Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 98

Yemeni Civil War detailed map


This user apply to edit Yemen Civil War template map without mention sources or web news link with regard to the warning given (1). while ago he had been warned by Admin because of violation three revert rule & edit warring (2). i start discuss for dispute resolution on talk page (3) but he refused to answering. it's important note that not his first sabotage, this action is repeated over and over again by him. to see can refer to "contributions" section in his profile. right now that i'm typing this matters he reverted two edit without giving decisive reason. (4) please stop this saboteur. K!lluminati (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * could be a witness. Kiluminati is a Single-purpose account. He refused sources that mentionned Hadi advance. The account appeared in December and he speaks of vandalism. He removes sources such as Masdar speaking advances loyalists and source map with Al Masira, official media Houthi . This is unacceptable. And he accused the others to vandalism. He had been warned here and here. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly i'm not one Single-purpose account, there are numerous edits from me on various pages such as Libyan Civil War, Sinai insurgency, Taliban insurgency, Syrian, Iraqi, and Lebanese insurgencies and ... that exists in my profile and can be seen from here even in definition of single-purpose account said that “while many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest” and come in elsewhere “Evidence that the user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area may suggest the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus” and “New users acting in good faith often edit topics in which they have a general interest. Users who continue to work within a narrow range of articles may find it difficult to build credibility in community discussions, although extended improvement to a specific section of Wikipedia should not disadvantage an expert opinion. As with all Wikipedia articles, users need to cite the relevant verifiably published evidence from reliable sources to support their point of view. Inevitably, some experienced editors might not agree with cited interpretations during content discussions.” why not to be well-intentioned ? if all of my edits be biased i never shouldn't have edited benefit to Pro-Hadi based on facts, but i did that not once, rather several times.
 * Secondly, why should't newcomers speak of Vandalism ? according to which laws ? have accused me to ignoring & removing Masdar & Al-Masirah source while he reject & denies it at here (not interesting? :D) in hint and previous reprimand by admin he told resolve your dispute on talk page but this user rather than discussion and settling disagreements was fleeing from answering. i notice to him multiple times but he neglects!.
 * it was suggested what is way out form bewilderment and achieve to stable conditions consensual even was voted regulations used about editing map in similar topics and pages. I repeat again just only way to coming out of debate that's be enacted of laws and all of user follow-up of them, it seems best rules can be like so :


 * Media which are reliable, credible and valid, no naming Unreliable and Invalid.
 * for inserting & actions of edit on map BE USED both side of opinions & sources.
 * per any change in map MUST be provided one WEB NEWS LINKS.
 * references, cited components & constituent parameters & elements in web news links MUST be clear, specified & availability.
 * forcefully avoid of bias, prejudice, hatred & grudges of Partisan, Ethnic & Factional.


 * and


 * 6. A reliable source for that specific edit should be provided.
 * a) A well-known source that has a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) for all edits.
 * b) A well-known source that does not have a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) only for edits that are unfavorable to the side it prefers (favorable to the side it opposes).
 * c) A source that is not well-known (or that has proven inaccurate for all edits) cannot be used (is deemed unreliable) for any edit. This includes all maps (see item 2- next).
 * 7. Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR. WP:RS: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source: Verifiability WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.”


 * 8. WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated. If you are not sure about what the source is saying (or its reliability), post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed.


 * other comments from contributing editor can be helpful & determinative in subsequent decisions. K!lluminati (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * First, I ask Kilumnati cease to qualify those who do not think like him vandals or saboteurs . This is a personal attack and I demand punishment. For its wars of editions of removing information about advanced Yemeni government, just see his latest contributions . Enough 's enough of this pov pusher . And personal attacks , simply view comments for change , there's always a personal attack. Moreover, it is somewhat strong coffee that has come out of nowhere in December 2015 , already knows the community pages of Wikipedia and has the nerve to accuse of vandalism. So he who does not know the definition. Moreover, it is certain that behind the Kiluminati account hides an experienced account , perhaps even banned. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * this is a board for dealing with potential conflicts of interest, not for resolving for content disputes. You have not said why you believe Panam2014 may have a conflict of interest, nor what that outside interest is.  Please define it, and please provide a dif showing why you believe there is a conflict of interest.  thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In the beginning should be said due to accusation WP:SOCK i prefer to get under WP:SPI for clarification. In the event acquittance slanderer be punished by enforcement authorities.
 * One of main principles of Wikipedia it's Encyclopedia WP:5P1 that emphasis to “All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources.” and had come in laws WP:RS: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” but Panam2014 violated it e.g. at here as regards all of fabricated maps are approximate it can be an example of WP:COI.
 * Or another principle of Wikipedia is neutral point of view WP:5P2 and WP:NPOV that one of subdivisions is avoid of Bias point. in brief deduced from This Law: “A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased”. Panam2014 is a fanatic Pro-Hadi and accuse opposite comments to supporting the Houthis(Counterpoint of Pro-Hadi) to true or false. e.g. at here, here and here this is contrary to the policies of Wikipedia WP:5P2 and seems can be an instance of WP:COI. and other items that will be told if necessary. K!lluminati (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, what you are describing sounds like advocacy, not conflict of interest. Please see WP:ADVOCACY.  Those kinds of content disputes get resolved best at the neutral point of view noticeboard, WP:NPOVN.   I am closing this, as this has nothing to do with COI.  I am sorry you are stuck in such a difficult dispute, all of you. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I demand an immediate sanction against the puppet socket for general behavior on the encyclopedia. For Warring he did with, where it distorts the meaning of Article to deny that to update the map with the advancing troops Hadi. Furthermore, I demand punishment for his personal attacks, defamation that are calling me a vandal, saboteur and fanatical pro Hadi. Panam2014 (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Aleksandra Mir


The bio just plain needs more eyes on it from objective editors, since its content and tone appear to have been controlled, for a very long time, by the subject. The giveaway this morning is the flowery opening, but more issues may reside within. Thanks. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * They've started talking at their talkpage (technically at my talkpage, but I moved it to theirs). They don't seem like they're going to stop editing it anytime soon, and are demanding someone remove the COI/autobio tags.
 * If someone could do a full article cleanup, then they can be removed. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Though removal of the templates isn't contingent upon it, I'd like to see Ms. Mir's account banned from editing the article, and advised only to make suggestions at its talk page. Her persistent inquiries at Joseph2302's talk page indicate what's wrong with autobiographical editing, including ownership and rationalization that other artists' bios are written by their agents. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That said, there's broad enough coverage to expand the article through descriptions of the artwork, but it can't be entrusted to COI accounts. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Global Innovation Index


The above editor has the following on their user page, "I work as manager of the GII, Global Innovation Index. My intention is to help improve and contribute to the GII and GII-related articles on Wikipedia in a neutral and accurate manner. I have taken note of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in particular of these relating to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Verifiability." and is heavily editing the article of their employer. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That article has substantial problems: first, a ranking based on a complex proprietary calculation (as opposed to publicly available data) cannot be hosted on Wikipedia – see WP:CIL – so I've removed that; and secondly, there were copyright violations going back to the first version of the page. I've blanked it and listed it at WP:CP; it needs to be rewritten from scratch. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Precision Group

 * - recorded history of editng on talk page and tagged article
 * - recorded history of editng on talk page and tagged article
 * - recorded history of editng on talk page and tagged article
 * - recorded history of editng on talk page and tagged article
 * - this was deleted at the request of an author 8 April 2015
 * - recorded history of editng on talk page and tagged article
 * - recorded history of editng on talk page and tagged article
 * - this was deleted at the request of an author 1 April 2015
 * - recorded history of editing on talk page and tagged article
 * - recorded history of editing on talk page and tagged article. Note, Joseph2020 PRODed but it was removed
 * - recorded history of editing on talk page and tagged article
 * - recorded history of editing on talk page and tagged article - Put up for AfD by Smartse
 * - recorded history of editing on talk page and tagged article
 * - recorded history of editng on talk page and tagged article
 * - recorded history of editng on talk page and tagged article
 * - stale, last edit June 2015
 * - stale, last edit Aug 2015
 * - stale, last edit Oct 2015. Note, 144 Edward Street, Brisbane is a building owned by Precision
 * - blocked as a SOCKMASTER
 * - blocked as a SOCK of James mccosker, edited only Precision Group article, prepared extensive sandbox
 * - blocked as a SOCK of James mccosker, edited only Precision Group article,


 * - possibly related to Pk.kimemia
 * - possibly related to EditorJ16
 * - obvious paid editor - was active Oct 2014 when she worked at PR agency, was WP:SPA for this topic
 * - as of Feb 2016 working on Shaun Bonétt
 * - as of Feb 2016 working on Shaun Bonétt

All editing promotionally around Shaun Bonétt and his Precision Group.
 * James mccosker only edits promotionaly around Precision Group
 * Precision Group
 * Shaun Bonétt
 * Adelaide Central Plaza. Owner is Precision Group
 * MacArthur Central. Owner is Precision Group
 * Chevron Renaissance Shopping Centre. Owner is Precision Group
 * Pran Central. Owner is Precision Group
 * White Horse Hotel, Surry Hills. Owner is Precision Group
 * Victory Hotel. Owner is Precision Group
 * Port Canal Shopping Centre. Owner is Precision Group
 * Customs House Port Adelaide. Owner is Precision Group
 * 144 Edward Street, Brisbane. Owner is Precision Group
 * Towers of Chevron Renaissance. Contain Chevron Renaissance Shopping Centre
 * Other than token edits, edits to other articles are based around Bonétt, egs


 * 220.233.10.158. Matching James mccosker with this (immediately cleand by James mccosker) and edits to User:James mccosker/sandbox. Also edits to User:Phil1371/sandbox (see below)
 * Phil1371. Creating infoboxes and galleries for Precision properties  (used by James mccosker in his edits), reviewing Pran Central article created by James mccosker minutes after creation.
 * Prancentral sole edits are a picture gallery of Pran Central in [User:Phil1371/sandbox]. Shares name with Pran Central
 * EditorJ16. after some toke edits all edits have been on Precision Group
 * GarryEvan777. All edits have been on Precision Group . Including review the article which was created by James mccosker.
 * JohnDB. All edits are to Bonétt except for a request for an article on Bonétt's Heartfelt Foundation.
 * Pk.kimemia. Creation of 160 Ann Street, Brisbane, previously owned by Precision Group
 * HollieAzzopardi. Created previous adverts for Precision Group, Victory Hotel, Pran Central Plaza and MacArthur Central Shopping Centre. Only live edits are around Shaun Bonétt. See also . Her version of Shaun Bonétt removed there was than resored by a SPA IP and refined by another
 * 144edward sole edit is to the sandbox of James mccosker . Shares a name with 144 Edward Street, Brisbane
 * Renzoy16 is a paid editor who has come in to "cleanup" the Bonétt article and remove tags. Renzoy16 denies being paid here.

A parallel sock puppet investigation is being created for some of these accounts. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet investigations/James mccosker duffbeerforme (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The COI is obvious, particularly the use of images from their websites which have had CC notes added to them e.g. . We need to check whether the buildings are notable. Given that, the appearance of Renzoy16 making edits like this is obviously worrying given that they are predominantly a paid editor and it's hard to believe that their edits to the article aren't paid for. SmartSE (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thanks all. I am going to try to talk to them and will hold off and helping with cleanup til that happens. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Relevant history at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 96. This user appears to have returned to undisclosed COI (paid) editing. - Brianhe (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

updated with SPI findings so far Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * recorded editing on talk pages of articles and tagged them. Jytdog (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In addition to the above, sockpuppeteer and paid promo editor Mamadoutadioukone created articles for Bonétt related companies Litigation Lending Services and ISelect (company). Both made sure to mention Bonétt, the latter mention being very noticeably deliberate in it's undue weight. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Brbrvanderlinden, Barbara Vanderlinden and Inti Films


Edits are autobiographical or made on behalf of associated Belgian film and art projects and colleagues. The articles created by the editor require oversight from objective contributors to address promotional and/or unsourced content. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Arkady Shilkloper
Article Arkady Shilkloper is being edited by user Arkady Shilkloper. Tayste (edits) 23:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * editors
 * editors
 * editors
 * Added another article on a related musician, an editor on that with autobiog-ish username, and another editor active at both articles. – Brianhe (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Funimation and its employees


Morgan Berry and Danielle McRae, both with Funimation, showed up the same day and made articles about themselves. Now that both are up for deletion, two more accounts have popped up, Otaku.Unknown and TheOtakuClub, whose only edits are related to Morgan Berry. It seems a clear case of meatpuppetry at best. 206.41.25.114 (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This pair of contribs speak volumes .SephyTheThird (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Both articles are in the AFD process but mostly because they have not met WP:ENT notability. Should the articles be retained, then COI should be declared. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles deleted via afd, Danimcrae has recreated Danielle McRae as a begging point for it to be restored. Requesting action taken over this blatant disregard for procedure and continued COI.SephyTheThird (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

TearSolutions
Looks like COI per User_talk:Glaurie Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've PRODed the article and am in dialogue with the user. SmartSE (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Feedspot


Editors who have admitted to being connected to the website are constantly reverting any criticism of the company, even when references are provided. Same editors are adding promotional content to the article. To be honest, I'm not even sure the website meets the notability requirements for inclusion, as outside of the ~3 articles referenced, there's not been any additional coverage in the years since it launched. Even the 3 references are weak, in that they're brief reviews of a newly launched website. Elaenia (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I see NextBigWhat used as a significant source. In my opinion, corroborated by an independent investigation, this is a fake reference: a "news" site that prints advertorials as facts. See my October RSN thread which unfortunately was not answered. Brianhe (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ya, that was the reference which made me say there were ~3 outside references instead of the 4 technically used. Based on what I've found and what you've linked above, I believe the website would best be characterized as a "press release" or even spam blog. Even their contact form allows you to submit press releases and advertising inquiries. Based on the contact page and WHOIS information, it seems to be a one person running the website, so it's really more of a blog than a real news website. Elaenia (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agarwal113 said "I'm the founder of Feedspot", Anuj Agarwal. Vineet Agarwal is listed as a co-founder and officer , matching the name of another editor Vineetagarwal1980. Yet another Agarwal was credited by Vineetagarwal1980 as author of the NextBigWhat piece , although the name does not actually appear on NextBigWhat. — Brianhe (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Karma (WISP)


Additional details available on Talk:Karma (WISP), but the gist is that an employee, along with a few IPs, are whitewashing the article by removing any criticism, even when properly cited. In its place, the connected editors are inserting promotional material. If you check the page's history, you'll see a long history of attempted removals of properly cited criticism and attempts to add content of a promotional nature to the article. Elaenia (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there clearly is an issue with the company employees. But, frankly there is also an issue with disgruntled customers using the article as payback. COI works both ways. The "controversy" is far too long and repetitive for the kerfuffle involved and suffers from citation overkill. The references don't indicate that this "controversy" attracted major press attention, although there are a couple of balanced tech press articles on it. The references to a list of complaints at the BBB (verging on a primary source) and a website devoted to fighting any sort of cap on internet usage are inappropriate and unnecessary. Giving it an entire "controversy" section is undue as was the implication that this is an ongoing issue, and treating the article as a consumer newsletter. I have copyedited it from Karma has been the center of controversy the past several months over changing their Neverstop plan and cutting customers data multiple times. They are being accused... to Karma became a center of controversy in January 2016 over changing their Neverstop plan and cutting customers data multiple times. They were accused... Phrases like "the past several months" are utterly meaningless and unencyclopedic. They should not have been automatically restored without copyediting. Voceditenore (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur. I've done a little clean up, but the controversy section should be incorporated into the services section and the use of the company website as a reference should be reduced dramatically. That said, the company really need to start listening to the advice they've been given about editing with a COI. SmartSE (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

CupoNation


Another article on a Rocket Internet subsidiary in the online coupon business. It looks like promo or nn for various reasons: Created and expanded in the last few days by SPAs. An section called The Swedish Housing Shortage concerns a dubious connection to refugees in Europe, and provides a quarter of the sourcing. The rest of the sources discuss routine startup funding, purchase of another nn company for undisclosed sum, and a self-cited factsheet. Brianhe (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt it's notable. The references used and what I've been able to find via Google don't show significant secondary source coverage. Most of the references used in the article are either press releases or "news articles" written in a clearly promotional nature which are probably undisclosed sponsored posts. Elaenia (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you propose deletion with that rationale, I would be happy to endorse (PROD) or !vote to delete (AfD). Brianhe (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't AFD ●︿● at least not easily because my account's apparently not old enough to use Twinkle... so I'd have to manually substitute templates and all that. Elaenia (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Elaenia, it's not that hard to manually Prod or nominate for AfD. I've done so for many, many articles and have never used Twinkle. It takes at most a couple of minutes more, and frankly, making the process a bit slower, can also make it bit more thoughtful. Voceditenore (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nominated for deletion. It's too soon for this startup. Very little independent coverage in depth. John Nagle (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Cube b3




Cube b3 has two levels of conflict of interest. First is around his position as editor in chief for Dreamcast-Scene and has a blog Age-Media. This directly connects him to Redspotgames, Senile Team, NeoGeo Development Team, The GOAT Store and their products, as well as the use of Dreamcast-Scene as a source. See also User:Cube b3/sandbox/sg for a draft on a book where he (Bilal Zia) is the "external promo writer" (for those with admin tools, see the previous Dreamcast-Scene which if I recall correctly contained a de facto article for redspotgames after it's salting. (similar to the defacto article for Dreamcast-Scene currently in RedSpotGames)) See also the admission of bad faithed bypassing of salt at Talk:RedSpotGames.

Other more concerning side is what appears to be a clear case of undisclosed paid editing.

Treasure Data and Fluentd. Two adverts currently at afd.

Created Seller disclosure statement to linkspam for KW San Antonio along with a promotional edit to Keller Williams Realty for KW San Antonio.

Cielo24. Promotional article with misreprented sourcing an unsource promo such as "Cielo24 has been positively received for its compliance to American Disability Act section 504 and 508"

BizBroker24. Articles for deletion/BizBroker24. If User:Cube b3/ducksauce is anything to go by this was a blatant advert cobbled together from copyright violating copy pastes from various press releases.

Venom: Truth in Journalism. deleted 3 times in under ten minutes as Unambiguous advertising or promotion.

UK2 Group. Nominated at Articles for deletion/UK2 Group simply as "advertising" which is what is was. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's funnel my contributions down. I write on technology > electronics > Video games > SEGA > Dreamcast > New Games. The primary conflict is that I state on my profile I am also a writer for a Sega Dreamcast website. A website that is for and by enthusiast's and without commercials. I have created several articles such as the ones listed and they often use references from Dreamcast-Scene however they use a lot more references from other websites because I strive to write non bias articles and RedSpotGames can attest to a fair and well rounded article.--Cube b3 (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * About the deleted articles. I missed the NGDEVTEAM afd. I will create a better page for it and I discussed with the person who deleted it that I will create it in my sandbox and present it to him before posting it.

That BizBroker page was not created by me I was involved in the AfD. Venom: Truth in Journalism. This is a superhero short film by the creator of The Punisher: Dirty Laundry. Both projects have received about the same media coverage. The Venom article is extremely important towards my history as a Wikipedian because prior to Venom I did not know what a sandbox was. I would create an article on Wikipedia directly and edit it over and over until I was done with it. I was extremely agitated that my page got deleted and almost left this platform all together. It has been many years but fortunately a nurturing Admin came and had a talk with me and taught me how to use Sandbox. I didn't bother with the Venom article again because frankly I watched the film and was like it would be cool if I can create the article before anyone else. I am surprised none of the Marvel fan community has created an article for it yet.--Cube b3 (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Cube b3 actually did a LOT more spamming of KW San Antonio. Some of it was also copyright violations. A few of the many examples      . duffbeerforme (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A lot of my articles have been deleted in the last week. I have contacted the deleting admins for a copy of the articles. I have also asked them to review those pages when I recreate them in my sandbox with more references.

I am a committed Wikipedian, I have been on this platform for almost a decade. My biggest mistake is that I have not read the rules and I have not read a lot of other things. I do not have a good defense, what I have to say may make me look worse but it is hard to read all the policies or even the tutorials for that matter. This is how I have learned how to tag pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cube_b3/sandbox I have done everything here by trial and error and thanks to Duffbeerforme, I have spoken to a few admins hopefully some of them will guide me in the right direction towards the future.--Cube b3 (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia trolls
This is just a heads-up. The Guardian reports the existence of "Russian Wikipedia trolls." Seeing any suspicious edits to articles related to Latvia and Ukraine? John Nagle (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This? Draft:Russian_Rebel_Army? I admit I'm not sure who benefits from this piece of blatant propaganda, but my knowledge of the area is limited. LaMona (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI some editors who I can't completely understand are edit warring over Trolls from Olgino and trying to build consensus on the talkpage for changes which I also can not understand. The article was pretty quiet until a few days ago. Brianhe (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Trolls from Olgino has been fully protected subsequent to ANI discussion . Brianhe (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, AN/I has this one. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All right, and now all my edits are sabotaged under the guise of what I supposedly Kremlin agent. And do not care what I have experience in wikipedia for more than seven years, and I gave to a good status of 4 article. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I skimmed the original Stratfor paper cited by The Guardian. What they call "Wikipedia Trolls" (p. 62) are copy/pasting info from our articles out of context to other forums. Stratfor did not say they were altering Wikipedia, but did name the Trolls from Olgino aka Internet Research Agency as actors. Brianhe (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh. Good. So it's not a major problem for Wikipedia. John Nagle (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of Russian government-paid trolls around, as everybody who is involved in Russian-Ukrainian contentious issues knows very well. Some of them do not speak English and can only edit-war, others are more intelligent and manage to create a lot of disruption before they finally get blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

OnTheMarket


From OnTheMarket Wikipedia entry restored after 'abusive' messages published by EstateAgentToday, which runs ads for OnTheMarket (OTM)

"Like most Wikipedia entries about businesses OTM’s entry is normally a straightforward promotional description of its service; the text includes a brief history of the portal and a list of its six founding agents."

My goodness!

has made a single edit to Wikipedia - the OTM article in full. Can I call him an WP:SPA? I've removed the advertising material. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Punjabigrooves.com

 * - prodded june 2015

See related Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam (permlink). Spammimg across 80-odd articles. Brianhe (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Still spamming e.g. — Brianhe (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Link search. 58 links remaining, although not all are in the article space. Elaenia (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Tile (software)


Hi! I've proposed several edits to the article for Tile, here — a few factual updates, additional citations and basic details. 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) 04:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

6D Global Technologies Inc.


I may be wrong, but alarm bells always ring when an article springs fully formed from a brand new editor, complete with formatted references, verging on overkill, and an equally well-formatted infobox, complete with company logo. I have removed the promotional section "Recognition" filled with non-awards. But this article will need eyes. The company is notable, although probably not for the reasons it would like to be, as you can see from the "Lawsuit" section added by another editor. The financier Benjamin Wey is alleged to have been a major (undisclosed) stakeholder in the company, and since 10 September 2015 is under several Federal indictments for securities fraud, stock manipulation, money laundering, and his role in an alleged fraudulent scheme to profit from undisclosed, controlling ownership of this and several other companies. Needless to say, the original editor did not mention anything of that, despite enormous press coverage. To their credit, they did state that NASDAQ had suspended trading in the company in September 2015, albeit without giving the reason. Voceditenore (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article has been written with proper guidelines as I would want to think as under different username and anonymously I have had experience writing other wikipedia articles. But as always, issues arise. It is a small company and is notable for both good and bad reasons. Thank you for adding additional section of lawsuits. I would still consider restoring its recognitions albeit in a moderate manner than earlier. Santanu.baruah.cincinnati (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2016 (Eastern Time)
 * Santanu.baruah.cincinnati, do you have any connection whatsoever with 6D Global Technologies Inc.? Voceditenore (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Voceditenore Yes. I have. Santanu.baruah.cincinnati (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2016 (EST)
 * Thank you for honesty, Santanu.baruah.cincinnati. I now strongly suggest that you refrain from editing the article directly and propose any changes on its talk page. If you created the article as part of your employment, then you need to follow the policies and guidance at Paid-contribution disclosure. Voceditenore (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Voceditenore You're welcome. OK I will adhere to the guidelines. I am not paid for the article in any way whatsoever. Thank you. Santanu.baruah.cincinnati (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2016 (EST)

Add: User:Santanu.baruah.cincinnati do you know anything about that account and the IP address? I note you haven't disclosed your COI on the talk of the article yet, I've done part of it, and listed these other two, which I presume are your's or someone you know? Widefox ; talk 01:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - removal of maintenance templates. Widefox ; talk 01:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:SPA presum COI.

Controversial Islamic Article-90% of page wiped out by Muslims, possible bias
What it used to be like What it was changed to by group of Muslims --Misconceptions2 (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See before and after, article went from 110kb to 30kb :
 * This is a controversial Topic on Islam. I feel the decision to delete data on this topic by 3 people: user:Eperoton, User:Al-Andalusi, User:CounterTime should be looked at again. This is because I worry there maybe a conflict of interest since they are Muslim and the article is about their religion.
 * I worry because the decision to remove the data was made entirely by the above 3 people ALONE and since all 3 are Muslims there is possible bias?
 * The article had a list of 100 battles of Muhammad. They changed it so it has about 20. What happened to the other 80. Are they not relevant?
 * I want to have this decision looked at again right here. Whether so much data should have been removed with the input of the wider community this time? A controversial article like this warrants it, instead of a discussion amongst a small demographic. I feel the original discussion could only have gone 1 way. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments

 * Invited relevant people who edited article regardless of religious background--Misconceptions2 (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a productive discussion on the talk page regarding the content in question. Perhaps it would be better to ping the involved users and discuss the issues there instead? Based on what I've read, it seems everyone there remains level headed and willing to discuss the issue. I'm not well-versed in Islamic studies, so I hesitate to be involved because it seems to be a very specialized dispute. Elaenia (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My concern is the discussion was amongst 3 Muslims on whether to delete data on this article. As others were not involved I feel the decision needs to be looked at again. Since the topic is a controversial Islamic topic--Misconceptions2 (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you know the users in question are Muslims? Regardless, I'd suggest simply referring to others as "editors" instead of labeling them by their perceived or actual religious affiliation. To other interested editors: it appears to be related to the List of killings of Muhammad AfD and second AfD discussions, which involved er... highly passionate arguments. Elaenia (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No this discussion is about List of expeditions ordered by Muhammad --Misconceptions2 (talk) 05:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but multiple other editors are stating that List of expeditions ordered by Muhammad is materially not so different from the article mentioned above (as AfD links) - see talk page, first line. Regardless, I'm merely point out additional information for other COIN users to follow up on. Elaenia (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We can discuss that here? Let me ask you. What in the original article should have been deleted after so many years and WHY? This article does not use the same sources of information as the user claimed. Even if it did why was it not nominated for deletion for 2 years? If it did it would be. The claim is baseless. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not the "did people make the right edit" noticeboard. This is the conflict of interest noticeboard. The editors may be Muslims, but to consider them to have a conflict on that basis is to stretch WP:COI beyond reasonable limits, and to hinder over a billion Muslims from performing normal editing on article related to their faith and its history... and, by extension, to prohibit normal editing from Christians on Christianity-related articles, Jews on Judaism-related articles, and so forth. These people are not being accused of being members of Mohammed's family, or financially profiting from the religion. It looks to me like a discussion was going on there recently, you did a wholesale revert, then put in a nine word response to something on the talk page and before even seeing if anyone objected to that reversion, came to this noticeboard. I suggest going to the Talk page, having a discussion with the other editors, and trying to find consensus. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I just replied today. I was not in a discussion --Misconceptions2 (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is certainly the case that Christians as well as Muslims and Jews (and indeed atheists) have attempted to push their PoV on Wikipedia.
 * I think it a little unfair to characterise this user's request for more eyes as "prohibiting normal editing" for Muslims.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC).


 * Muslims have declined many article. It is not fair. So I do not agree with it. Why delete the information?--Sajithgayashan (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sajithgayashan is a new account who just so happened to stumble upon the article and COIN thread right when the issue started. Given previous organized off-site canvassing suspicions on the two AfD threads linked above and Misconceptions2's history of supposed sock puppetry/meat puppetry, it seems prudent to bring this up. My guess is there's again some organized forum or discussion place where the canvassing is occurring. CU is unlikely to return anything. Elaenia (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This will turn into an edit war if people think everyone against these changes are me. So stop pushing that idea please. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "I just replied today. I was not in a discussion" - The point is you need to be in the discussion. It looks to me like the only one here pushing an idea is you. Go talk with the other editors on the article talk page. Lady  of  Shalott  06:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok i am sorry. It's my fault. Should of discussed in talk page instead of this page. I tought I was right but I was wrong.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

is it OK if I close this case now? Brianhe (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes please close--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion moved
Discussion has been moved here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad#Controversial_Islamic_Article-90.25_of_page_wiped_out_by_Muslims.2C_possible_bias I have already invited a few people who have edited the article before to comment. So I would recommend there not be an edit war please.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Jason Graves


The user is an SPA on the article of the same name. Added copyvio material to the article from Jason Grave's internet site. No response to multiple attempts to discuss the COI, username, and COPYVIO situation on his talk page. The article had been tagged for having been edited by a probable COI editor but the tag was removed by Jason Graves. When the tag was restored it was immediately removed again by an IP (just 2 minutes after Jason Grave's last edit). After a two month break Jason Graves has returned to the article, removing the COI tag again and copying more material that is already online elsewhere. I have not yet determined if this is material that was at one time in this article and was mirrored before being deleted here, or if this is another copyvio.

It seems very likely to me that this user is indeed Jason Graves and thus has a COI. It's also likely that he has edited this article recently using at least one IP. Note that the article was created in 2008 by another SPA, User:Jasongmusic, who granted permission via OTRS to use copyrighted material in the article. I contacted OTRS about this article and was told that the original ticket could not be applied to the new material added by Jason Graves.

So, either we have a COI editor who is aware of the permission issues but is choosing not to follow the correct procedure for granting permission this time, or less likely, we have a case of WP:IMPERSONATE. Meters (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm debating giving them a short block for adding copyrighted information. They've been warned multiple times prior to their last edits and they've still continued adding copyvio. I'll try reaching out to the website itself to ask them to update permission. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tokyogirl79 is more generous on this than I am. The username (a violation of the username policy) and the repeated removal of the COI notices would be sufficient for me to want a block on the user. In addition, the article is barely referenced, so as far as I am concerned it could be deleted for not meeting notability. It is unacceptable to state that the music has been licensed for TV shows without some verifiability, or to claim awards without proper references (that one goes to an interview). It seems clear that he has composed music for many games, and may be notable, but the WP skills of the editor of this page are seriously lacking and bordering on fraudulent. Since this has gone on for quite a while, I don't see how any more warnings are warranted. LaMona (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)p
 * In what way is using your own name a violation of user name policy? I have an obvious curiosity on this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes LaMona please do reply to that. If you got a bit carried away that's fine - please just REDACT accordingly.  It is important here at COIN that we talk about blocks with care and only for clear and repeated violations of policy with no sign that the user is "getting it". Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no username issue unless the user claims not to be Jason graves. That's why I brought it to COIN. I don't usually post here, but my understanding is that is the right thing to do with a suspected COI editor who has not declared said COI. I'm looking for a consensus that this is a COI, so that for a start, the COI tag on the article can stick. Meters (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, under the "Real Names" section: "Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name. If you have the same name as a well-known person to whom you are unrelated, and are using your real name, you should state clearly on your userpage that you are unrelated to the well-known person. If a name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided." So the problem with the username is that it is 1) either proof of COI or 2) could be construed as someone masquerading as the person. I obviously should have worded it that way in my message. LaMona (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The username didn't bother me too much, although I will say that it kind of came off as a company username like "Jason Graves Music Inc" or something to that extent. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article subject is notable, with lots of awards and credits. There are better sources than the one in the article. The subject of the article is in the position of having been heard by hundreds of millions of people who have no idea who he is. While the editor behavior is a problem, the article seems mostly legitimate, although it needs better citations.  John Nagle (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Nagle I didn't suggest that the article's subject wasn't notable. Why are you bringing that up? I'm simply asking for consensus that this user has a conflict of interest in this article, which is what this board is for. He uses the same name as the subject of the article, he continues to add material from the subject's webpage, he removed the conflict of interest tag on the article, and he refuses to discuss the COI issue. My understanding is that this is the place to bring such concerns, so that a consensus may be reached whether a user has a conflict of interest in a particular article or not. Meters (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is obviously a case of COI. I  just opened a discussion with Jason to try to teach him what he should be doing.  Generally talking to folks nicely gets you pretty far on these things.  But we'll see if he responds and how that goes. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't hurt, but don't hold your breath. I tried several times before I brought it here. Meters (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: "Why are you bringing that up?" Because COIN is about both article content and editor behavior. When promotional editing is suspected, one of the first questions is, "is the subject notable"?  If not, the article can be deleted, and the COI issue becomes moot.  Here, there's no reason to start an AfD.  A next step is a quick review of what article repair work is needed. This article isn't too bad.  (Far worse cases come up here.)  Others are already trying to engage in dialogue with the editor. The COI editor hasn't edited in over two weeks, so there is no immediate need for a block. The idea is not to bite the new editors merely for not knowing the rules, and to assume good faith. See WP:BITE and WP:AGF.  John Nagle (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nagle Again, I didn't suggest that the subject of the article isn't notable, and I didn't suggest deleting the article. I also didn't ask for him to be blocked. I asked for a consensus that he is a conflict of interest editor since he had repeatedly added copyvio material and removed the COI notice, per the guidelines for this notice board, specifically "talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period" and "COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article." As I have clearly said, this is either a case of a COI user, or less likely, a case of impersonation. I've tried to contact him several times without response. I raised the issue at OTRS. Tokyogirl79 has attempted to contact the website the material was being copied from, but there is nothing on the talk page indicting a response. Now Jytdog has attempted to contact the user, again without a response. How does any of this support your accusations of violation of WP:BITE and WP:AGF? I don't understand how you could possible make those accusations had you looked the article's history and the user's edit history and talk page. And the fact that he hadn't edited in two weeks when you made your comment is immaterial. He was active immediately before this notice was started, when he returned to this article after a two month hiatus. Meters (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I just stubified it, and copied the laundrylists and other unsourced content to the Talk page. There is absolutely COI going on here, and the article was bloated via abuse as a personal, promotional webpage. I don't think there is anything left to do now. The User:Jason Graves account has not been used since Feb 4 per its contribs. Thanks again for bringing this here - it was the right thing to do. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I really think we gave him every opportunity. Meters (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, Tokyogirl79, Jytdog - I am working for Jason Graves and have been the one attempting to bring the his article up to standard. Some time ago we received an email from an 'Tokyogirl79' who stopped responding to our attempts to fix the COI issue. Being very new to the wiki system we did not see this discussion page or were even aware of it. We were attempting to resolve the situation through email but the user was unresponsive to any of our messages. If the COI is such that the 'Jason Graves' username is problematic, (even though that is exactly who it is), then I am more than happy to create a different one, and given that wiki volunteers started this conversation with us in email I fully expected them to continue that, but this was not the case. We want this situation resolved for the sake of the wiki page and of course we have absolutely zero interest in breaching any rules on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Graves (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've reported the user for impersonating username and sharing their account. At their talkpage, they've implied many members of Graves' Music company have used the account. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you please engage with me to try and find solutions to these problems, in is not the case that I was contacted 'numerous times' it is infact myself that had trouble contacting the volunteers. I am approaching this with honesty and a desire to create a long term and accurate solution for the page. Jason Graves —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I will drop a note on your Talk page. You have been doing this wrong (I know, it is kind of hard to figure out how to do it right) - let me see if I can help you get this straightened out. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I fully appreciate I have been doing this incorrectly, I apologize for the inconvenience and I am very keen to set this right, thank you. Jason Graves —Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, please reply over at Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry about not replying - it was the end of the quarter for graduate school and I had finals. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki
On February 17, 2016, I began working on Draft:Sorcha Faal (which is far from complete) with the assistance of two longtime experienced editors (ref: Draft talk:Sorcha Faal) as I’m basically new to this entire process.

During my research I discovered that a previous article on this subject had been created here with it being nominated for deletion July 26, 2012 and resulting in no consensus reached on August 18, 2012. Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal

On April 3, 2013, this article again was nominated for deletion by resulting in it being deleted on April 10, 2013. Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal (2nd nomination)

In reviewing editor Gerard, I then discovered that he was a trustee of the Rational Media Foundation that hosts RationalWiki, which is a wiki that treats its subject matter in degrading, offensive and demeaning ways they call snarky point of view  (SPOV), and which after the Sorcha Faal article had been deleted from Wikipedia, he was instrumental in creating and editing in creating one for RationalWiki.

In further researching Gerard’s Wikipedia to RationalWiki editing practices, I then discovered he had, likewise, done so too with David Icke and Alec Jones for RationalWiki.

With an apparent bias, and conflict of interest, being evidenced by editor Gerard towards anti-war, anti-government conspiracy type writers, whose articles here reflect a neutral point of view here, I then queried him, on March 10th, at both Talk:RationalWiki (section: Bias of this sites editor?) and his user talk page.

Gerard’s initial March 10th response to my Talk:RationalWiki query refered me back to a reply he wrote at Draft talk:Sorcha Faal (section: Deletion review: Request to unban Sorcha Faal article), but which he started with u wot m8 that refers to You Wot Mate used in arguments or before a fight which is spoke in a quick aggressive manner.

On March 12th, at 20:05, created a new section on my User talk:Picomtn titled Your question stating that he saw my query at Gerard’s talk page: ''I saw your question here, and if you like I would be happy to try to answer it. Let me know here, just below, and I will reply here.''

On March 13th, at 11:55, I replied to Jytdog from User talk:Picomtn explaining all of my concerns and giving to this editor, too, a substantial background.

On March 13th, at 17:32, Gerard deleted the section from his talk page where I had queried him, and to this very second has yet to adequately and/or substantially respond to the concerns I’ve raised.

However, while Gerard has gone silent, Jytdog, whom I believed was actually going to help me, instead launched into a series of personal and offensive attacks against me, the last being on March 14th, at 09:32, when after I informed him that I was bringing this issue here to be (hopefully) resolved, stated: ''You don't know what you are doing and now you even want to go to a drama board.. Its just foolish, and by now it is about your ego.''

I am far from being an expert in such things, but is it possible that editors Gerard and Jytdog are the same entity? Or, are they associated in such a way that they work with each other? Am I wrong in questioning the strange disappearance of one, and then the other one suddenly appearing to attack me?

In clarification too, I freely admit how new I am to this entire process, while at the same time knowing that the two excellent editors who have been guiding me have proved the validity of many things here—including this process I’m now embarking on.

And in summation, this request is being submitted here due to my belief that a conflict of interest currently exists with editor Gerard (and possibly Jytdog) who has a close personal and/or business connection with articles and article topics he edits on both Wikipedia and RationalWiki. Respectfully submitted, and Thanks for listening.Picomtn (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I'm not Jytdog, and I'm baffled that conspiracy is the go-to hypothesis here. I wasn't a trustee of RMF in 2013 at the time of the deletion of Sorcha Faal, which was deleted for being a BLP with nothing in the way of RSes (and the current draft still has this problem). Even though I am now (as of 2014), there is no meaningful COI in editing another wiki and writing about Sorcha Faal here, there or elsewhere. (Picomtn also claimed that writing at RW and writing at Wikipedia constituted a COI as it was a "competitor wiki".) The actual objection here appears to be that I am not a Sorcha Faal fan; however, it isn't required to be an advocate of a subject to write about it on Wikipedia, however advocates might feel about that. I answered Picomtn at length at Draft_talk:Sorcha_Faal with how to actually get the article recreated (bring the BLP-quality RSes), but it doesn't seem to have been accepted as the actual answer - David Gerard (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, Your stating that the actual objection here appears to be that I am not a Sorcha Faal fan is neither rooted in fact nor intention, and which merely by your saying that it is doesn’t make it true, particularly when not evidenced by facts. You being baffled that conspiracy is the go-to hypothesis is, likewise, not rooted in fact as what I’ve posited is a logical assumption (though not necessarily true) based upon the observed facts. (e.g. smoke rises over the hill, assumption is that a fire is burning, but could be something else.) By the very definition of the word competitor (an organism that lives in competition with another), Wikipedia and RationalWiki do, in fact, compete—the first striving for NPV of subject matter, the second existing in ridicule. Also, this COI submission has nothing whatsoever to do with the Draft:Sorcha Faal article and by your implying that it does constitutes your use of a red herring. Thank you. Picomtn (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, and again respectfully, your statement that I wasn't a trustee of RMF in 2013 at the time of the deletion of Sorcha Faal can be described as disingenuous (not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does), if not an outright falsehood, as the facts prove that in 2010 you were one of the editors for the RationalWiki main history page , which for a site that describes itself as April 2007 The history of RationalWiki is shrouded in mystery at this point. most certainly demands a more complete investigation. Thanks Picomtn (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note, and respectfully too, your statement that there is no meaningful COI in editing another wiki is not supported by the facts outlined in Plain and simple conflict of interest guide that says:  ''Be transparent about your conflict of interest. Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors.'' With RationalWiki being your organization, you did, in fact, edit it without disclosing your COI ((21:53, 27 April 2013‎ David Gerard (talk | contribs) ‎)—not to mention the citied Wikipedia articles you edit and nominate for deletion, while at the same time editing them on your RationalWiki site.  Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As I told Picomtn on their Talk page, this is a very sad and unfortunately classic example of a new user personalizing a content dispute, in violation of about every behavioral policy and guideline we have. The content issue, is that David nominated-for-deletion Picmtn's first article, here.  Instead of learning from that, Picmtn decided something must be wrong and went hunting.  Picmtn actually posted this on the Talk page of their draft replacement article (kind of wierd), but then the same day posted this, with the header "Bias of this sites editor" on the Talk page of RationalWiki.  It does not get more out of line than that.  And now this filing, which at least is in an appropriate venue.  But no less wrong-headed.
 * I will note this past COIN case, filed by a similarly upset and confused new editor. That is all I way say on this, as my efforts to dissuade Picomtn have already failed, and they intend to persist in going down the very wrong road on which they have embarked - namely personalizing a content dispute and blaming others instead of learning and moving on.
 * I will not close this, but I recommend that someone else does. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see a substantive basis for a claim of either COI or socking here. Recommend you drop this as suggested by jytdog and pursue editing harmony on the relevant talkpage(s). If I'm wrong, please make a brief statement using diffs and specific connections to COI guidelines, as described at the top of the page. Brianhe (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Succinctly stated here, by me, are the facts provable by the aforementioned evidence and links:


 * At the top of this page it states: A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics.


 * has a close personal interest and/or business connection with RationalWiki.


 * Plain and simple conflict of interest guide states: Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors.


 * David Gerard has edited the RationalWiki article here on Wikipedia for his organization RationalWiki, and has further edited articles on Wikipedia he also edits at RationalWiki without disclosing his relationship to RationalWiki.

Your suggestion of editing harmony is not possible due to the personal attacks/threats made against me by both David Gerard and, both of whom, when this query was first made, and as the cited evidence proves, clearly shows their combined effort to intimidate me without offering substantive corrections and/or advice. Thank you. Picomtn (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I very much would like to teach you how this place works but you need to start from scratch. My offer still stands, even though you have gone yet further down the wrong road. Your prior posts about David and this filing are a wrong-headed attempt to "right the wrong" that you perceive with regard to the AfD nomination.  This is transparent to everyone except you.  You are unteachable as long as you persist in this. I believe people can pivot and choose a new path, which is why I keep offering it to you.   Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Your statement that I am in violation of about every behavioral policy and guideline we have is not supported any evidence you’ve provided to substantiate your claim. Also, I did not, nor does any evidence prove, that I decided something must be wrong and go hunting. In fact, the evidence proves that in my research I found a glaring COI and then notified the editor about it, to which he did not respond with facts supporting his/her position and, instead, engaged, along with you, in an intimidation onslaught against me. You are correct that in my query I titled the section "Bias of this sites editor"—but in your mentioning that here you failed to correctly cite this sections actual title that I wrote as being "Bias of this sites editor?"—and by your leaving out that question mark here you have attempted to change my original intent of questioning to one of accusation. (Shame on you.) Picomtn (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not a "glaring COI". David edited the content of the RationalWiki one time, and that was an anti-promotional edit (he basically did the same thing to an attempt to create a new article, as he did to yours - but he was even harsher on the RationalWiki article) and it was 3 years ago .  Your posting is entirely vindictive and has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia, and everything to do with your misguided perception of injustice.  And I am done talking with you.  If you come to me asking for actual help I will be glad to help you, otherwise I will not be responding to you further. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Your accusation that my actions and/or motivations are a "wrong-headed attempt to right the wrong that you perceive with regard to the AfD nomination" is neither supported by fact or any evidence, with it being, instead, another red herring. The true facts (and as the voluminous record at Draft:Sorcha Faal and Draft talk:Sorcha Faal proves) that I, in point of fact:


 * Solicited various editors at the Teahouse to assist me with this project. (As WP suggests all new editors do.)


 * The first editor who agreed to assist me provided the template to create this article February 16th. (As WP suggests more experienced do to help those of us new to this process.)


 * With the assistance of another editor, from February 16th to March 10th we combined our efforts to help this article meet all of the required guidelines. (As WP guidelines advise to do before creating a final article.)


 * During this same period, I queried at least 4 other editors to assist with this project, with only one replying that they were unable to help. (As WP guidelines advise new editors to do, especially with complicated/controversial subjects.)


 * In seeking to find more competent editors to assist with this project, on March 10th, I began the deletion review process, and with a knowing that as soon as this ban was lifted the article would have no shortage of editors viewing it and (hopefully) improving it. (Following exactly the WP guidelines for doing so.)

These are called facts, nothing more, nothing less. For your accusation to be true I would have, from day one, not done any of these things and would have immediately done what you claim I’m doing. (And again, shame on you.) Picomtn (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi The definition of glaring is, highly obvious or conspicuous, which this COI issue is—and the number of times this rule has been broken is not relevant, once is enough. And I still find it interesting that you and Gerard are working in tandem, hope someone more experienced here can figure out why. Picomtn (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the number is quite relevant, particularly when the number in this case appears to be zero. You've not shown he had any conflict on the edits he made, nor shown why the edits were problematic. Writing about something somewhere besides Wikipedia does not make one's writing on Wikipedia automatically COI. Later becoming involved with an organization does not make one's earlier edits retroactively COI. Repeating the same accusations are not going to make them any more true. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Are the personal attacks on Talk:RationalWiki glaring enough (for someone else) to redact? - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi In your making the statement you've not shown he had any conflict on the edits he made, nor shown why the edits were problematic your are missing the central issue—which is so critical that, this past October, Wikipedia and Wikimedia filed a lawsuit about it as they were being specifically targeted by the NSA for surveillance. Let me explain.

The specific targeting being done by the NSA against Wikipedia (and others) was detailed by Glen Greenwald using the secret documents provided to him by Edward Snowden that described the dirty trick tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in utilizing extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction against their targets.

Last year too, the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) gave an intensive two-day series of presentations (which I attended) outlining these NSA dirty trick tactics against Wikipedia (and others) and how to spot them, specifically in identifying NSA sockpuppets (an online identity used for purposes of deception).

The specific targets the EEF noted for attack were almost all writers whose articles opposed the US government, war, etc., including Glen Beck, Alex Jones, David Icke and, yes, even the anonymous writer Draft:Sorcha Faal—who, you should note, is apparently so feared that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) used 10 of this writers reports in compiling their document of right-wing terrorism.

Now as I’ve outlined here (and the other references to this submission I’ve included too) and in having the EFF’s knowledge of what to look for in spotting NSA tactics used by their sockpuppets against their targets, it took only about two weeks for me to discover the questionable/suspicious use of Wikipedia by, that include:

His successful nomination for deletion of the Sorcha Faal article on Wikipedia, then editing on RationalWiki: Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of "reports" published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it.

His editing on RationalWiki of David Icke: Wikipedia: David Icke is an English writer, public speaker and former professional footballer and sports broadcaster. He promotes conspiracy theories about global politics and has written extensively about them. RationalWiki David Icke is a human singularity of insanity best known for his reptoid conspiracy theory.

His editing on RationalWiki of Alex Jones: Wikipedia: Alex Jones is an American conspiracy theorist, radio show host, documentary filmmaker, and writer. RationalWiki: Alex Jones is a far right radio personality who never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like.

His editing on RationalWiki of Glen Beck: Wikipedia: Glenn Lee Beck is an American television personality and radio host, conservative political commentator, author, television network producer, filmmaker, and entrepreneur. RationalWiki: Glenn Beck, former rodeo clown and Fox News clown, is an American right-wing "commentator" and a high school graduate who got lucky.

Though none of this proves that Gerard (or his cohort ) are NSA sockpuppets, operating on Wikipedia for the express purpose of destroying the reputation of their targets, the prima facie (first encounter or at first sight) evidence does deserve to be more closely examined by someone here with much greater experience, and expertise, than myself.

After all, if Wikipedia and Wikimedia believed this issue to so critical that they filed a lawsuit against the NSA, shouldn’t it be important to all of us too? By the way, their lawsuit was thrown out of court by the judge who said Wikipedia isn't widely read enough.

I hope this has made you understand my concerns. Thanks.

- Picomtn (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought you perhaps might be teachable, but I was incorrect. I have nothing more to say you, except three things. First, what you have written here is troubled and troubling. Second, the anonymity that Wikipedia allows and protects makes this place dangerous for you, and for your own happiness you should restrain yourself from trying to work in Wikipedia.  Third, I wish you well.  That's all I will say here. To others, I will say - please close this thread. Jytdog (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Back in 2009 some of my students and I traveled to Myanmar to work on a project educating young writers and journalists on 21st century journalism techniques.  During this visit we were under constant surveillance and many times we were openly confronted and intimidated by government police agents.  So please don’t be concerned, if I survived that experience, I’m sure I’ll be fine here.  But thank you for your words of concern. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Low-frequency internal


This user has not edited for a couple of years, but everything in their history is promting the work of a single academic, Kuo-Chen Chou, including at least three complete articles on effects purportedly named after Chou:, , (now a redirect).

This could really do with a knowledgeable editor reviewing with a view to cleanup. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am moderately familiar with the field of these articles, but I find all three incomprehensible, because they don't start at the beginning by explaining the context of their subjects. If this editor is going to promote Chou's work, he should at least be persuaded to do it competently. Maproom (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

User:MarinaBush
Here.

Just recommend a warnng as to the purpose of WP. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  13:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Disaster recovery


External link spamming by connected users. Judging by the page's history (and other editors' explanation on the talk page here and here, it's been a long standing issue going back at least 5 years. It appears the latest IP is connected due to the interest in links, but geolocation of the involved IPs is all over the place. See historical examples here, here, here, and here. There are several more incidents in the page history, so it looks like someone has a concerted effort to include commercial links which add nothing to the article and fall under WP:ELNO. Elaenia (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Disaster_recovery - current talk page discussion started, although I question the usefulness because the same issue has been brought up a few times in the article's history and several other editors have already given good reasons for not including such promotional links when neutral resources exist. Elaenia (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems to me a case of WP:REFSPAM. Anyway, I have reverted the last edit and added the page to my watchlist. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In addition to the WP:REFSPAM, there are a ton of external links being added at the bottom of the page too. Elaenia (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverted, requested semiprotection, warned anon. IMHO their disruption merits a block on several counts including WP:NPA, WP:OWN, editwarring plus the spam itself. Brianhe (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Gerard Scharfenberger


Posted to editor about possible COI then my rollback was reverted. While it's not certain that there is a COI the username is open to question. New image and deletion of text suggest promotion. Pjefts (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly COI, given the linking to the campaign website and general tone of the article. There aren't really any references provided in the article, just the one which is used to indicate he's the mayor (and the reference merely provides a passing mention of him being mayor). Possible notability issues? I couldn't find much outside of official government websites. Elaenia (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Libby Schaaf


User has been repeatedly inserting material about Libby Schaaf (current mayor of Oakland) sourced to mayor's or city's own website, which other editors have repeatedly reverted due to WP:RS and WP:UNDUE concerns, as well as in some cases WP:COPYVIO. User was three weeks ago blocked for sock-puppeting (hence the second listed account), apparently to avoid WP:3RR sanctions, and four days ago received a 72 hour block for 3RR. User has now returned reinserting the exact same edits as before. Under their appeal of the sock block, user stated that they "work at the mayor's office". The only engagement that user has appeared to have made on the talk page is an IP request for permission to edit the page while it was in semi-protected mode; they've not engaged in a thread there that was started about their edits. They have perviously been notified on their talk page about both COI concerns and the need to engage on the Talk page. User is a pure WP:SPA, and seems WP:NOTHERE. An extended block seems appropriate, and given the user's history of sockpuppetry, the article could probably use semi-protection as well. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Since Mezzi10 simply waited for the 72-hour block to expire and then immediately resumed edit warring, I have blocked them indefinitely. Hopefully that will at least bring them to the table. I have no objection to an unblock if and when they start to respond and show some willingness to enter into dialogue. I haven't semi'd the article preemptively, but please let me know if you notice it's needed. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC).
 * That should do fine. Thank you! --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Socking using new accounts Elaenia (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

How to best approach someone who appears to be a social media intern?
I won't name the example, but I just came across an editor most of whose edits are pushing a particular brand in a desultory fashion and not doing it very well. What's a good way to let them know they've been spotted and ask them to cool it without appearing to call the wrath of Hell down on their heads? - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi David. I use a note like this:
 * Hello X. I notice that your editing has concentrated solely on placing mentions of Company Y on Wikipedia and adding inappropriate links to their social media websites. If you have any connection whatsoever with this company, please read Conflict of interest for guidance when editing under those circumstances. If you are an employee of this company or the company which handles their public relations and are editing Wikipedia as part of your job, this is considered paid editing. In such cases, you must disclose your connection and name the employer or client for whom you work. Paid-contribution disclosure has more guidance on this.
 * Voceditenore (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * David usually, before I start intervening on any of the content issues, I go through a two step process. I first open a dialogue, with a specifically-tweaked version of this to elicit a disclosure and explain why it matters, and wait for their answer.  Most times they disclose a connection with a company or person; sometimes it turns out they are just a big fan for one reason or another, and the issue is advocacy broadly, not COI specifically.  If they do disclose a connection with a company or person, I follow up with a specifically-tweaked version of this; if they are an advocate, with a specifically-tweaked version of this.  It's important to wait to intervene on the content stuff until you hear back from them.  Mixing in content stuff will make the dialogue difficult and you might say or do dumb things.  i made that mistake recently.  Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Likewise I use a private template User:Brianhe/COIask, or uw-paid which is a bit harsher. - Brianhe (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's nice! short too. :) Jytdog (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Travis Lane Stork


This is an interesting situation. I have gotten into a content dispute with Anupmehra at the subject article, which came to a head when they made this dif which is a clear violation of the NPOV policy - adding promotional (albeit well sourced) content that Stork's people use to market him, and removing critical content that is even better sourced. I opened a discussion with them on their talk page, in which they disclosed that they were responding to an OTRS ticket. People who work at OTRS do difficult and important work, but I have had experience, and I believe others have as well, of OTRS volunteers basically getting into a COI situation due to their interactions with the folks who raised concerns there, and becoming advocates at the article, instead of neutral editors. This is what I believe has happened here. The discussion at the both the article Talk page and the User's Talk page has become unworkable. I am not contesting the promotional content about Stork's degrees and honors (I would not add it, but it is well sourced and I cannot justify deleting it) but the deletion by Anupmehra of the critical content has no valid basis, in my view, and is driven by Anupmehra getting too close to the subject they started out trying to assist. They are claiming my adding it is WP:COATRACK. The content dispute is whether to include that, or not. I added it back here, and that is where this stands now, albeit with Anupmehra contesting it on the Talk page.

I am asking for the community to look at this, and determine whether Anupmehra has indeed become too close and lost neutrality and should declare a COI via contact at OTRS. In my view, their advocacy/COI is interfering with their judgement about NPOV (this is what COI/advocacy does, and folks are often not even aware of it)  I am pinging guy who is one of the people who established OTRS and helped write BLP, to get his input, along with other folks who watch this board. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. User is not interested in discussing disputed materials. He earlier templated me and made accusation of coi based on zero evidence (which I feel was a tactic to divert attention from ongoing discussion on article's talk page). When I answered the accusation and explained why did I edit the article at first place (thinking it'd make things easier), they are using my answer against me to prove non-existent coi. They do not answer any questions regarding contents and keep on accusing me of coi and in their quest they are here.
 * As to OTRS, customer concerns has been addressed. What are we discussing are contents added by Jytdog and it is my personal stand that those contents are being misplaced. I can let those contents stay but need answer what makes those contents relevant to article in question. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  22:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said on your talk page, I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked if you have a conflict of interest.  These are different things.  It is becoming clear that you, personally, have entered into a COI apparently via your contact with the subject or their representatives, as your editing is not NPOV but rather promotional on this topic.  But I will stand back and let others weigh the behavior here, as should you.   Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You did and are still doing it (it is becoming clear..). Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  01:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my opinion on this as someone who has also made some edits to the article and read the talk page/user page discussion/dispute. (I've never used this board before so apologies if I'm posting in the wrong place/not supposed to add my view here!) I think Jytdog has a good explanation for what has happened here. While I don't think Anupmehra has any personal connection with the subject, they are talking some things seemingly personally instead of engaging in productive discussion about the edits. Being part of the volunteer response team definitely could have triggered this. That said, they did initially bring up question/concerns about reverts on the article's talk page, appropriately. The content/edits did seem a bit biased and I'm not sure they warrant inclusion in the article, but as Jytdog said, it's not anything that's huge deal. The critical content in the article should definitely stay and I'm glad Jytdog added it back. Personally my recommendation is to continue the discussion on the talk page of the article- Anupmehra has been fine on there and open to discussion, the issue seems to be more of taking offense at the discussion being brought to their user page/this page. -KaJunl (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts here but you are commenting on the content dispute, and this board is about behavior. I agree that they erred in taking the COI inquiry personally.  But  I brought this here because it is clear to me that Anupmehra  acquired a COI and the dif i provided above is a clear indication of that, as do their arguments for removing the critical content, which have been unsupported by independent editors at BLPN.  it is not a terrible thing to acquire a COI through contact with the subject of an article; it happens.  The key thing is just to be able to acknowledge it so it doesn't interfere with work. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yangmaso Shaiza


It was stated in the edit summaries that the articles' subjects are about the parents of this user. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I remember having a look at this as well. Seems OK to me at the moment, though I will read both articles and remove any unverifiable claims. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

United States Pacific Command

 * possible others, unconfirmed
 * - formerly USPACOM Historian ← (added by Brianhe)
 * possible others, unconfirmed
 * - formerly USPACOM Historian ← (added by Brianhe)

They state right on their userpage that they are "...the public affairs officer for the U.S. Pacific Command...". (hence the username; "United States Pacific Command - Public Affairs Office"). This certainly should be reviewed by an editor or admin familiar with COI policy. I don't think they mean any harm, but they are making a lot of changes and adding significant content to that page, it would be a too bad if it was all for naught. Thanks. - the WOLF  child  06:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This might be the same user formerly editing under "USPACOM Historian" . I warned their current account about TOS. They have been warned by Thewolfchild about the username policy. Might need additional info on our socking policies. Hopefully they will respond here. - Brianhe (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - First off, that doesn't make sense. If "Geekchild" already went to the trouble of changing their name, why would they come back and so obviously sock with another military-acronym-user-name? Per WP:DBQ, I suggest you remove that name for now. Ask them flat out if it's them and/or gather some evidence and take it to WP:SPI (where it belongs). If it is them, then they'll get the appropriate warnings. AFAIC concerned, this report is just a friendly 'head's up' that they need some vetting for COI and likely a change of username. It's not a witch-hunt. They're not being disruptive and we could potentially have a pretty good contributor here, so let's show a little WP:AGF, ok? - the WOLF  child  11:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I should avoid further involvement in this particular case, but will just note briefly that the two accounts were created within days of each other and have edited this particular article nearly exclusively. It's not unreasonable to see a connection between them and discuss it here. In other words I don't agree that DBQ requires me to remove one of the names at this time.
 * Concerning procedure on this noticeboard (this really needs formalizing!). We don't usually constrain ourselves to iron-clad instances of COI here, but sometimes ask questions and discuss possible COI, which was my intention. We also don't exclusively shuffle cases involving socking to SPI; there is often much behavioral overlap and simultaneous cases at each noticeboard are not unusual. - Brianhe (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The user has been blocked for a name violation, as an organization. The edits to the article are mostly additions to the history section. While there's probably a COI, the edits seem neutral. They're mostly administrative detail covering the changing area of operation of the command over the years. The result is a rather blah article about an organization. No visible COI problem as to content. John Nagle (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Cellectis

 * - created by Dcbennett2
 * - created by Sofike68
 * - created by Sofike68
 * - here Created by Sofike68
 * - ✅ - Single insert of text possibly pointing to Collectis scientists removed, note left on article talk page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - ✅ - Single insert of text possibly pointing to Collectis scientists removed, note left on article talk page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - ✅ - Single insert of text possibly pointing to Collectis scientists removed, note left on article talk page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)* -  - large insert of COI in this edit, beyond my pay-grade. Per Genome Engineering report, below, I've added notes to the article talk & an interested wikiproject. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - - not sure what to make. Article starts as a large insert by an editor never heard from again, followed quickly by some Sofike68 edits. It may be per its talk that the article in part seeks to promote Meganuclease in part by criticising another technique. I've removed some text promoting Cellectis, contributed to a merge debate suggesting the article should be reviewed, and pointed to this COI discussion on the article talk page & at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)  and update: User:Evolution and evolvability has indicated he is minded to review Genome engineering and Genome editing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - single Sofike68 edit, addition of See Also link to Meganuclease ... subsequently removed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - single Sofike68 edit, addition of See Also link to Meganuclease ... I have removed it as a COI insert, leaving readers of the article to re-add should they wish. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - addition of appropriate single "see also" link by Sofike68--Tagishsimon (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - Created by Sofike68, AfD nomination by SmartSE
 * Editors
 * - active 2010-06 - 2011-08
 * - blocked per username; active 2013-01 - 2015-05
 * - current
 * - blocked per username; active 2013-01 - 2015-05
 * - current

I've been talking with Dcbennett2, a scientific writer who did a bunch of work in WP for the biotech company, Cellectis, whose editing was called to my attention by another editor. Dcbennett2 has been gracious and receptive in responding, and has been happy to learn about the ToU and our COI guideline. He's made a disclosure on his user page and I have tagged the Talk pages of the articles listed above. As I reviewed the history of the articles I bit, I saw that some of them had been edited by a "Cellectis" account from 2013-2015, and that even earlier, a different editor, Sofike68, had clearly been paid by Cellectis to work on these articles. I have listed the articles roughly in the order of the Dcbennett2's effect on them. There is no dispute here - the articles just need to be reviewed for NPOV and sourcing. has already done some of that work. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * user:Tagishsimon Thanks for reviewing!! btw, the edits made adding citations to hepatocyte, stem cell, and cardiac muscle cell, were citations by Cellectis company scientists.  It is a sophisticated form of scientific marketing.  The question is whether those citations add value or not.  In my view they are primary sources and should be removed. Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jytdog. Apologies for not looking harder for a Cellectis angle. I think it is fair to suppose that the reason for inserts was as much or more to do with Cellectis as it was to do with the health & wellbeing of the articles. I'll remove the three and if page-watchers wish to revert, then they at least will have voted with their fingers. I'm pleased to report that, who appears to have very considerable form in this area, has indicated he is minded to review Genome engineering and Genome editing ... I wish him well, and having seen the rather excellent Serpin, have high hopes for NPOV and improvement. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

MadMusick

 * (misplaced edit?)
 * (misplaced edit?)
 * (misplaced edit?)

Username is apparently the name of a pair of music producers, (also reported to WP:UAA). They are editing (apparently related) music articles, and also attempted to create a BLP(?) about the pair. - the WOLF  child  23:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is also another account nearly identically named (Madmusick). I have given both accounts a uw-agf-sock warning.--Drm310 (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Gecko Music Group / Geckodan


Geckodan recently recreated an article GECKO MUSIC GROUP (speedy deleted once). I asked them if they are related to "Gecko Music Group" in any way, but they said that they are a "fan of Gecko" (see here ). I am not sure how to handle this although I have a strong suspicion of COI. In addition, try searching "Geckodan" along with "Gecko Music". If this is not COI, then possibly a username violation? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User's only other edit (reverted for inappropriate links) was to promote GECKO on an artist's page. JamesG5 (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I smell socks . --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong suspicion that "SpaceOcto" and "Geckodan" are sockpuppets (or meatpuppets). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be good if you have a look at this. The moniker "Geckodan" is an online moniker used by the founder/owner of "Gecko Music Services". User:Geckodan however claims to be a fan. I see a case of WP:IMPERSONATE --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry. Just saw your notification. Looks like the person has been blocked. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Bilal M. Ayyub

 * - speedy tagged here.
 * - speedy tagged here.

This user seems to have done substantial work on an article that appears to relate to himself. The user has also been warned about unrelated copyright issues in the past. Zell Faze (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem to be any response from the user either. I'm not even sure if the person is notable enough to have an article for himself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think it would be best for me to run the article through AfD? The article was pointed out to me by a reader and I didn't give it a good look over beyond confirming the COI and user's past history. Zell Faze (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have contacted Bilal M. Ayyub by email to invite him to join this discussion along with letting him know if he has any questions at all about Wikipedia policy, he can feel free to get in touch with me. Zell Faze (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * user also created a second article. Noted above and tagged for speedy.  I also cleaned the Ayyub article. Thanks for bringing this, Zelifaze. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Colleen M. Fitzpatrick

 * - cleaned by Jytdog.

Could somebody take a look at the recent edits on this article by User:CFitzp and also the immediately preceding edits by an IP editor. The article already had a number of tags on it, and I see that COI has now been added.

One issue appears to be a spat that evolved between her and Benjamin Kyle, an amnesiac whose identity was discovered by genetic genealogy. It appears that after initially giving Fitzpatrick full access to his genetic information, the relationship between the two soured, according to a Facebook post by Kyle, leading to him serving her with a cease and desist notice. Mention of this in the article was removed by the IP editor, then User:CFitzp removed the corresponding links from the External Links section with the edit summary "removed derogatory comments". It would be useful if somebody with more experience could look this over, and assess whether this is indeed WP:UNDUE for a WP:BLP and/or an inappropriate use of WP:PRIMARY material; or whether it is significant information in the context of the role in which she is presented as notable in the article, and so should remain.

A second issue appears to be the multiple additions of the term "Forensic Genealogy" to the article in this edit, a neologism which appears to have been created and to be promoted by Ms Fitzpatrick, use of which appears to be rather limited, outwith those closely associated with her.

I don't have time to pursue this myself in the next few days, and in any case I would rather this was taken up by somebody more experienced with the WP:BLP issues involved; but I would be grateful if somebody could take this in hand, and perhaps offer some mentoring to User:CFitzp in appropriate ways to handle perceived disproportionate or unfair material in such an article while remaining safely on the right side of the WP:COI minefield. Jheald (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion also notified at WT:WikiProject Human Genetic History, in section "Forensic Genealogy". Jheald (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * She also worked a lot on Benjaman Kyle which I added to the list above.  I rewrote the article on her so it is cleaned now.   The Kyle article is a mess that I don't feel like getting into.  I also opened a discuss on her talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Steve Hassan bio


The Steve Hassan bio [] is not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines and policies regarding reliable sources and the treatment of self-published books. Wikipeida: No original research Claims based solely on a self-published online bio at a personal website is not a reliable source. What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion and Peacock claims. The Investigation of Korean-American Relations makes no mention of Steve Hassan testifying. It does source one sentence (p.319) to his testimony before the New York City Tax Commission, Jan.5, 1977 as a "former member" not an expert. There is no evidence to support Hassan's claim regarding expert testimony and the official report contradicts that claim. There is also no independent support of Hassan's claim concerning his past position in the Unification Church. The Unification Church has officially denied Hassan's claim. Hassan's books are self-published and should be identified and treated as self-published books.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Neo-Pangea


User has added long list of unsourced awards to listing; added multiple "official" pages to External Links and restored them when they were pared back to the recommended one. COI greeting has been left on talk page, COI tag raised on article page, but such editing continues. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not possible to verify the awards and I have doubts about the notability of the awards itself. It looks like a local business using Wikipedia to promote itself. I removed the awards section entirely. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Added back the most recent award since it seemed at least slightly notable. In any case, even if the awards are verifiable, there is hardly any secondary coverage about it. I am not even sure if the company satisfies WP:GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits! A number of the deleted awards were verifiable, as some had links to the website for the awards organizations themselves, who would be considered a reliable source for their own awards. Having said that, many look to be award factories, with literally hundreds of categories and multiple levels of winner in each category, so barring third-party discussion of the subject having won a given award, they are likely best not included. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Media attention for edit conflicts at 3D printer project
Please see post at Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  18:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Identification and engagement with COI editors at Talk:RepRap has begun by COIN regulars User:Jytdog and User:Nagle.
 * There are 15 registered accounts and 4 more anonymous editors listed on Talk:RepRap as potential COI, see talkpage headerconnected template and message to connected contributors. COIN regulars User:Jytdog and User:Nagle have done some cleanup as well. Brianhe (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh i undid everything i had done. I have backed out of that drama.. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I made a few changes, and asked some questions on the talk page. I'm surprised that there's COI editing. RepRap Professional Ltd. ceased operations in January 2016.  John Nagle (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Reward Gateway

 * - up for AfD here

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)

I've relisting this from the archive as I'm uncertain what my next steps are r.e. action against the IP/organisation or review/revert of the edits made. Deku-shrub (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The IP address does appear to be a proxy HTTP server identifying itself as belonging to Hudson Sandler. – Brianhe (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've emailed the PR firm, and added cc tags to the article talk pages, and tagged the two articles not up for AfD with the COI tag. 02:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Deku-shrub (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Lyra2


Username "Erandrade" most likely refers to Ewerton R. Andrade, one of the authors of the Lyra2 key derivation function. To me it appears that the article is written in an excessively favorable tone, without attributing points of view or sufficiently citing secondary sources.

I have notified the user of conflict of interest guidelines, and there have been messages by other users, but Erandrade has not contacted anyone by talk pages. The sources cited in the article probably don't pass WP:GNG; the ones that do talk about Lyra2 are mostly papers co-authored by Andrade and mailing list posts. The only exception appears to be a thesis by Sascha Schmidt, which has one paragraph about Lyra2. I wasn't sure whether I should pursue AfD, hence I'm posting here to get some opinions. -- intgr [talk] 15:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * While I could not find a lot of independent sources about Lyra2, since it is one of PHC finalists it is mentioned in papers about PHC, also in this paper, and has some independent cryptanalysis here. So the subject has some notability, but the article certainly has problems. -- TheInevitable (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Malcolm L. McCallum (2)
Regarding the previous discussion on this topic in June 2015, I'd just like to point out that there are still IPs spamming the same old McCallum references in articles, as recently as today. See also 76.0.44.131, 184.6.91.52. Do we still want to pretend there's no COI here? Geogene (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump


From SPI:
 * SPI Sockpuppet_investigations/591J
 * Promo only semi-SPAs (presumed undisclosed COI socks):
 * Draft:Judith Geizhals (both edited, now deleted can't diff)
 * Judith Geizhals added to List of New York University alumni by 591J
 * Judith Geizhals added to List of Hofstra University alumni by SlateORM
 * removed connected template regarding the other account from Talk:Felix Sater  Widefox ; talk 08:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Diffs for blanking/NPOV promo/COI on Donald Trump (over months):
 * 
 * 
 * Widefox ; talk 09:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * User:591J please discuss here, continuing to edit the article while under suspicion of having a COI and seemingly ignoring this seems slightly WP:OWN. Here, sourced content was removed "Removed illegitimate reference and sentence regarding material not being released". Care to explain, or about the other account?  Widefox ; talk 01:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm doing this correctly here. My other account I can't recall the password to. No conflict of interest, just trying to do my part as a new member on someone who didn't have a page and needed one. :( 591J (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 591J How does that explain that User:SlateORM was created after 591J? How does forgetting the password to the second account explain why you've created it, and are using more than one account? Your level of proficiency is good, what other accounts do you use? (see WP:SOCK). Do you have any connection with the articles edited (listed above), or other accounts? Can you explain why you've blanked negative sourced content on Donald Trump (above)? Widefox ; talk 10:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 591J care to reply to this and the other unanswered questions? Widefox ; talk 09:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 591J The image has copyright assigned to 591J, so can you please explain how you took this photo but have no connection with the subject?  Widefox ; talk 18:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Diamond and Silk


There's an edit war going on at the Diamond and Silk article, and the same edits keep being made by a single-purpose editor and an IP address, the latter of whom geolocates to North Carolina, where Diamond and Silk are from. I suspect a possible conflict of interest, especially given the promotional tone of the material that Saundra4you and the IP keep inserting. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

FiredanceThroughTheNight is removing my content and replacing it with his or hers. Don't remove my content and replace with a derogatory message. This is not fair to the users of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saundra4you (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Active as video bloggers and YouTube personalities." - that's usually not enough to pass WP:BIO. It might deserve a minor note in United States presidential election, 2016. Send to AfD?

CAcert.org
User:Neoeinstein added a paragraph to the article. For reasons laid out on the talk page, I think that paragraph should be either improved or removed. Due to my conflict of interest with the subject, I don’t want to attempt improving it myself, but I think that removing the paragraph (restoring the article to its previous state, except for this other edit) would be an edit with very little risk of me introducing bias (since I’m not really introducing anything new to the article). As there hasn’t been any response on the talk page by the author (who was pinged) or anyone else, I’d like to go ahead and remove the paragraph… but perhaps it would be better if someone else could first judge whether that removal would indeed be acceptable for me to do. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed per WP:LEAD -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your assistance! Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)