Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 97

Facilitated Application Specification Techniques


User:Grush edited the page Facilitated Application Specification Techniques with the statement: "(Corrected description - FAST was created by me, Gary Rush, IAF CPF)" diff. After being reverted, he again posted 30K of content, with this message "(I am Gary Rush - I wrote the article in 1985 that coined the name and I created FAST in 1985. I am correcting the previous description which was completely flawed.)" diff. That article is highly promotional, including his email and phone number. He is now in the process of creating Draft:Gary Rush. I placed a COI notice on his talk page on Feb. 1; he has continued to edit the draft article without replying. LaMona (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I just deleted the FAST article again. I think the topic is probably notable, but the article was just a mess. Deb (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He re-created the FAST article with most of the content being a copyvio (which is possibly his own text, but it's far too promotional for a neutral encyclopedia). Per Deb's comment I've pruned it back rather than deleting it again. As far as this report goes, Grush admits his connection to the topic. We just need to persuade him to follow our policy. —S MALL  JIM   17:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He re-created it in this last 24 hours? That would explain why I saw multiple deletes. There was a version from before when he discovered it that had multiple editors - that might be the best starting point. As for persuading him, I've contacted him three times about COI, and he hasn't appeared here nor commented elsewhere. Perhaps it would help if he would hear from others... I feel like I've done what I can. Personally, I'd like to see his account blocked, since he's now creating an autobiography. LaMona (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that he has since edited the FAST article under is IP diff here. This is the IP he answered with on his talk page. So he has not stopped editing the article. LaMona (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had a look through the deleted versions to see if there's anything pre-Grush that was worth salvaging, but I can't say that there was. Yes, I noticed the IP edits – at the moment I'm AGF that he's accidentally editing while logged out. But that AGF will quickly end if he continues edit warring or adding non-encyclopedic/promotional content. —S MALL  JIM   21:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Elks of Canada


This users username, and the fact that the user has only posted glowing information on the Elks of Canada lead me to suspect it is an account from that organization.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll block them as a promotional username. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Papers


COI appears pretty obvious, not only through the account's name, but via numerous edit summaries that state 'approval' of content changes by the article's subjects. Conflict is pretty well established by admission. My concern is whether edits to The Washington Papers substituted sourced content for copyright violations. If someone can check to see which content had precedence, then we could proceed to remove unacceptable text, or merely note that it's not sourced. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B095:6CD9:12FD:9C11 (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've cautioned them over their username and COI edits. I'm fairly certain that this is someone at UVA, likely a student, that was asked to come and make edits concerning the project. The edits they made put a lot of undue weight on the project, so it absolutely needs to be edited down. As far as copyvio goes, some portions do appear to have been taken from here and more of it appears to be close paraphrasing from somewhere. At the very least it's fairly promotional enough to where it'd need to be edited even if it isn't a copyright violation. See this for an example. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've given them the name of a contact at UVA and asked them to submit a ticket through OTRS that gives Wikipedia permission to use the text. I am worried about the undue weight, but it's not so bad that it would be unsalvageable and my main concern here, other than the copyvio, is that the article has some slight puffery going on here. This is all likely unintentional and just sort of what happens when you send someone to make edits that is unfamiliar with this sort of thing. I'll drop the contact a note to let them know that I sent someone in her direction. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also e-mailed the person in question and CC'd the director of the project. The contact is someone who I think has limited knowledge of Wikipedia, but she does work with the UVA's library system and my inclination is that the papers project is run through the special collections department. I may be wrong in this, but if it is then they may need to get the library involved in order to grant permission. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, . Your interpretations and suggestions look spot-on. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Simone Forti


Editing only at this article. All content added by user is unsourced save for citing subject's own work. sixty nine  • speak up •  00:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As an uninvolved editor and a student of dance history, I can vouch that Simone Forti is a very important figure in American postmodern dance. I can also vouch that WP's dance coverage is broadly quite underdeveloped. The user should be politely and respectfully made aware of WP:COI, WP:V, WP:Username, and WP:NPOV, but the material added is mostly policy-compliant and a significant improvement to the article. The user must not be subjected to WP:Hazing.


 * There is a problem to resolve in that WP cannot accept the perfectly good academic citation Simone Forti, in conversation with archivist Rena Kosnett. Los Angeles, CA. January 14, 2015., but this can be resolved through courteous outreach. FourViolas (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello - thank you for your comments. I am addressing these issues on the Help Me ! section of my talk page.


 * I am working with that person and article, and I'll see it gets done right.   DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Eric the Prince

 * - up for AFD here: Articles_for_deletion/Eric_the_Prince
 * -- up for AFD here: Articles for deletion/Tommy Daugherty
 * - speedy tagged.
 * SPI underway here: Sockpuppet investigations/Erictheprince and closed: "Indeffing the master and his socks. Blocking meatpuppets for a week."

Apparent autobiography by a non notable, promising to write many more such articles. One may take that with a grain of salt, but for the moment we seem to have a promotional account, plus a likely sock or meat puppet. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Editor has additionally created promotional article for Mac Lucci that is up for CSD due to lack of notability and third-party sources, with image in article tagged for copyright violation. sixty nine   • speak up •  05:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I would like to help by creating articles on artists according to the standards of the Wikipedia community, I mentioned in the 'talk,' I am not intending to use Wikipedia for promotional use but to document Rap Artists just as Lil Dicky, G Eazy, and all sorts of artists are featured here, I run Rap.com as I said, and I am interviewing the artists, it's a passion of mine to find out artists life stories and acknowledge their accomplishments, if there's anyone I know the most about it's myself, and I have asked my father, my friends in the industry, and others to edit this article and add or take away what they want to, I am here to write articles on other artists who I interview, and I started with myself so I can learn more about what needs to be said, and what needs to be left unsaid and to make high quality content and articles. Please let me know what I can do to edit the article or if it simply needs others to do so. I want to be on Wikipedia everyday and I can add a wealth of resources and information to a ton of artists pages, all I do is go through rap news and interview artists, please help me with this one, and in the mean time, I am going to start a few more on some of the artists I have already interviewed, and if there's anything wrong with those pages please let me know, thanks guys, and please help guide me to make this fun and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RapAuthority (talk • contribs) 03:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Notability states: Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic - all statements are cited, and more are to be added with the proper citations. This is a very important thing for me, I have held off on having my own Wikipedia because about 4 years ago I tried to make one and it got flagged like this and deleted and I never said anything, I know I had worked about 15 hours on it and the next day I came back and it was deleted and all of the information was deleted and I couldn't find it and I felt so burned, and I'm sure a lot of other artists have had the same thing happen to them. I would like to be able to feature artists, cite the sources, and be a big help to the community of Hip Hop to really feature artists the right way because there's so much bs on the internet about them and I want to feature them on Wikipedia with the facts and acknowledge their accomplishments, being recognized means everything to an artist, and I want to be able to help them showcase their work the right way. I am doing this as a volunteer because I want to see artists who have worked hard and have toured worldwide have a place in Wikipedia, can you please allow me to have others edit my article "Eric the Prince" over the next 72 hours and after then if everyone approves it can stay and may I please start submitting articles on other artists and may I please get some help on how to do everything correctly? I absolutely love Wikipedia as I have said and spent so many hours on it and donated to Wikipedia and I want to be apart of it after watching the TED Talk that the founder gave. Thank you guys for talking to me I really appreciate it and I again humbly, ask give me 72 hours to have other sources edit the article, and to submit other articles and to have you guys let me know what I need to know to make sure nothing gets taken down for any reason that I can help, I am reading all of the articles that have been linked that you are linking and will apply everything that I learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RapAuthority (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I am intending no purpose of promotion, as the founder of Rap.com I am trying to create articles for Rappers on Wikipedia, and add information to other Rap Artists who are already on the Wikipedia, this is my first day editting on Wikipedia and all I am doing is looking at other rap artists profiles already here on Wikipedia and using the same format, I am not seeing any difference between the articles I have created and any other current rap artist profile. I would also that everyone speak to me directly and help me do this properly, I have been conducting interviews and studying Rap/Hip Hop, watching every documentary, and would gladly like to contribute to Wikipedia and have Rap.com as a reliable third party source that can be cited on Wikipedia as interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RapAuthority (talk • contribs)  21:17, February 4, 2016


 * updated the headers. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * noted that SPI has closed. Not sure we are going to have more to do here.  Will hold off archiving these to see what emerges. Jytdog (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Paresh Doshi
Article is fairly well put together but very promotional. Peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - indeffed for socking and PROMO per block log
 * - indeffed as sock per block log
 * - indeffed for socking and PROMO per block log
 * - indeffed as sock per block log
 * - indeffed as sock per block log
 * It does look like the work of a singularly focused editor. Brianhe (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Some new editors have shown up so reported to SPI Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doc James. I stubified the promo article on Doshi and have opened discussions with the editor and the likely sock. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Two editors have been indeffed. Am closing. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek on Vladimir Putin


There has been a major conflict of interest going on with Volunteer Marek and the related Eastern European articles, especially those involving Russia or Putin. Here on his usertalk page, VM is agreeing with a fellow user about how the article on Putin is controlled by "Putin-bots", and how he should stop trying to edit as it will knowingly get him blocked, to which he says "I can see that. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)" showing that he views us all as shills who do the service of the Russian government, a serious violation of WP:GOODFAITH.

The edits (which often go against consensus) show a similar conflict of interest. Marek agrees with the statement on the Putin article that "You would need at least a handful of dedicated neutral editors with lots of time on their hands to turn the tide at that article., made by ·maunus, showing that he is ideologically driven in changing the article on Putin, even hinting at recruting others simply to change the page, with the quote "Outside eyes on the article are much need though."

All of the recent talk page discussions have him advocating for very anti-Putin wording, insinuations, and other assorted material that shows a genuine conflict of interest.

Given his history on editing other European-related articles, his editing at other Russia-related articles, I think that this is something an admin should potentially look into. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

And before he says it, no, this isn't any sort of "revenge"--this is just a culmination of what I have observed to be very poor editing practices at wikipedia, with a strong politically-inflected slant. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This is idiotic. What exactly is the "conflict of interest" here? What exactly is suppose to be wrong with getting outside neutral editors to take a look at the article?
 * I'd also like to point out that User:Solntsa90 just got off a week long block by User:Drmies for edit warring, stalking, and general WP:NOTHERE attitude. He has followed me around Wikipedia to unrelated articled making revenge edits just to harass. This is just a continuation of that behavior. Obviously the week long block was not enough, the user has failed to get the message and we can expect more of the same in the future.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a situation that should be investigated -- not in regard to VM -- instead the question is why there are so many editors intent on whitewashing the BLP of Vladimir Putin. I've been watching this for a few weeks now -- it's quite blatant.  But VM is not the problem...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

No one is attempting to "Whitewash" anything--it's about keeping an article on an important world figure to BLP standards and keep it as accurate and neutral as possible. Neutrality and accuracy are the goal on Wikipedia, lest we lose any credibility left in our corner. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, how utterly predictable that Marek would accuse me of 'seeking revenge', so much so that I already accounted for such statements above. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Marek, if you think we're all just "Putin-bots", is that what primarily motivates you to edit the article on Vladimir Putin, to counter us nasty "Putin-bots"? Do you subscribe to the conspiracy theory (as was evident from your talk page) that we are all just out here to increase on Putin's reputation and build him up into some mythological hero? Solntsa90 (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless you have proof that VM is a member of a Russian opposition party, an opponent of Putin or something concrete that shows he's got anti-Putin political motives? Then I see no case for COI. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

If agreeing with an assessment that we're all Putin-shills just because he doesn't agree with the article doesn't show a concrete anti-Putin motive? then what does? Solntsa90 (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Finery (company)

 * -- account blocked per USERNAME
 * - COI declared
 * - WP:SPA per contribs
 * -- WP:SPA per contribs, IP is from London
 * -- WP:SPA per contribs, IP is from London

Article was created and expanded by COI editor, who was later blocked for obvious username issues. They seem to have been replaced by, an SPA. No outing intended, but in this instance they did use a form of their real name and if you Google that username and the word finery, you'll notice they work at the company and in fact are a co-founder of it, mentioned in the wiki article. Edits from both accounts are very promotional. Softlavender (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC); edited 13:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Other than the quotes in the product section I do not see anything that violates WP:NPOV. Maybe leave a notice on the talk page about a connected contributor, but the AfD should weed out any additional concerns. Seems rather straight forward article to me. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I dropped the user the uw-paid template but without more information there's not much to do here. - Brianhe (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I still find this article a bit troubling in that the only people contributing to it have all been SPAs, and every time we call out one of them another one or two pops up instead. The latest is an IP from a PR agency. At the very least, this article needs eyeballs on it, I think (although it is double-tagged already). Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I cleaned it up and removed the tags. Went looking for sources to see if it meets GNG.  Found some and added; appears that it does.  Watchlisted. Not much else to do here for now. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, Jytdog. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Animal Charity Evaluators


I believe User:Eric Herboso has an undeclared conflict of interest. He recommended keeping the Animal Charity Evaluators article in a deletion discussion, but is himself a blogger for Animal Charity Evaluators. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:7588:653:6216:2A44 (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that I have worked with ACE, and this is why I have never edited their wikipedia article. I did not realize that an AfD comment would count as a conflict of interest, though. I will edit the AfD page to make this more clear. &mdash; Eric Herboso 01:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Julie Friedman


Maguffinator is likely Julie Friedman's husband, Jeff Steele. It looks as though Maguffinator created article for his wife.

https://www.pinterest.com/maguffinator/3d-printing/ https://twitter.com/maguffinator
 * My 2 pence: User is a major contributor to Jeff Steele also. I'd say highly likely. Uamaol (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Canadian Association for Equality

 * - indeffed as a sock of
 * - indeffed as a sock of
 * indeffed as a sock of
 * - blocked for 1 week on Jan 29 for socking
 * - indeffed as a sock of
 * - indeffed as a sock of

I'm posting to ask for help dealing with a number of apparent SPAs who have been making problematic edits to our article on the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE), a Toronto-based men's rights group. These accounts all share a singular interest in our article on CAFE and (in some cases) in our article on the group's founder and director, Justin Trottier. Each of these accounts edits almost exclusively on these subjects, and on closer inspection, many of the edits that they've made to other pages often turn out to be related (eg, adding Trottier as a notable alumni to our article about his high school), or removing criticism from our article on Katherine K. Young, a men's rights activist who has participated in multiple CAFE events.

These accounts' edits are problematic because they have been continually removing any suggestion that CAFE is a men's rights group (which is how the vast majority of RS describe them), removing extensive, well-cited material that reflects negatively on CAFE (here's one example), and adding large amounts of material that reflects positively on the group but is most likely undue (eg, sourced to the groups own website or youtube channel, cherry picked quotations from a small number of opinion columnists who happen to support CAFE, etc.) They often use misleading edit summaries to try to try to hide what they're doing.

Note that the names of these accounts all fit a particular pattern (first name, last name, 3 digit number), and that a couple of them have been found to be sockpuppets in the past. Most recently, 2 of these accounts have cooperated to upload a set of images, with a second account re-uploading images which had been deleted from wikimedia. The images all appear to have either been drawn from CAFE's own website and publicity materials, or to have been taken by someone who was physically present at a CAFE event - see and, for example.

The article has very few people watching it and I am not comfortable continually reverting these SPAs (they rarely, if ever, engage on the article talk page). Any/all advice is appreciated, and the page desperately needs more eyes on it. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this here Fyddlestix. The evidence is pretty overwhelming and continued sockpuppetry also looks likely so to start with I've started another SPI. It's unfortunately difficult to review what actually changed in this diff but if you are confident that the version your initially reverted to is better sourced and more neutral I'd advise you to go back to that. I'll keep an eye on it as well. SmartSE (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Smartse, will do. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * bunch of blocks were handed out.. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Antony Coia, again


Reopening discussion; the prior case petered out (see archive 93). Specifically, there was no response to my entreaty to clarify the apparent COI. But the editor is still making problematic contributions. I just did some cleanup of copyvio where someone had apparently scanned a number of articles, uploaded to a file share website under the name Antony Coia, then inserted the website as sources here in contravention of WP:COPYLINK. These insertions were made since last COIN case: and. This is a significant problem. Note Sockpuppet investigations/Pizzole when evaluating contributions to article(s). – Brianhe (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Although the COI may be of interest, the movie database article fails decidedly on sources, which are all informal fan sites. The same is true of the article about Coia. While he can just assume another username and continue creating these articles, removing the articles through the deletion process may be the more effective approach. LaMona (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No COI. I added sources because they are important newspaper sources and aren't written by the subject of the page.--Pizzole (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The first bullet in WP:NOTHERE is "narrow self-interested or promotional activity": perhaps there is no COI and Pizzole is just a fan, but the editor is a clear SPA, and their behaviour is indistinguishable from an editor with an inappropriate COI promoting their own work. I don't see that having other editors take time to respond to timewasting arms-race AfDs (with hard-to-follow Italian-language sources) every time Antony Coia starts a new project would be "more effective" than blocking the user as a not-here-to-build-an-encyclopedia promotional WP:SPA. --McGeddon (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not my fault if you don't understand italian language. Sorry.--Pizzole (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm with here (except that I don't have any trouble reading Italian). This is serious, long-term disruptive behaviour and the usual waste of editor time, a precious resource that could better be spent on building an encyclopaedia (see the current edit-warring at Antony Coia). Indef-block as WP:NOTHERE so that we can all get on with something more interesting. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is nominated for deletion. It strikes me that is is blocked from editing, they may not be able to explain why the article is notable. Shritwod (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * has not really tried to explain anything. He has resorted to threats of deleting the work of those who put the article up for deletion to try to intimadate them into not nominating it for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Ontario Civil Liberties Association
This is just a quick note to direct your attention to a discussion already happening at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, where a COI editor launched an attack thread at another editor. There is some additional material/conflict at Talk:Connie Fournier. Rather than post here again, I just want to point you to ANI: the discussion needs some more eyes, and since I've edited a few of the articles in the last day or two, I don't feel comfortable taking administrative action myself--but I think action is called for. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (and some others)

The Hollywood Reporter


Our rules allow paid editors to draft articles in their own user space and then propose them for placement. CorporateM has done so in this instance and he is not to be faulted. However, I believe hat his draft is imbalanced by not even mentioning the subject's acknowledged and widely publicized role in the Hollywood blacklist. I request additional eyes on this article. See Talk:The_Hollywood_Reporter. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The paid editor omitted the blacklisting material (sourced to the Hollywood Reporter) on the grounds of WP:SELFPUB, which I view as shaky to say the least. Coretheapple (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The precise claim in this instance is as follows: "Wilkerson's campaign against purported Communists was widely believed to have sparked the Hollywood blacklist.[28]" The only provided source for such an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim is a self published source. Given the lack of secondary sources to support this claim, it appears likely to me that article-subject has exaggerated the significance of their role. I don't have the energy for all the COI drama, so I won't fight it... Cheers. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 22:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Your own employer, the people hiring you, have published information that you do not want to use. You just completely ignored it, and as SlimVirgin pointed out on the talk page, there are other reliable sources. SELFPUB is very clear in exempting material published by article subjects about themselves, in this instance dealing with history. This is similar to the New York Times mea culpas concerning the Holocaust and its treatment of Stalin by its correspondent Walter Duranty. Coretheapple (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Question on how to handle possible COIN for Tim O'Reilly, Jennifer Pahlka, Todd Park, and Maker Faire

 * Articles of concern: Tim O'Reilly, Jennifer Pahlka, Todd Park, and Maker Faire
 * User of COIN concern: Special:Contributions/Tadghin

Wanting to assume good faith and not sure how to best proceed, on Talk:Tim_O'Reilly, User Tadghin Special:Contributions/Tadghin supposedly self-identifies himself as the subject of the article about Tim O'Reilly on that Talk page. I am not sure what steps were done by Wikipedia to verify this identity or not, however the edit history shows that this user who supposedly self-identified themselves also has edited the subject page of which the individual is the topic of with the self-written comment “Corrected companies I am on the board of” (note the "I am on the board of" in the comment) and edited the pages of his wife Jennifer Pahlka, to include creating the article and commenting “Added Jen’s role as Unted States Deputy CTO” with the White House, see Special:Contributions/Tadghin. How should this apparent possible conflict of interest be investigated since it seems to span years? The same user also has edited the page for White House CTO Todd Park which if this individual is the person that Special:Contributions/Tadghin self-identifies himself as, has a close professional relationship with per and edited Maker Faire that the subject's company  spun-off the organization that sponsors these events. WatchDogUS (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC


 * Related to this, if you look at the history for Jennifer Pahlka, not only will you see edits by this supposed self-identified user, you will also find edits by a user using the same first and last name, which incidentally is also this person's exact same Twitter handle, as a government agency CTO that worked with the subject of the article: see Revision History. Again, wanting to assume good faith, it may be an editor is just using the same name however it is the same exact name and Twitter handle? Not sure how to handle this second editor's possible COIN? WatchDogUS (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Associations and Societies?
I've been looking through the CoI page, and I haven't seen a specific section referencing non-profit associations and societies. I'm a member, not an officer, of the Triple Nine Society. I haven't edited the page much in the last few years, aside from some minor cleanup. However, I have worked to translate the page into other languages. My questions are: Obviously, the people who are most motivated to update/correct an article are those who are closest to the subject matter and members are a significant source of information for less well-known societies. However, I also understand the other side of the coin, where wanting the society to grow could constitute a CoI. Thanks, samwaltz (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are members of an association automatically conflicted from editing articles?
 * Are members of an association automatically conflicted from translating articles? (Scary thought: Could CoI policies vary language-by-language?)
 * Are officers of an association automatically conflicted from editing articles?

samwaltz (talk) just told me that this "COI Noticeboard" exists and that he had posted on it the fact that he maintains membership in the nonprofit 501(c)(7) Triple Nine Society. I now follow his example (16 February 2016, 8:09 PM Pacific Time). I have been a member of various High IQ Societies including Triple Nine Society and American Mensa (which both have Wikipedia articles about them) since around 2007; I also have held membership in the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (which does not have a Wikipedia article as of the time of this writing). TNS is a 501(c)(7) nonprofit social organization whose membership is restricted to adults with an IQ at or above the 99.9th percentile of the general population; ISPE is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit of similar type; Mensa is (I believe) a 501(c)(3) whose members have an IQ at or above the 98th percentile. I currently hold Life Memberships in both TNS and Mensa, and hold the rank of "Senior Research Fellow" in ISPE. I have served in the uncompensated volunteer Appointive capacity as the TNS Membership Officer from February 2011 to the present, which Office carries with it a position on the TNS Executive Committee and Governing Board, and a Board position on the Triple Nine Society Foundation, TNS's 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit subsidiary. Neither I nor any other TNS Officers receive compensation for our work and, therefore, no member or officer has any cognizable COI that I can discern. Out of an abundance of caution, however, having now learned of the existence of this Wikipedia "COI" page, feel it prudent to disclose that for the past few years I have, from time to time, made minor revisions to the Triple Nine Society Wikipedia page, generally in the way of correcting out-of-date and therefore no longer accurate information (e.g., numbers of members, etc.) and providing new information that had not previously existed (e.g., locations of past and future annual meetings in the US and Europe, called "ggg999" and "egg999" respectively. I have also added accurate and objectively verifiable content, and corrected inaccuracies when I notice them, on other pages that reference TNS, Mensa, ISPE, and the various high-IQ societies to which I do not belong (e.g., Prometheus Society) with regard to their qualifying tests and scores, with links to the respective organizations' Wikipedia pages when available. Though I do not view my volunteer M.O. role in TNS as triggering a COI (in fact, the more TNS grows the more uncompensated volunteer time the M.O. role takes away from my ability to engage in activities that would benefit me financially), one could also argue that every nonprofit Board Member has a COI relating to his fiduciary duty. For that reason, I take special care to make only factual edits to ensure accurate and up-to-date information, and to avoid adding content of a subjective or judgmental nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inabendis (talk • contribs) 04:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * These kinds of questions come up now and then. The thing to keep in mind that is that COI is a guideline, so if in fact you are a member of MENSA or some other association or even an officer, you won't suffer major consequences just by dint of that fact. I know one situation in which the co-founder of a website edited the article about her website, and that practice was in fact permitted, even celebrated. So for the sake of consistency it's hard for me to get worked up about the situation described above. Coretheapple (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

DNS Made Easy


Bringing this up here because the article's history has been so troubled, and past content so promotional, that suggested at AfD a short time ago that it be salted. See also 's analysis of article/draft history here; socking is a strong possibility. – Brianhe (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * In fact, I said "delete, salt, and not move to draft space. Having it there did not produce any improvement in the past, and there's no reason to expect any in the future." The draft was previously deleted at MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:DNS Made Easy (2nd nomination).  DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yank Barry


Strange edit at Yank Barry. New editor Benjamin Weinthal has added a reference to an article in the Jerusalem Post by Benjamin Weinthal. John Nagle (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * New editor also seems not to understand that the lead is not the body of the biography, but is a summary only. Collect (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This article has been referred on a really astonishing number of noticeboards multiple times. Examples of the latest for several boards:
 * Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive201
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive846
 * Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_87
 * Note the last especially, this was part of a COI nexus reported by me mid 2015. Nagle and I tagged/untagged the article for COI in connection with that case. – Brianhe.public (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Article seems to be a COI nightmare and should be watched. In this case, the COI appears to be secondary (a writer hyping an article he wrote), unless there is a connection between the editor and the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh wait a minute. I see that there is a reference in the article to his suing Wikipedia editors. In such a situation I wouldn't touch such an article without an assurance of being held harmless in the event of a lawsuit. If the Foundation isn't willing to extend such a guarantee, it can edit that article itself for all I care. Volunteers shouldn't. Coretheapple (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's been an encouraging discussion at Jimbo Wales' talk page on our response to libel generally, so I may watchlist this after all. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Mitchradio
The user has edited the article for Mitch English who is a tv and radio personality. By their name, I take them to have a possible WP:COI. Their edits may, so far have been benign as KrakatoaKatie thinks, but I think the situation needs a look and possible caution, etc.  Crash Under  ride  00:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Devon Energy
Can someone (preferably, someone familiar with the US energy industry) take a look at Devon Energy? As a Fortune 500 company it's obviously notable, but removing all the puffery from their PR department—let all the edits sourced to press releases—would literally reduce it to a couple of sentences. &#8209; Iridescent 22:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done some trimming and added some content about the layoffs announced yesterday. - MrX 23:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed some PR-speak from the lead. I see that this article has been around for many years and has had quite a bit of COI ending in the past, though I don't see anything blatant recently. Coretheapple (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One major long-term problem is excessive reliance on corporate press releases as sources. Coretheapple (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Phil Waldrep

 * -- nominated for AfD here: Articles_for_deletion/Phil_Waldrep

Single-purpose account, judging by the username and their edit history focusing only on this one topic, plus their content being added to the article is unsourced. Have posted COI template on talk page. sixty nine  • speak up •  22:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I do think she intended to disclose that she works for Waldrep with her username - we just need to make sure of that and then teach them how to follow the COI guideline. I have left a note on her Talk page to start that discussion.  Thanks for bringing this to the community's attention,  Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed some PR from the article. Phil Waldrup Ministries might deserve an article (Ex-President Bush Jr gave the keynote speech at one of their events), but the person himself doesn't have much independent coverage. John Nagle (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * hm. i agree. I don't think either makes GNG ( a passing reference about the Bush visit to the church that you mentioned, is all i found in independent sources)  I won't nominate it as I would like to speak with Hannah without getting into content. Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * New SPA, "Wikipedia824", doing what looks like resume inflation. I took out "Waldrep has also received a State of Alabama medal of honor for contributions to the lives of senior adults.", which was cited to a Waldrep ad in a brochure.  There doesn't seem to be a "State of Alabama medal of honor" known to Google. Checked the Congressional Medal of Honor list, just to be sure. He's not on there.  John Nagle (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for calling that up. I cleaned up the article, looked for sources, found few, nominated for AFD, tagged the article Talk page, and notified the new user of COI guideline.  Have also notified both users of the AFD. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems a good call. This guy just isn't very notable. Since the article is mostly about his books and other products, WP:AUTHOR is the proper notability criterion, and he's not close to passing that. John Nagle (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

just noting here, we did an AfD that ended up dying because an editor pretty much completely rewrote it during the AfD and now it is decent. The Hannah account seems abandoned but Wikipedia824 was active as of 2/16 and hasn't responded yet on their Talk page. I just followed up there and I am hoping they respond. At some point, one of us will end up talking with them, I am sure. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

SinemArt ‎ and Indonesian TV shows

 * - -- SPI filed, dialog opened about COI
 * -- SPI filed, dialog opened about COI
 * -- possible sockmaster
 * - -- SPI filed, dialog opened about COI
 * -- SPI filed, dialog opened about COI
 * -- possible sockmaster
 * - -- SPI filed, dialog opened about COI
 * -- SPI filed, dialog opened about COI
 * -- possible sockmaster
 * -- possible sockmaster

Came across this due to the removal of a speedy tag from one of them. The two editors appear to be socks of Natly 88 and I have filed an SPI here. I cleaned up the articles a bit and tagged them for content and COI. Don't know if others want to speedy them or not. I am not in a good place with that, so I won't.  Jytdog (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Cardenas et al reference spam

 * Incomplete article list
 * Incomplete article list
 * Incomplete article list
 * Incomplete article list
 * Incomplete article list
 * Incomplete article list
 * Incomplete article list
 * Incomplete article list
 * Incomplete article list
 * Incomplete article list
 * Incomplete article list

I've stumbled across this IP updating some URLs and realised that they have been adding citations to the same papers all over the place since at least 2014 with the account. They are hardly cited by other researchers and are included in many general articles where they are irrelevant, making this a case of WP:REFSPAM in my book, although it may well have been done in good faith. There are a lot of articles affected that need cleaning up e.g. these. SmartSE (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * More IPv6 addresses added. - Brianhe (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The short list of editors at Uncertainty modeling makes the link between the registered accounts and the IP fairly compelling. - Brianhe (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Noting that Cardenas has very low h-index (4) so may be trying to increase that. LaMona (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Under Armour


I have no experience of COI reports, but I just noticed this guy claiming to represent the company that is the subject of that article, making changes to the article and requesting changes. I have no idea if that is an issue or not... Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this here, . I've reached out to the editor. Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

RC4WD
I began to take notice of this when one user (in the talk section) pointed it out that "it appears that a major contributor to this article was paid to do so". Since then, in the past few months since I've been watching this article, all I see is various "users" posting nothing of use (to assert notability), all they do is list appearance of magazines to make it seem notable rather than use them as source, even more glaring (or a red flag) is in these listing are international R/C magazines (some are unknown to the English readers), indicating that the editors must work for the company to get them listed. What I find unusual about this article is the number of international Wikipedia articles in other languages (31), far more compared to bigger and more famous brands such as Tamiya Corporation (11), Kyosho (8), Traxxas (5) and Futaba Corporation (6) combined. A remarkable amount from a little known 15 year old brand who only produce rock crawlers (a tiny niche market) and have yet to match the notability of those I mentioned.
 * - nominated for speedy deletion here and deleted. if you look at the redlinked article, you'll see that this was 4th time they tried to create it. oy.
 * - account blocked for spamming March 1 2016
 * - account blocked as a SOCK in 2014
 * - account blocked as a SOCK in 2014
 * - account [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ALocutoro blocked as a SOCK in 2014
 * - WP:SPA so no contribs now that article was deleted
 * - WP:SPA so no contribs now that article was deleted
 * - WP:SPA so no contribs now that article was deleted
 * - WP:SPA so no contribs now that article was deleted
 * - WP:SPA so no contribs now that article was deleted
 * - WP:SPA so no contribs now that article was deleted
 * - WP:SPA so no contribs now that article was deleted
 * - WP:SPA so no contribs now that article was deleted
 * - WP:SPA so no contribs now that article was deleted
 * - WP:SPA so no contribs now that article was deleted

Last thing to point out, the article was created by, who has since been banned for sockpuppetry. Donnie Park (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I cleaned it and there was nothing left so i nominated it for speedy deletion. Thanks Donnie!  Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * article is deleted; noted status of accounts. will archive now Jytdog (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Christie Goodwin
...and the list goes on

N.B. The top 2 are the current editor though this editor claims to lose or forgetting his password and the rest are his old account. There are more IP users but these are over 4 years old but okay, I posted this a bit late as I didn't know the existence of this.

The (formerly ) has repeatedly ignored COI warnings despite admitting being the partner and manager of the subject, his argument (like those in the deletion nominations) states that because "Christie is hired a lot by contemporary artists, the ones that now fill stadiums", therefore Ms. Goodwin is notable. Donnie Park (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Donnie Park named all the connected contributors on the Talk page. i refined it.  i cleaned up the article.  Seems plenty notable to me.  I left messages on the three named accounts (!) this person has used (i am listing the other two, with this note).  None of the accounts has edited the article since Nov 2015 so there is nothing to do now but watchlist this and react if they come back.  Others may disagree on the GNG thing, of course.  But i think this is close-able.  Thanks for bringing it, . Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am satisfied with this version, which I wouldn't had to gone through the inconvenience of nominating this for deletion in November. Donnie Park (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * great, closing for now, hopefully for good. Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Astronomer145

 * - now blocked as SOCK of User:Alwayssmileguys
 * - nominated for deletion here: Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Shai
 * - cleaned this, seems like a notable person
 * - speedy tag was removed by non-admin; PROD was reverted. article is stubified and cleaned. Notability is marginal.
 * - speedy tagged here
 * - speedy tagged here
 * - tried to clean this up but not enough there. speedied here
 * - now up for AfD Articles for deletion/Kaz B
 * - nominated for deletion here: Articles_for_deletion/Carolyn_(singer)
 * - speedy tagged here
 * - someone else tagged for notability; seems to me (jytdog) marginally OK and cleaned it up a bit

I went on Elance a while back and saw that Adam Shai was soliciting an article, and watched the blank page. Three days ago, an article popped up there, and the editor who created the article opened that account on Jan 25 and created all the listed articles, each of which is badly sourced and promotional, in a flurry. I asked them here if they wrote the Shai article for pay. They have not responded and have done nothing since I did that. It is highly likely that this is freelancer and each of these articles is a paid editing job. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems like this editor Jytdog is harrassing me and accusing with prejudice ? As a wiki editor I have rights to create articles of my choice and I love writing articles. Seeing a bundle of messages and poped in and saw this editor Jytdog tagged speed del for almost all articles I created. I dont know why he is attacking my articles ? They are days old and could be speeded by editors who reviewed those articles previosly . I doubt Jytdog's intentions . I want some help !!! Astronomer145 (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice to hear from you Astronomer145. Would you please disclose if you have created these articles for pay?  I asked you this before and you didn't respond there.  As I wrote there, there is a place for paid editors in the community, but you need to disclose that you are paid, and do some additional things.  So please let us know.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Astronomer145, if you are new to Wikipedia, you may find it less frustrating to create your articles at Articles for Creation where experienced editors will help you improve your articles before they go out to the main space. I looked at some of your articles and they do look like many of the first attempts that come to AfC, and that are not yet suitable as WP articles. Creating new articles is difficult, and it takes quite a while to learn how to create an article that is appropriate. At AfC you have the time to edit your draft until it is deemed likely to avoid deletion. We cannot allow poor quality articles to remain in Wikipedia, so these must be deleted. LaMona (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, is right, you should submit your articles though AfC so that they can be peer-reviewed.  You also must disclose it, if you are editing for pay.  This is not optional.  So please do let us know if you were paid to write any or all of the above articles.  Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet_investigations/Alwayssmileguys. There is a chance this is a sock of a banned editor. SmartSE (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice catch! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. Note that they've also apparently edited as since this started based on adding an image they uploaded to commons. SmartSE (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the followup, Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Youth Time

 * which was renamed to: - indeffed for SOCK
 * - indeffed for SOCK
 * - indeffed for SOCK
 * - indeffed for SOCK
 * - indeffed for SOCK
 * - indeffed for SOCK

SPA account adding promotional content (extensive self-sourced information about the organization's mission, belief, objectives, etc. - see recent edit history). Attempts to inform the editor about Wikipedia's COI and anti-promotion guidelines have been ignored. To avoid more back-and-forth reverting, I'd appreciate any additional advice. GermanJoe (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * an admin blocked them for the username violation. that should get their attention. :)  I'll also try to open a discussion with them. btw,  if you try to make it a dialogue - ask a question nicely, and ask them to respond nicely, they are more likely to reply.  most new editors have no idea that what they are doing is wrong, nor how to do the right thing...) strike, i think that editor was hopeless.  ack. Jytdog (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC) (strike !Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC))
 * I cleaned up that article. what a promotional mess it was.  let's keep this open to see if the editor does a new account or rename and the problems resume. Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * They're still trying to WP:OWN the article: . I've adjusted the users involved and if I wasn't already involved would already have used some tools. SmartSE (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * yes they are. I tweaked the userlisting above.  Programsyt is SOCK or MEAT i reckon. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reported to AN/3RR, and frankly the lot of them should be taken to SPI if they keep this up. Voceditenore (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A new account has created a copy on Youth Time Movement, incidentally without the criticized parts that have been under discussion on the article's talkpage. I have nominated this copy for speedy deletion (A10). GermanJoe (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow these people are persistent. - it was created by yet another account which I've listed above. going to spi now.  Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * SPI has been acted on. Updated the listings above. Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Erin Fitzgerald


IP is insisting on redoing the lead paragraphs and picture, citing edit summaries such as "Erin has personally approved this image be used as the most recent image" and "The subject approved the more current and accurate descriptions in the first paragraph... other credits listed were much older." The picture inserted replaces an existing better headshot picture, and the paragraph replacements insert a bunch of really minor roles but in more current animation productions as well as peacock language such as "Emmy award winning show". AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Most recent edit edit summary "Angus please see Erin's twitter feed asking that you let me make the changes I am making to update her page." AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

In the twitter account Erin names myself to stop interfering with the editing that the IP is making on behalf of her. Not sure what to do. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

At this point, I'm letting the edits complete and then will scrub the article for neutrality issues. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, this page is terrible. It's very promotional, the sources are not RS, and there are long, long lists with entries that are either not sourced at all or sourced to non-RS. I think removal for promo could be justified, but at the least the admitted (but not declared) COI should be informed about editing guidelines. LaMona (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The sources are mostly WP:SELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY, but that's typical for voice actors, who have tens and even hundreds of roles. The Tweets were mainly concerning the picture chosen but then expanded for the promotional verbiage that makes it like a resume. But other problems arise when the IPs wanted to expand a single entry for the Ever After High and Monster High web series and television movies to each individual special and film, which makes those sections much longer than it should be, as well as insistence from the subject that roles in non-notable live-action shows and films be included. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 02:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like is doing a massive cleanup on the article in question. He moved the Filmography section to Talk:Erin Fitzgerald for discussion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tagged the article and its talk page, started what i hope will be a dialog with the conflicted editor, and am trying to clean out the promotional gunk. Jytdog (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has been now turned into a stub. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep I did that too. All the content is on the talk page, so you all can figure out what is keepable and what should go.  I don't edit that stuff so I don't know your norms for what should be there but I know bloat when I see it.  There is only one editor here who was causing the trouble - CartoonCara was forgetting to login - innocently I think.  She also didn't know how to use a talk page, really, nor anything about the mission or the policies and guidelines.  She has a sense of all those things now.  And I believe she is an overzealous fan.  So advocacy yes, but not COI.    I will get out of the way now. Jytdog (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A lot of the drama might have been avoided if the new editor had gotten welcomed and informed of our procedures on 10 February when she started editing, instead of 25 February a day after the COI investigation started. Unfortunate as they do seem to be contrite and genuinely confused. Thanks Jytdog for your effective "soft touch" on this one. - Brianhe.public (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think i scared her away. Too much information at once.  Bummer. Jytdog (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can probably restore most of it if need be as voice actor filmographies DO span a lot of entries in general, definitely more so than actors. And unlike the biography section, filmographies can be sourced with primaries and selfpubs (Twitter is acceptable with WP:TWITTER). I just didn't like seeing the article get WP:OWN-ed  and my handle appear on the actor's twitter feed to pool random hate from fans for trying to get the article to standard. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 07:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Religious Institute

 * editors
 * editors
 * editors

Not sure exactly what to do with these two. One is an organization, the other its founder/president. They both have been substantially created or expanded by SPAs, none of whom appear to be active for more than two years. I did some cleanup on one of them then realized it may not be notable. Maybe they should be merged? – Brianhe (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Question about how to handle COI edit for Community of Democracies page


I am writing to flag errors and outdated information in the entry for the Community of Democracies, an international organization that promotes and defend democracy around the world. As a COI user, I did not want to edit the page before exhausting all other options to ensure the accuracy and independence of the material in this entry. More than a month ago, I posted a list of errors on the talk page for this entry. At this point, I'm not sure what to do to ensure that Wikipedia is conveying accurate information about the organization, its membership and its work.

Below, you will find a list of the requested edits:


 * Norway was added to the Governing Council of the Community of Democracies in October 2015: [1]
 * The United States assumed the presidency of the CoD in July 2015: [2]
 * The Working Group on Women and Democracy is chaired by Lithuania not the United States: [3]
 * The Permanent Secretariat has added a satellite office in Geneva as of October 2015

Thanks in advance for any help the community can provide. --CommunityofDemocracies (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The updates have been performed. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oy the OP needs to fix their username. I've left a note for them on that. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Intelligent Platform Management Interface and related articles

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

The user has "rectified who owns the technology" mentioned in these articles by placing references to US patent 6367035 B1 and its inventor into the ledes. I am not qualified to determine the accuracy of the inserted statement, but the username is mentioned as an assignee to the patent; hence, there appears to be a conflict of interest which should be examined. GreenReaper (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Indira Cesarine


User (who began on Wikipedia with the name "Untitledmagazine") has only ever made edits pertaining to Cesarine and the "Untitled Magazine" she edits (the latter, thankfully, never passed Articles for Creation); almost all their visible editing is to Cesarine's page, and essentially all of that is PR puffery.

It is difficult to engage with them on a talk page since, unless I am mistaken, they have never edited one. (Hence, it's hard to tell if they've ever read one.)

If they're not violating the paid editing policy, they're a mug; three years is a long time for an unpaid intership. In any event they have a very clear conflict of interest, and an apparent case of ownership.

I'll grant you the recent editing history on Indira Cesarine doesn't cover me in glory either - but I don't think anything more sensible can be done with a blatant COI editor sticking their oar in every time Cesarine blinks. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've reverted their edits and am watching. It looks like an AFD candidate to me, but I want to double check before nomming. SmartSE (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Indira Cesarine SmartSE (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Vijay Shekhar Sharma

 * - previous Orangemoody thing

Vijay Shekhar Sharma has been re-created again. It was the past target of Orangemooody promotion; see Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles. The article is also found at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 86 and Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 87. – Brianhe (talk) 12:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems to have been created by a legit user this time round and the FT article is about as good as it gets for demonstrating notability. It's worth keeping an eye on, but I don't see any problems atm. SmartSE (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Jabong.com


I did some cleanup but more is needed; has been tagged as promo since June 2015, shortly after it was created. Article is associated with a bunch of SPAs at least one of whom was reported earlier at COIN: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 93. Brianhe (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Biba Apparels


Uncovered during investigation of case immediately above (User:Drruchig). Looks like a team of SPAs was at work on this article. Brianhe (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Reward Gateway


I've traced edits by 82.110.75.2 to the PR firm Hudson Sandler Ltd who represents Reward Gateway. This is a clear conflict of interest.

They also represent Joules (clothing) as well as Bakkavör, similarly undisclosed conflicts of interests. Deku-shrub (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Allen Shoup


User creates article, submit it for WP:AFC which then fails, makes edit again and then passes; I assume this to be a B-class article as rated, I nominated this for for DYK, alarm from reviewers have been raised that somebody have been paid to create this article. Which leaves me scratching my head as in contrast to this, one of the article I created failed AFC which was then bypassed without passing AfC. Since the DYK nomination was withdrawn, that article creator have reemerged again. In short, it appears that the editor have been paid to edit this article. Donnie Park (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Randolph Stone

 * - up for AfD here.

The user identified above is a WP:SPA for polarity therapy per contribs. Created the Stone article. Added links to polaritytherapy.org for example in this dif. COI declared via username.

I tagged the Stone article for COI and lack of independent sourcing - poor sourcing is one sign of COI editing, as well all know. has removed the COI tag from the article, and has raised questions that I have some sort of bias, here on my talk page, to which I responded here. At the same time they were leaving me a message, I had raised questions on their talk page with them, here. They have not responded there yet. Hm. Anyway, as I said, Kindzmarauli is disputing the COI analysis here, so I am posting this to get other eyes on the two articles. I do believe Kindzmarauli has some sort of advocacy issues with regard to these topics, as they do not seem to be recognizing the poor sourcing and promotional nature of the Stone article, and indeed argued to keep it in the AfD. I'm not interested in getting to a big tangle with them; just asking for more eyes on the Stone article.

I have provided notice to Polaritytherapie at their talk page of their username violation here, and notified them of the COI guideline and asked them to disclose here. They have not replied there yet.

I do want to note that I erred in working on the article before I had completed the discussion with the editor. The kind of tangle Kindzmarauli is more prone to happen if clear disclosure is not obtained first. However in this case the COI issues with Polaritytherapie were so clear to me that I leapt ahead. Should not have done that.

Anyway more eyes would be great. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And your proof of COI is what? First you accused a new account creating their first article of being an SPA, now you're saying I have advocacy issues? You've violated WP:BITE, WP:AGF... where else should I go? I've repeatedly asked you to refrain from poisoning the AfD well with templates and refrain from mass content blanking at that article, yet you persist and then have the gall to post edit warring templates on my talk page? If anyone has a bias here it is you, which is evident from your insistence on blanking a full third of an article and adding COI templates (when you haven't established the COI), in an effort to sway the ongoing AfD. That's the only rational explanation for your behavior. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse you of advocacy, I asked you about it. And here, I said "do believe", which is not a claim that you actually have advocacy issues. There is a difference in both.  In any case you are personalizing this.  I opened this to the community by posting here, and am disengaging from you. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your exact words from above: I do believe Kindzmarauli has some sort of advocacy issues with regard to these topics. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why did you restore obvious coatrack material? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not coatrack material. Why are you personally attacking me by making false accusations? Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This was also coatrack material. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, repeating a lie doesn't make it the truth. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, it looks like there are several non-involved editors looking at it, and I've added it to my watchlist as well. Brianhe (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * From the name looks like an obvious COI; from the edits, a pro-fringe editor inserting quackery into Wikipedia (while also deleting negative stuff about "polarity therapy" elsewhere), probably for interested reasons. Just what we don't want. Doubly depressing that we have Randy's enablers showing up too. Delete the crappy content, warn the crap editors and - if they re-offend - ban them. Alexbrn (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Removal of criticism of energy therapy as ineffective treatment twice. Content was referenced and was restored by other editors with updated citations. He's COI, but I can't quite grasp how, yet. Elaenia (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Polaritytherapie has disclosed that they are an advocate for polarity therapy, here and I do believe that they have no COI.  I have apologized and said what I should have said, had i waited for a response to my inquiry, here.  My apologies, again.  The Randolph Stone article is indeed the product of advocacy, which is distinct from COI, which is a subset of advocacy. The advocacy does show.  But there is no COI here, so I am closing this case.  My apologies to everybody for not waiting for a response to my inquiry.  Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Raheja Developers


This is regarding the undisclosed conflict of interest of Leoaugust with Raheja Developers Wikipedia page. He has made several edits to the page which has made it look like a completely negatively biased piece of article. When I tried to balance it by presenting the complete picture, I was forbidden by Sitush from doing so as I myself have disclosed COI with the subject. While I agree with his point of view, I also believe that this does not justify the condition that the page is in at present. Now for every argument I present he says I'm pushing my agenda while no one notices the actual problems that lie open with the page. I have several evidences that prove the COI of other user. I only want to discuss the problems objectively that remain with the page not to remove any correct information positive or negative.   Mr RD    16:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * it was requested by Sitush in this edit summary that you make edit requests on the article's talkpage. That seems the appropriate way forward, but I don't see that you've availed yourself of that opportunity yet. - Brianhe (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brianhe (talk) for reiterating Sitush (talk) suggestion of carrying out the discussion on the merits of the content rather than the artificial COI issues that are being raised as a red herring. So, my discussion on 's suggested changes are at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Raheja_Developers Leoaugust (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I did make edit request on the talk page. Here is my request., do you deny having any COI with this page? From your edit history and by the evidences that I have found, it clearly seems otherwise.   Mr RD    17:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Mr RD. In general, it is really foolish, and a waste of everyone's time and energy, for editors locked in a content dispute to try to engage editors on "the other side" directly about their potential COI.  You have opened it here, now please let other people address it.  Please focus on content, not contributor.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have looked into this, and I believe that Mr RD has a point, and have raised that with Leoaugust on his talk page.  As I reviewed things, it also became clear that Mr RD has not disclosed his employer, client, and affiliation with regard to his paid editing work.  He has disclosed that he has edited for pay, which is what we want, but he has not complied with the Terms of Use, and he needs to do that.  He has also directly edited the article, which the COI guideline strongly discourages.  I have raised those issues with him, on his talk page.  I have added both of them to the headers of this posting.  I also reviewed the history of that article, and it has a really sordid history of promotional editing by socks.  I added headers to the Talk page reflecting that.   Jytdog (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Unfortunately, as Jytdog notes, this situation is far more complicated than it appears at first glance; there's a whole lot of COI going on around Raheja Developers on the promotional side. See Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiaccnt1234/Archive (do Control+F raheja). (Also, opened an ANI two days after opening this COIN thread: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.) -- Softlavender (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think Mr RD's edits in general could do with some scrutiny. Of the few articles that I've looked at, created/edited by him, there seems to be a lot of poorly sourced, POV, promotional rubbish. In addition, some rather deceptive edit summaries that claim to add references, but merely add linkspam. At least there is some honesty in saying "company X" paid me to write an article." the linkspam masquerading as references is far more of an issue. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. I appreciate very much that he is disclosing his paid edits but he still has to learn what really good quality content is like. Jytdog (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't blame him. I can however blame the rules here that allow any form of paid editing. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sudip Bose, again

 * (re)created 29 February without history attribution
 * - confirmed Sock per SPI and blocked for socking
 * - confirmed Sock per SPI and blocked for socking
 * - confirmed Sock per SPI and blocked for socking
 * - confirmed Sock per SPI and blocked for socking
 * - confirmed Sock per SPI and blocked for socking

This has become a slow-motion back and forth between those trimming promo from the article, including admins, and ; and several anons and at least two SPAs adding it back. One registered editor named above never answered my questions ( and ) about being a paid editor. It's the third time this article has been brought up at COIN: see also Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 88 and Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 93. It's increasingly difficult to AGF over this. – Brianhe (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Several rotating 115.118.xxx.yyy IPs geolocating to South Asia, including the latest
 * The article was obviously created by the subject and has been subject to heavily promotional editing. I say we nuke it from orbit. It's a net drain on the project and the guy really is not so notable as to make the effort worthwhile. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps AfD 2 is the best solution  Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an good reason for deletion. I !voted keep at AfD 1,but the subsequent history showed I was wrong about that.   DGG ( talk ) 09:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I missed this before; a detail caught by . Sitaray claimed to have created the article which means he's editing the article under multiple accounts and is also using the name of the subject of the article. - Brianhe (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It is hard to find anyone adding content tot his article who is not at the very least part of the subject's PR team. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Per DGG: Articles for deletion/Sudip Bose. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * and now we have Draft:Sudip_Bose. relentless. Jytdog (talk) 06:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't the draft a violation of the contributors' copyrights, since it does not include the appropriate attribution per WP:COPYWITHIN? - Brianhe (talk) 08:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not being an admin, I cannot see if it is the same article or not. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was always under the impression that everything contributors do is released into the public domain. In any event, I have asked for a speedy of that draft. There is also an SPI pending, and on top of that the article creator has disclosed that 1) He has been using two accounts and 2) He is a paid editor. Coretheapple (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * plagiarism and copyright and licensing are distinct but related things. yes, each contributor owns the copyright on contributions that they create.  under the Terms of Use, contributors do grant CC licenses to the copyright on  their contributions.  where plagiarism comes in, is ... if you contribute someone else's work as your own (plagiarism) it wasn't yours to license and the whole thing falls apart.  the guideline on how to copy content within Wikipedia appropriately, without violating the WP:PLAGIARISM guideline, is Plagiarism.   In addition,  if you are plagiarising you are a) also violating someone else's copyright and b) even if they licensed it CC, you are violating the CC license by not attributing.   i hope that make sense. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * recorded confirmed socks from Coretheapple's SPI filing. Thanks for filing that. Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Fine, but please curb your tendency to engage in extended colloquies when dealing with this particular paid editor, per the second paragraph of WP:COITALK. Your posts on the AfC talk page have served no useful purpose other than to jack up his billings and complicate matters, as well as possibly given him a lesson in how to avoid speedy deletion. Coretheapple (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't realize that you had posted this here - I replied to its instance at the Talk page of the now-deleted draft.  First, WP:COITALK is advice for paid editors and presents absolutely no bar to editors engaging with paid editors. None.  Second.  You have this assumption that this editor is/was being paid by the hour and are drawing conclusions, and even "advising" me, based on that assumption.  If you actually study boards where paid editing work is bought and sold, they are almost all paid by the job.  I don't think I've ever seen per-hour work posted there.  And we don't know if Sitarary is a freelancer, of an employee of a PR agency, an employee of Bose's foundation, or Bose himself.  You are free to hold sloppy garbage in your mind, but please don't foist it on me.   Third.  And while you seem to want to treat paid editors like vermin, I treat them like people.  Because they are.  People often respond well to education.  Not always.  But to me its worth trying.  So no, I will not join your pitchfork brigade, Core.  I won't dehumanize people. Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, between your topic ban and your interaction bans and your being banned from half the talk pages in creation, I really think that your insult-happy account is probably the last place I would seek wikiquette advice. So thanks a bunch but spare me the sanctimony, Coretheapple (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, blah blah personal attack blah blah. Just put away your pitchfork - that is all too human behavior, but it is not Wikipedian. (and I think you meant to post this above, as it is not responsive to this thread.  If so, please feel free to move your comment and mine up there)  Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC) (strike, was moved Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC))
 * Well since you were saying basically the same thing in two places, it doesn't much matter but I moved it. Look, it is not a personal attack to point out that you are 1. Insult-happy; that's been pointed ouit to you repeatedly and 2) see below. Coretheapple (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Adequacy of paid editing disclosure
There is some question as to whether the paid editor involved in this article, User:Sitaray, who has just attempted re-creation of the article at AfC, is in compliance with WP:PAID. He initially disclosed something called "Kolweb" as his employer, with Bose the client. He then reverted that eleven minutes later, and makes no further reference to that employer. It's hard to explain this reversion other than an effort not to disclose his/her employer, which is required by policy. Since there are several "Kolwebs," he would also have to provide more than just that name. Coretheapple (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh that is a nice catch. Kolweb is an Indian company that offers web design and online marketing services per their site. For example if you look at the bottom of  Sudip Bose's website, you will see that Kolweb built it (the name there links to the Indian site), and this youTube video promoting Bose was posted by an account called Kolweb that links to a google-plus page with the same corporate logo.  So hm.
 * You know, I think the instructions at Template:Paid are kind of unclear. It says there:
 * employer = Name of the company or individual paying for the contributions
 * client = Name of the company or individual on whose behalf the contributions are made; this will often be the subject of the article. In many cases the employer and client will be the same, in which case only the employer will be shown.
 * This is really built for freelancers. If somebody hasn't lived through all these discussions it might be unclear what goes where.  Assuming that Sitaray works for Kolweb, he/she surely knows that Bose would be the one actually "paying for the contributions".  So there is room to see honest mistake there. The instructions there and at the policy page about what the terms "employer" and "client" mean, could be better.  That might be good to clarify.  In the meantime, I will ask Sitaray.  They might not be around anymore... Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I hope that they are not around anymore. This is not a good faith contributor. They are a paid account that materializes periodically for the sole purpose of servicing accounts. It is not entitled to the presumption of good faith. So no, I don't put away my pitchfork and yes, your treating them like misguided puppies is amusing. Now, I don't expect to hear from Sitaray; that account has gone. In the unlikely event it rematerializes I can take it from there. You can treat it like a newbie even though it has been around for seven years and has admitted to using two accounts in this article. I will treat it like a paid editor. Coretheapple (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You did ask them nicely about it even before you posted here above. That was good of you, thanks. We'll see what he says, if anything.  He may have heard me when I explained on the deleted Talk page why further efforts would be futile at this time, given the sources that exist... in which case he may be able to explain that to his bosses, and this goes away, that way, instead of us playing whackamole.  Nobody wants to waste time, especially not people spending money. Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to be nice. This is an abuser of the project. It is obvious that the person behind this account has been socking like it is going out of style. I counted something like seven socks on this article, counting IPs. I'm not saying be abusive, but yes, brisk and businesslike if it is necessary to be in contact with one of his accounts. Your attitude toward obvious bad-faith accounts is just plain weird. Unhelpful too. You need to snap out of it. Coretheapple (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Even abusers of the project are people, and you did write nicely. But your claim of certainty that there is one person operating the several accounts is premature, as the SPI has not yet closed. Put the pitchfork down  And your claim that the charity was fake and had no 501c3 from the IRS was wrong.  Your claim about what WP:COITALK says is wrong.  So many wrong things.  Coming in so hard, with such blanketing suspicion, just isn't helpful to you or anyone. It creates yet more work to verify the claims you are making and just creates a lot of unnecessary noise and drama.  Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * COITALK specifically cautions against getting involved in long-drawn out conversations with paid editors. There are also policies, guidelines, rules, edicts and common sense against getting involved in long-drawn-out conversations with time-wasters and trolls, so this conversation is over. Coretheapple (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, there is no "caution against".  It just says "should be aware" - so that editors can choose if they want to spend their time, or not.  That's it.   It is only your dark mind that reads it that darkly. Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's the best example of hair-splitting I've found recently. Damned if I know why you are banned from so many talk pages and were topic banned for this kind of nonsense. Are you done? Coretheapple (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is what you wrote: Fine, but please curb your tendency to engage in extended colloquies when dealing with this particular paid editor, per the second paragraph of WP:COITALK. That is wrong. Not hairsplitting wrong.  Dead wrong.  Please stop mischaracterizing the guideline. Jytdog (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So engage in extended colloquies with paid editors. Engage in extended colloquies with your doorstop. I could care less. You seem to enjoy wasting other people's time. It's a big thing for you. Have a good one. Coretheapple (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't need your leave, but appreciate your offer nonetheless. However, I haven't been addressing that - I have been addressing your justification. It is bad for everyone when key guidelines are mischaracterized, especially in unreasonable ways. But this is especially harmful with regard to the COI guideline, which is still embattled in some quarters - and this is exactly the kind of garbage that people opposed to stronger COI management claim that we, who work for stronger COI management, do and say. And here you are actually saying it. So please stop. And I will keep saying that as long as you keep spouting this. Because it hurts all of us. So just stop. Jytdog (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. I won't stop. (Whatever it is you want to stop - I forget.) Why don't you repeat yourself for another few thousand lines? Coretheapple (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing how unseriously you take the COI guideline. That is a sad thing. Jytdog (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I take the guideline seriously. However, I don't take you seriously. Coretheapple (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The account has clarified that he is directly employed by the subject of the now-deleted article. So his disclosure seems to be OK at the present time. Re-instating previous archiving. Coretheapple (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Have unarchived and holding it open pending conclusion of SPI. Checkuser confirms socking. Please don't archive this until the SPI has been resolved, so as to complete the record for future reference. See Sockpuppet investigations/Sitaray/Archive. Coretheapple (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Atlantic Coast Brands again


Editor ignored October 2015 query about paid editing status and has resumed editing Atlantic Coast Brands today. Refer to Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 89 for history. Brianhe (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've nominated it for AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Queen Esther (artist)


An apparent COI account created the bio in 2012 and has done most of the editing since then. Some good writing and sourcing, amid which are interspersed promotional sentences and unacceptable references. Could really use a going-over by neutral editors. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

679699sof

 * - deleted at AfD here
 * - deleted at AfD here
 * - deleted at AfD here
 * - deleted at AfD here
 * - deleted at AfD here
 * - deleted at AfD here
 * - AfD started by Arthistorian1977 here
 * - AfD started by Joseph2302 here
 * - deleted at AfD here
 * - redirected to Cologne patricians by Joseph2302
 * overstolz family - deleted at CfD here
 * espenschied family - deleted at CfD here
 * - AfD started by Joseph2302 here
 * - deleted at AfD here
 * - redirected to Cologne patricians by Joseph2302
 * overstolz family - deleted at CfD here
 * espenschied family - deleted at CfD here

Account has helpfully admitted to conflict of interest. Insofar as they're translating content from German Wikipedia and adding properly sourced material, the edits are constructive. However, there have also been repeated attempts to add trivial content about non notable family members, which I've deleted from several articles, and copious promotional and copyright violations at Adriana Sanford. Taken in all, the articles are a mare's nest: some may fail notability, others are replete with sources that can't be easily referenced (do they refer to the subjects in depth, or in passing?), and all need to be double-checked for neutrality. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that Adriana Sanford is a promotional mess, but the others are long since deceased and so this is probably more of a WP:NOR issue rather than COI as I can't see what they stand to gain from writing about them. Obviously if they aren't notable they shouldn't be included and WP:NOTGENEALOGY is relevant to some of the content. SmartSE (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just started Articles_for_deletion/Adriana_Sanford. SmartSE (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Deceased they may be, but since the editor claims to be related, there's the uneasy sense that Wikipedia is being used to publish articles on their family tree--it's notability by extension. Must every bio expand to give us family history, as here and here ? 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, they're a single-purpose account for creating their family tree. Almost every bio has a very similar family life section, and almost all of the newly created bios are about non-notable people. I've AfDed a few of them. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I think Philippina Espenshied is awfully flimsy as well. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll just note here without excessive elaboration that the year of birth birth date of the subject was divined by the article author without any apparent citation, and appears as part of the username of the article author. They also have access to a previously unpublished image of the article's subject (according to TinEye) and sufficient proximity to get it released through OTRS. - Brianhe (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

My regret is that I didn't pursue this more avidly when I discovered some of the edits back on February 8--alas, real life has taken precedence. There's a heap of copyright violations, some of which I've removed. My thanks to those who've followed up on the report, done some cleaning and nominated articles for deletion. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added a second, apparently dormant account up top. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Lots of the articles have been deleted now. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Gun trusts


Two very similar articles seem to be packed with references that could be considered refspam. Examples: Not sure how bad this is or whether cleanup is necessary. More opinions wanted. – Brianhe (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * guntrustdepot.com
 * guntrustlawyer.com
 * secureguntrust.com
 * 2atrusts.com
 * utahtrustattorneys.com


 * At a minimum, I think these two articles need to be merged. Much of the text is identical and there is nothing to say why one is different from the other. Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The subject is covered at National_Firearms_Act. Gun trust and NFA trust are mostly sales pitches and coatracks for promotional links. Proposed deletion of both. John Nagle (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes there is something going on with the editors - I just listed them here, and opened discussions on each of their talk pages. Also did what you would expect. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm adding to the list Rald17 who seems to like 2atrusts.com and utahtrustattorneys.com. Could you do your magic with that editor as well? - Brianhe.public (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, on their talk page and at spi Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * just had a nice exchange with RawrRawringtonIII who said they would abide by the guideline. Also pointed me to Fullautogunguy with whom I have opened a discussion... Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Gun trust and NFA trust were de-prodded with the puzzling comment "PROD not appropriate for contested deletions". - Brianhe (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a wave of speedy and PROD patrolling by non-admins going on that I do not understand. Those folks think they are helping by ensuring these tags are used in the way they see as appropriate.  From my perspective they are busybodies.  But some people view me as a busybody, so what can I say. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Zeus Mortgage


Is it WP:ADMASQ? Its creation was definitely a work for hire per this. Calling who has a good eye for business notability. This one seems to hinge on how fast the company grew in 2011. Many sources are actually corp press releases, including at least one that was deceptively sourced to an industry magazine. Brianhe (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Added another editor who also created suspiciously promotional Trip Ross, TeamSnap, Woozworld. - Brianhe (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Eonon

 * - and deleted following  nomination for speedy deletion.  if you look at the redlinked article, you'll see that this was 4th time they tried to create it.
 * - WP:SPA
 * - WP:SPA so no contribs now that article was deleted
 * - WP:SPA so no contribs now that article was deleted
 * - WP:SPA
 * - WP:SPA so no contribs now that article was deleted
 * - WP:SPA so no contribs now that article was deleted
 * - WP:SPA so no contribs now that article was deleted, serving 2 year of a total of 7 year block
 * - WP:SPA so no contribs now that article was deleted
 * - WP:SPA so no contribs now that article was deleted
 * - WP:SPA so no contribs now that article was deleted

I thought I'll bring this up in case this article gets recreated again. Article creator user:Silena have appeared to be the creator of the press releases, the articles appears to be recreated after it was deleted with updated information. AAll of these have [[WP:SPA in common but three of those have since been banned (promotional username). In all, Donnie Park (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * you have to notify users that are reported here. Would you do that, please? You can use the template at the top of the page, or use your own words on their talkpage. - Brianhe (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I reported and  as one was the creator and the other one that seems the most recent editor. I just new to all this COI thing and until a few days ago, I discovered it. I brought this up in case it gets recreated again. Donnie Park (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SpokenReasonsFF
User: Articles: SpokenReasonsFF has been informed repeatedly about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and the requirement for paid editors to disclose their employer, clients and any other relevant affiliations: SpokenReasonsFF has acknowledged a number of conflicts of interest: None of these acknowledgements provide the details required by WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY, and none of them used the prescribed method for doing so.
 * User talk:SpokenReasonsFF
 * User talk:SpokenReasonsFF
 * : Special:Diff/576491627
 * : commons:Special:Diff/185816723
 * : Special:Diff/702840768, commons:Special:Diff/186297513
 * : commons:Special:Diff/186300186

As SpokenReasonsFF has acknowledged working as a publicist for several individuals in the entertainment industry, it seems likely that edits to the other articles listed at the top are also the result of undisclosed conflicts of interest.

SpokenReasonsFF continues to create articles with a promotional tone (Jimmy Tatro, Omar Dorsey, Cyrus Arnold) and make edits that clearly should not be made by an editor with a conflict of interest. For example, Conflict of interest states that "In some cases, the addition of media files to an article may be an uncontroversial edit that editors with a COI can make directly, but editors should exercise discretion and rely on talk pages when images may be controversial or promotional. If the addition of an image is challenged by another editor, it is not uncontroversial." Nevertheless, when SpokenReasonsFF's attempts to replace File:Paul Scheer by Gage Skidmore.jpg in Paul Scheer with a promotional headshot with unclear copyright status have been challenged by multiple editors including myself, SpokenReasonsFF has simply reinserted the challenged image: —LX (talk, contribs) 20:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Initial replacement
 * First challenge and reminder of applicable COI guidelines (by me)
 * Second replacement
 * Second challenge (by User:Stemoc)
 * Third replacement


 * I guess I'd better add a comment here to keep this from getting archived without action. Is there anything I should have done differently when reporting this? —LX (talk, contribs) 21:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The Care Bears Movie


Animator has changed name and gender identity from David Brewster to Darlie Brewster, and wants the current name to be used in the article. Recent editing on The Care Bears Movie. Pinging as COI was declared on his talk page. This will likely affect any and all animation articles that use the name. While it's not a big deal to change to Darlie on the article itself, with citations to the new name, care must be done not to disrupt the quoted text on existing citations as the IP had done and to follow WP:BIRTHNAME Also, Darlie does not have an independent Wikipedia article at the moment, but COI would be declared if such is created. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC) updated 20:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, . Related, I've asked our friends at Wikiproject LGBT to weigh in here. The issue of WP:BIRTHNAME was causing me some confusion and the rest of the obviously-available sources were not helping much. MOS:IDENTITY doesn't really address what to do when someone was once credited as A and is now credited as B. There was nothing about this at WP:BLP and even the LGBT project page was a bit vague. Compounding my confusion, The Matrix credits The Wachowski Brothers, while Bound (1996 film) credits Lana Wachowski individually. One other matter at the Care Bears article, I could not access the reference in question, and there were no useful archives at Archive.org. Anyhow, I'm rambling. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm trying out the Bruce (later Caitlyn) format for that article. If desired, it can be Caitlyn (credited as Bruce). There aren't any he/she pronouns to tweak, and nothing in the infobox for now. However, other productions may present that issue. And found a link to the updated archive, but it is still behind a paywall. This is still strong enough for COIN right? AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Kamal Dhaliwal


The SPA user created an article about themselves with no references which was speedily deleted. Then they recreated the article again. The article was tagged for A7 again but the user deleted the tag. It was restored and the editor reported here, but the user continues to edit war to delete the tag, re-adding references to Wikipedia itself. Prhartcom (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

When the administrator speedily deleted the article, they apparently also deleted history of the editor's contributions to that article (I've never seen that before). Therefore, there is no longer any documentation for this COI. The user has stopped, so this case be archived. Prhartcom (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Splunk


Hi all, I've proposed several updates/additions to Splunk, here — some factual updates, additional citations and a few expansions of basic information. I have a COI and won't be editing directly, but I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and provide feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Any takers? Anything I can do to make my suggestions easier for someone else to review/respond to? Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Mary. I'll have a look this weekend. I'm not sure how productive I will be, but I can get a start at least. Thanks in advance for declaring your connection. --Drm310 (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Really appreciate it. Mary Gaulke (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)