quite insistent that the many, many links they have added to Wikipedia that lead to drawger.com and illoz.com are helpful to readers. After some unproductive back and forth on their talk page, and after tagging many of their articles with the tag, I noticed this at the bottom of their user page: full disclosure

This member manages these websites for illustrators
 * illoz ·  Drawger - and other websites for illlustrators

That disclosure was first made in 2008. Now, this user has been adding links to drawger.com and illoz.com to Wikipedia for a really long time: These examples add up to about 90 instances of links or refs leading to drawger or illoz. This sounds like a fairly large COI problem, as they are presumably in control of what the sources they are adding say. It's not clear from their disclosure what the relationship is here: they manage the entire illoz/drawger sites? They manage individual pages on drawger/illoz for artists? They manage the drawger/illoz sites for the artists they are writing articles about? Anyway you sklice it this does not sound good. They also carried on a very long conversation with me today about the links, without once mentioning that they work with the company that is being linked. --- Possibly (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2021: article with 23 external links to Drawger.com, and about 20 links to illoz.com. (46 external links in one article to COI sites. A record?)
 * 2020: this 15K update to Gérard duBois adds 9 links to drawger.com and 3 to illoz.com
 * 2020: this 12K addition to John Cuneo (illustrator) has 13 uses of drawger and illoz as sources or named refs
 * 2017: 18K update to Joe Ciardiello adds four mentions of Drawger and Illoz.
 * 2016: 21K additon to Tim O'Brien (illustrator) adds six items that point to drawger/illoz
 * 2016: 10K update to Robert Hunt (illustrator) adds 7 links or refs pointing to drawger/illoz
 * 2013: Two links to drawger/illoz added to Nancy Stahl
 * The editor has created 15 articles, and the majority are chock full of embedded links. A complete abregation of duty when the comes to the application of the WP:MOS.  scope_creep Talk  12:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is all very surprising to me and I'd be very grateful for any help clearing up what I think is a misunderstanding. Today, I'm going to take the time to remove inline links from articles I've either created or added to. I did not realize inline links were a violation and I'm grateful that this has been pointed out to me. Since I've been adding to and creating biographies for illustrators for over twelve years without any perceived conflict of interest, I presumed I was helping educate the general public on these highly important and award winning creators. Importantly, regarding both Drawger and Illoz there is no personal gain for me in the links that were added. Those sites contain no advertising and the art works and articles that are on those sites were not authored by me. I simply have provided the platform for those artists to add artwork and articles which they have created or written. It's also worth mentioning that both Drawger and Illoz were created and are maintained by me as educational resources. In many cases, these sites are the only place where the artist's works and writings can be accessed. I'd very much appreciate any help that can be offered to clear this up.Rezimmerman (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've left a notice about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline on your talk page. It has links to pages which may answer some of your questions. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. The about page on Illoz says "There's no advertising here, because the site is paid for on a subscription model by contributors." So there is money involved. Also, has any of the editing you have done here been paid editing? I'm trying to understand the connection to the illoz/drawger sites and artists. If there's anything you have left out (other sites?) please let us know. Neutrality is all about transparency. --- Possibly (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're correct that illustrators that are allowed to contribute to both Illoz and Drawger do pay a small fee ($150 a year) to cover the cost of the server. Both of these sites are made available to contributors on an invitation-only basis and the bar for entry is extremely high. I can probably best be described as an illustration advocate, as I'm not an illustrator myself. In addition to providing Illoz and Drawger to a select number of top illustrators, I also donate my time and coding skills to the Society of Illustrators, for which I received their Dean Cornwell Award for creating their online competition website, where Student Scholarships are awarded along with other non-profit services. My most recent addition to Wikipedia, the Bill Mayer biography (which seems to have started all this) was created because he was the winner of the Hamilton King Award in 2021, which is the highest honor bestowed by the Society of Illustrators and I always try to make sure that winners of this very prestigious award are well represented at Wikipedia. I do this as a true lover of illustration and how illustrators contribute so much to our culture. At least, this is my intent, even though I seem to have given you cause for concern. I do want to clear this up and I hope you can help me do so. I most certainly do not want to be perceived as attempting to place advertising or spam on the site. Perhaps the Bill Mayer biography can be moved into a draft area where I can discretely fix it up and submit it for approval? I very much appreciate your help on this.Rezimmerman (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * to fix the external links problem, you just need to go through and remove them from all your articles, or convert them to refs. Seeing as you operate the source of the refs, in the case of illoz and drawger you do not want to use those as refs are you are basically spamming material you created; see WP:SELFCITE. The second question is whether these are reliable sources, which might be a question for WP:RSN. You say above that these sites are the only place where the artist's works and writings can be accessed. Can you see how that is a problem, given that you are writing the articles, then sourcing them with a site you created and control? It brings the notability of the artists in to question; if illoz and drawger are the only sources, you personally are basically the authoritative source for the articles, and can determine notability independently of our policies by creating new illoz and drawger material. I'm curious to see what other editors think; it's possible that the illoz and drawger sources have to go entirely. Finally, I am not unsympathetic to the good design-world work you are doing. It's just that it conflicts strongly with many our SELFCITE and COI policies.--- Possibly (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear on one thing. I do not write the articles at Drawger that are used as citations. These are written by contributors to the site. I also do not edit articles at Drawger nor do I have an editorial voice in those articles. Also, I do not post images to either Drawger or Illoz. Those are all added at the discretion of individual contributors. At any rate, I'll begin removing those inline links today, starting with the Bill Mayer biography.Rezimmerman (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's basic COI: you are the article's editor, and you are the publisher of the sources that you are adding. This is something we try to avoid. Have you read WP:COI? Regarding how to clean up this mess, I would suggest:
 * removing all the improper external links you have added.
 * removing the "sources" you added for illoz and drawger. There may be cases where they can be kept, but this RSN post seems to say they do not have much value, as they are self-published. They are fine in the "external links" section at the end.
 * stopping the practice of adding links or sources that you have a COI with. There seem to be many of these: society of illustrators, drawger, illoz etc.
 * posting a proper list of the sources and sites you have a COI on your user page. template:UserboxCOI is useful for this.
 * Using the talk page to request changes that involve COI. Drawger/illoz sources and links, the society of illustrators etc are some examples.
 * This would pretty much solve the problem. I am curious to hear if other editors agree. The main thrust of this is that you have to clearly declare your COI, stop adding sources and links for things you have a COI with, stop editing pages you have a COI with, and use talk pages to request addition of material you have a COI with.--- Possibly (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is all very helpful so thank you very much. Added the UserboxCOI to my user page as suggested and am going through the articles I've added/edited with your suggestions in mind. Rezimmerman (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how many times you need this explained to you... you need to stop citing the websites that you operate. You have placed a COI box, but say "I manage the websites Drawger.com as well as illoz.com for illustrators and for certain articles that I add or edit it is sometimes necessary to cite those websites because they are the only reliable source for the biographical information needed." It's not a reliable source, see the RSN link. You're wasting editing time here by continually resisting our COI guidelines. Do you plan to continue to  spam articles with links and sources form the sites you operate? If so we may need to ask for some kind of editing block.--- Possibly (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * this all seems very uncomfortable to me after all the work I've contributed over the years to Wikipedia. If you think my contributions need be removed because I own a website that SOME of the important cultural figures I've documented have decided to use and trust, then just delete my articles, or ask me to and I will. I'll never make another contribution to the site or edit it again, I promise. Your implication that I am spamming Wikipedia is personally very offensive to me. All of my work is meant to be helpful and educational in this crazy world we live in.Rezimmerman (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You do not seem to umderstand, despite it having been explained a half dozen times, that you cannot be the publisher of sources you yourself use in articles, as it violates our COI policy, and also allows you to inflate the notability of subjects by providing self-generated sources. That is straight up plain and simple. You have indeed been quietly spamming Wikipedia with a combination of self-published material and hundreds of external links in articles for over a decade-- that is in the links given above. All that is being asked is that you stop including self-published links, and correct the ones you have already added. Are you not willing to do that? It's a drag to have to explain this to you over and over.--- Possibly (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the statement you cannot be the publisher of sources you yourself use in articles, as it violates our COI policy is entirely true as explained in WP:SELFCITE, and because WP:COI isn't really a "policy" per se. However, I do agree that it's generally considered good practice to try and avoid citing oneself whenever possible because it can lead to misunderstanding. My suggestion to would be for them to look for WP:SECONDARY sources (both to themselves and to the subject of the article) per  below and try to develop articles based upon those sources instead of trying to cite oneself. If Rezimmerman feels the need to cite themselves, they should propose it on the relevant article's talk page to give others a chance to comment and see what the consensus is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

If these artists are genuinely notable, it should not be hard to find critical articles about them outside your own sites. If no such sources exist, then we have to wonder whether they are genuinely notable. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  21:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hamilton King Award
There are a bunch of different COI issues here to be fixed or dealt with, so I am creating this subsection for one of them. Per the above disclosure that Rezimmerman has COI regarding the Hamilton King award and the Society of Illustrators that bestows it, it is problematic that they have also gone through Wikipedia and added this text: This appears to be another instance of COI, seeing as they gave him an award after he made them a web site.--- Possibly (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * John Jude Palencar: "the Hamilton King Award, which is considered to be one of the most prestigious awards in illustration"
 * Guy Billout: "the Hamilton King Award which is widely regarded as one of the most prestigious awards in illustration"
 * Yuko Shimizu: "the Hamilton King Award, considered by many to be the most prestigious award in illustration."
 * John Cuneo: "win him the Hamilton King Award in 2012 which is widely thought of as one of the most prestigious awards in illustration."
 * Society of Illustrators: "The Hamilton King Award, which is given annually to one society member, and is widely considered to be the most prestigious award in illustration"
 * I'd be happy to remove those Hamilton King Award quotes if you think it's a good idea. The quote is from the highly respected art director Irene Gallo in this article. I do not serve on the board of the Society of Illustrators, nor have I ever, but I do donate my time and coding skills (such as they are) to them.Rezimmerman (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that would be good. See above.--- Possibly (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Craig Shirley

 * (active)
 * (active)

A number of editors that appears to be COI have both added immense levels of puffery to the Craig Shirley page, as well as cited his books on a bunch of other articles. 12:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Paid Page: Sebastien Lepinoy


Page created by undisclosed paid editor: User:Störm

https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01910ab31d373a68bc

Can anyone check all of his edits and stop him by creating a legit storm. 178.165.130.210 (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've moved this discussion from, as this is not a link spam report. The Upwork listing requires registration to view. It is a job listing titled "Need someone to help us create a Wikipedia page." It was posted on "April 14, 2021", and contains the following description:


 * —  Newslinger  talk   07:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect there is probably dozens to hundreds of paid articles here: Eric Kalala.   scope_creep Talk  11:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you expand on that? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of this paid post. Although, he is a notable figure in Singapore, I've requested speedy deletion for this page. Further, there is nothing paid in my work. Störm   (talk)  13:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)