Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 128

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Old Charter

See District Court Issues Opinion in Old Charter Bourbon False Advertising Class Action. Old Charter, distilled at Buffalo Trace Distillery, owned by Sazerac, are passing off "non-age specified" (NAS) bourbon as 8 year old stuff. The Old Charter article was pretty promotional and they just forgot to update the photo of the new, less misleading label, by 3 years after the change. The new photo by has an OTRS ticket (which I can't access) but is 100% traceable to the Buffalo Trace Distillery's website.

MillCreek is obviously promotional, the anon geolocates to Sazerac in Frankfort, KY home of the distillery. MillCreek stopped editing about Sept. 2017, but Forceten seems to have taken over. There are lots of editors at these 3 articles that also edit articles on about 15-20 other Sazerac brands.

It's a bit hard to sort out these possible COI SPA editors, but I'll propose 2 groups: 1) folks who concentrate on Sazerac products, and 2) folks who just like booze in general.

If anybody wants to go thru all the Sazerac brands, I'll predict you'll find lots of promotional articles and lots of both groups of editors.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Updated to include User:Brbngurl and take out User:Forceten. Forceten has an unusual editing history - an 8 year editing gap, but that's certainly not conclusive. It's hard to tell all the players without a scorecard. At Commons User talk:Sazerac redirects to User talk:6620MillCreek. Together with all the Sazerac Company articles and the promotional tone of his edits, I do consider that conclusive. User:Brbngurl is a Sazerac SPA and has been noted by others on his/her talkpage as promotional. There are 33 brands listed in the Category of Sazerac Company brands.

1792 Whiskey shows evidence in the NYTimes of other court action regarding the company's agressive marketing. Smallbones(smalltalk
) 13:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd wager a lot of edits come from the companies in many industries. I'm not affiliated with Sazerac or Buffalo Trace. I'm just a fan and noticed some of the brands were missing (Kelsey Creek) or had errors (Age International owns the Blanton's and related products, etc.). My edits were accurate as I got them from asking the source OR through multiple independent sources.
forceten(talk) 1:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Please see above. Sorry if I jumped to conclusions. Yes, we have a lot of spam coming from lots of companies. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
This has popped up many times before for Sazerac, since at least 2010, and my impression is that the blatant and clumsy promotional editing situation for Sazerac has been worse than for most other booze companies. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 77#Multiple bourbon related articles, for example, which identifies more related articles and user accounts. IPs and SPAs and newly-registered accounts have repeatedly been showing up to make biased edits about Sazerac and its products for a very long time. Most of the time they seem to go quiet for a while when confronted directly, then another account shows up to continue the effort. They have generally been treated politely. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

William Carroll

Someone is using Wikipedia as a webhost to promote Carroll's research.

First 9 articles are about organisations that participated in some research performed by Carroll. They were all created by the one editor Njgraham2 who has done almost nothing other than related to Carroll's work. They are almost exclusively sourced to the organisations' own pages or to a series of papers written by Carroll. The 10th, Transnational alternative policy group, is the research area in which Carroll works. The 11th, Social Watch, was created by someone else but otherwise fit the profile, it was expanded by Njgraham2 to be primarily sourced to Carroll's research. Others edited to include Carroll's work are Rosa Luxemburg Foundation [1] and Instituto del Tercer Mundo [2]. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

People's Alliance of New Brunswick

This user has been reverting edits on this political party's page for months and just got a 24h block for edit-warring [3]. As you can see from the content of these edits (for example this one [4], this user seems more concerned with promoting the party in question than with providing neutral (and sourced) information. All their contributions to Wikipedia have been on this political party's page [5], and both attempts at starting a discussion on the article's Talk page have been ignored [6]. Furthermore, in the process of trying to challenge the 24h block mentioned above, this user has admited to editing the page "as [he/she] was asked to by the political party involved" [7]. My understanding from reading the official Wiki page on COI is that users who are linked to an organization and who wish to edit the organization's page must have a disclaimer on their user page (which this user doesn't have) and are advised to go through the article's Talk page as opposed to editing the article directly (which this user isn't doing).

talk
) 14:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Jasmine Choi

Jasmine Choi posted a job on Upwork on 30 January 2018 regarding her Wikipedia page. Then Musikvicky2 added various information. Kokonino (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC) PS : On January 29 Musiclovernike had taken away a mention regarding her dismissal from the Vienna Symphony.

I trimmed it and tagged it UDP/COI.104.163.148.25 (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Shibley Telhami

WP:COI editor making major PR-like changes to article. 27.89.98.65 (talk
) 20:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Straight up COI. I've left a message. scope_creep (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

DesignCrowd

Can someone take a hatchet to the PR job please? I am busy for a bit. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

checkY I've left several tags. Took out the advertising, third party and weasel words. scope_creep (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I took a chainsaw to the investment section. Is there some kind of policy discouraging startups form describing their funding rounds? It's nauseating. As it is, the only encyclopedic information in the article is truly banal. I think we really do need a distinct policy that recognizes that this startup garbage is just that. Just because my product (btw it's a solar ashtray with a built in lighter that updates my doctor with how much I am smoking) has a bunch of trashy sources form other industry buddies and tech sites, it should not merit an article. The fact that these startups are passing notability by using such garbage sources seems to be the problem. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:PAID
?

WP:PAID for non-notable subjects at least on these pages (image if you scour user history more will turn up): Digital Brands, Heavy Petty, DB Studios. 220.144.184.239 (talk
) 01:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I've notified them. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The closer I look at the editor's contributions, the more questions arise. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Interesting to note that the Digital Brands (now at AfD) article concerns a company that owns/launched both CardRates.com and DatingAdvice.com, which Steevven1 also created. Both articles have been to AfD and deleted. It could also be that in researching one article he found enough inspiration for another related one. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I see that two articles I wrote have been put up for deletion surrounding this discussion:
WP:DOM in a sense; a compromise. The community will decide. As for a conflict of interest, I do know some of the writers at Digital Brands personally, as the company is in my town. I have a personal, favorable opinion of the company and the things it does in my community. I read their articles regularly. I can see how this could be considered a conflict of interest. However, I am not an employee or shareholder of the company. I have never made dishonest or bad faith edits due to this supposed conflict of interest, and I welcome all of you to edit the page as needed. I do not believe the article should be deleted, but again, the community will ultimately decide. Thank you. Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery
) 06:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog:, and look at all the datingadvice.com links Steve littered throughout Wikipedia [8]. Which also led me to this PR Wikipedia page of this non-notable figure - Jay Cataldo (made by a different Wikipedia editor in 2012). 220.144.184.239 (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog:, and then all the links to CardRates.com, mostly added by Steve as well [9] 220.144.184.239 (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
And the CardRates.com links are pretty consistently found on the pages of non-notable PR-type pages (not created by Steve) like Money Talks News, Stacy Johnson (journalist), Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council, etc etc. 220.144.184.239 (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
And now the dealcrunch.com links (non-notable, non-RS website) Steve is putting up throughout Wikipedia [10], naturally leading to subject pages of questionable notability with major POV/Advert issues like
eMarketer, Offers.com, etc etc etc. 220.144.184.239 (talk
) 19:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
More linkspam mostly from Steve for hostingadvice.com, following same pattern [11], subject pages mostly non-notable and PR-like e.g. Replicon (company), Collaborator (software) etc. 220.144.184.239 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused on these points from 220.144.184.239. How are any of my edits on the pages you cite "spam?" I added citations to poorly sourced, existing statements and truthfully updated outdated statistics, particularly on pages that lacked significant coverage, from articles written by independent journalists who have no connection to the subjects of the articles in any capacity. Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 02:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I guess this is resolved now...The domains I have been referencing have been blocked from being added to Wikipedia in the future ([12]). I think this is a mistake because the articles served to provide independent citations for valuable information, but I accept the outcome as it stands. Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 17:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I find the editor's actions and claimed innocence to be very dubious. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Undisclosed conflict of interest edits by User:BrandingGuy13


WP:OUTING, an individual with a very similar name to FrankMazza3 can be implied to be related with these two companies, as can be seen through a google search of both the name of a company and BrandingGuy13's former username. This indicates to me that the editor has a very clear conflict of interest. It also must be noted that the editor in question attempted to remove [13] a criticism section from Frank Leto, an article he created about the current CEO of the Bryn Mawr Trust. He then requested that the article be deleted via G7 and changed his vote from keep to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Leto, which was already underway for a different issue. Requesting someone take a look at all of this editor's edits. SamHolt6 (talk
) 21:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

He also claims ownership of File:Frank_Leto.jpg which implies a close relationship. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Bill Maris

Seems to only edit Bill Maris. Section 32 is mentioned above. scope_creep (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Left the mandatory notice for this on their talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Sladillard

good faith matter (see [14], [15]). I do not know if the person who claims to be Dillard will be replying here. Quis separabit?
02:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I sent you an email from my official court email address in order to verify that I am who I claim to be. You'll note that the email domain matches the official court website. As I said, my only intention was to ensure that my correct name was used and that my article was updated to reflect my current title. I didn't realize that these types of minor edits were problematic. I certainly do apologize. That said, I would appreciate my full name being used in the title of the article: Stephen Louis A. Dillard. Alternatively, you can use Stephen Dillard. I do not go by Stephen Louis Dillard in either a personal or professional capacity. Also, here is a link to my official court biography: http://www.gaappeals.us/biography/bio_judges.php?jname=Stephen Dillard. I am puzzled as to why you feel the need to cite an old judicial opinion where I am listed as a lawyer to verify my name, when my official court biography is available. Thanks again for your assistance. I am not familiar with this platform, so please forgive any breach of etiquette. Update: Thanks again for all of your assistance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sladillard (talk • contribs) 02:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

bad faith. I moved the article to Stephen Dillard as per your request. Quis separabit?
03:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Lesara

Per above : the Upwork user who edited Jasmine Choi's page using the Musicvicky2 account also edited Lesara's page just after being hired on this Upwork job. Kokonino (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The correct account name is Musikvicky2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (note the "k" in "Musik"). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Editor Frank kensington

This editor seems to only add links to a website called jffrank.com, such as in this fine piece of work. Needs to be stopped, since as far as I can see, the site is not RS and each addition needs to now be reverted. Editor and site seem related. Warned on talk page. Pinging User:Lopifalko as he seems to edit the photo articles often.104.163.148.25 (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I have seen this editor's contributions recently, noticed the Frank kensington / jffrank.com connection, and may have reverted some of them. I am not an admin so cannot block them. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Tactile imaging

Every edit this person has made has promoted the work of Armen Sarvazyan and his companies, which sell tactile medical imaging equipment. The person is non responsive on their talk page.

Included in their edits are apparent self-cites like this diff where they cited

PMID 28831274
which lists V Egorov as an author, who the publication lists as working at Artann Laboratories, a company started by Sarvazyan.

This person should be indefinitely blocked until they convince the community that they will abide by the COI guideline at least. They have dumped industrial waste into WP. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I did the thing here, that I don't usually do, which is address problematic content and problematic behavior at the same time, and the result is somewhat predictable - the user missed the point and thinks I am a crazy person. But I have no tolerance for this specific kind of COI editing - medical marketing dumped into WP. Ah well. I don't care if they leave angry. They have been polluting Wikipedia for a long time. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it is a bit shabby. I have afd'd Tactile imaging. Hopefully it will get a good response. scope_creep (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
If by "it" you mean me doing both at the same time, I agree. It causes these additional problems on top of what there was already. Not me at my best. If you mean the article, I agree with that too. :) Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I meant he never even got your username right, which is detestable, although it could have been a simple mistake. scope_creep (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh. I see. That is not a big deal to me. I haven't gotten the chance to say this to you, but thanks for the work you are doing on this board. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Promotional account

wrong reasons. SamHolt6 (talk
) 01:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

for clarity, the Lacework page referred to by Samholt6 was deleted by an admin today and restored with a redirect to Lace.104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The detection systems which are various types of HIDS or AIDS are all established articles, re: comparison and descriptive articles and he has added in Lacework in comparison, or as an external link. I check the last one, it could be a company neologism. The more I look at it. scope_creep (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
It seems to be an established term, and is now establised article. New term in 2016 came out of Carnegie-Mellon. scope_creep (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Non-Euclidean

PR work for about.com now known as Dotdash it appears. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Oscarcopper123

It's unlikely there is a COI here. – Joe (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PR work pertaining to real estate development in Phoenix. 114.178.202.210 (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I stumbled across this editor yesterday but don't think COI is an issue here. e.g. Hallcraft Homes was about a company that went bankrupt in 2005 and Edward L. Varney is deceased. They're not typical of PR work and it is far more likely that they are just a new editor with a specific interest in the architecture of Pheonix. SmartSE (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bloom Cigar Company

Article deleted, creator is no longer actively editing. – Joe (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"an iconic and internationally known Pittsburgh-based premium cigar store". 220.144.184.239 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I've slapped an {{
HoboJones hasn't edited in nine years so other than that I don't think there's anything to do. – Joe (talk
) 19:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Steven Damelin

Article G11'd. It apparently wasn't an autobiography, so the creator has been blocked pending a change of username. – Joe (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long term ownership of autobiography. The user really does need to be restrained from editing here as if this is a place to post their resume. Additionally, I'm wondering about notability. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:9003:D040:24F8:507F (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Author has requested deletion per this [19] edit summary and by blanking the page. I have tagged the article as a G11.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zigma8

Rakib has created two articles by different sock masters who were blocked for UPE/TOU violations directly related to the subject matter. The content is different enough that I don't believe it to be direct sock puppetry but meat/a continuation of UPE. There is also significant overlap with 3 masters: Zigma8 was created by Umais Bin Sajjad/their socks, Irfan Qadir has a long history with Hamzaramzan123 and then there is overlap here and here, specifically with regard to Jagrit Pratap Singh, most recently created by Sumon07's sock Sayed022. I didn't take this to SPI as I previously said because it's not likely to be a technical match but a continuation of UPE in violation of WMF's TOU. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It probably is worth listing them at SPI... you never know what it will turn up. That said, it's so blatant that I'll block and G5 even without the technical evidence. Looking at Kiri Bloore the actions of Jasper Mitch and Lancelin Luc also strike me as rather odd. SmartSE (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Janos Besenyo

Juhaszpatak has been repeatedly adding links to specific publications, many by the same author Janos Besenyo, to multiple articles. He has been warned about adding inappropriate external links and about managing a conflict of interest in the past, but he doesn't appear to have responded on his talk page to those concerns and the pattern of behavior hasn't changed. I have reverted many recent edits, but there are still references to "Janos Besenyo" in some Wikipedia articles (see search: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Janos+Besenyo&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1) which should probably be reviewed for appropriateness. Peacock (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Eddy Vodka

See here for the background. There were a ridiculous number of SPAs at this AFD but CU came back completely blank. The AFD was close was overturned but really needs more input. Personally, I think there is zero doubt that those accounts are not coordinated (and I have concerns about some of the others too) but am involved, so could one of @Doc James, JzG, and TonyBallioni: please take a look too and block and strike accordingly if you concur. I really don't think we can put up with AFD being so blatantly manipulated as it was when the AFD was closed the first time. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow That is something, the worst afd mess I have ever seen. scope_creep (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:AFC. scope_creep (talk
) 00:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes I've been meaning to do something with that. There are other dodgy looking articles edited by various keep !voters there. SmartSE (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Blocked for
WP:MEAT. Feel free to go through and strike (too tired now to do it myself). They also have some creations amongst them that probably need to be looked at. TonyBallioni (talk
) 01:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. SmartSE (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Godzilladude123

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
)

This user began editing back in 2011, but made promotional edits to the vodka article e.g. [20] [21] [22] and !voted keep. They then created Coinigy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - about a company of dubious notability, that is involved in cryptocurrencies. Their earlier edits seem mostly ok, to me and I am not convinced either way at the moment, but I would like some more opinions on their recent edits, which are of course, the ones that are pertinent now. SmartSE (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

SmartSE, on the edits to the vodka article, I'd be inclined to give that a pass. Many editors, including me, sometimes stumble on an article that might be saved and attempt to do so, even though it is quite outside our normal area of editing. Coinigy is rather more problematic. In its current state it is very promotional in tone and needs a good whacking with the red pen. It also seems to have sprung virtually fully formed with multiple perfectly formatted PR-type references in the editor's sandbox [23] and after a few tweaks was then pasted in its entirety into article space. That and the dubious notability of this start-up usually ring "paid editing" alarm bells. But again this appears to be a one-off for this editor. There have been many editors who have combined normal editing with paid jobs after they have been editing for quite a while, but it's hard to judge on the basis of this one article. Incidentally, the failure to find a connection between the SPAs posting "keep" votes at the Deep Eddy Vodka Afd doesn't surprise me. We have had cases where various unrelated people were specifically recruited on paid editing sites to vote "Keep" in AfDs. Thus they wouldn't be found via an SPI. Voceditenore (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Other articles

I've gone through the accounts Tony blocked and these are the articles created. Should we just G5? SmartSE (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Nottoohackneyed (talk) is also involved. On their userpage a list of drafts of many of the articles above can be found.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@SamHolt6: Sorry if it's not clear, but that user is one of the ones Tony blocked after my note above. SmartSE (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Randall Miller, bit part actor then very new director and Nancy Appleton, are highly promotional. scope_creep (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
William Brooks. NOT notable. <1000 listens on spotify, <600 on soundcloud. scope_creep (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the following can be safely G5'd.

Jon Wanzek, Nancy Appleton, William Brooks, Randall Miller, Round Hill Music (if this was ce'd there would be nothing left), Tommy Alastra and Vito Bruno (most of the coverage is running for office). The rest are partially notable, or no consensus at Afd. I don't know about this one: Sandeep Tandon. scope_creep (talk
) 15:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

NickHill

COI acknowledged more or less. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stale user who hasn't edited since January 2016, drops by to create an article BitcoinZ which is somewhat promotional. All previous edits seems to be okay, but popping up after a very long while to create an article about a non-notable Bitcoin website is not okay. Also it maybe it maybe a sock account. Zazzysa (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no other Wikipedia accounts. And nobody is telling or asking me what to post. Whilst I accept that there were a number of links to various resources, which may have make the page look rather promotional, these have been removed, and am re-editing the page to fit in with style profiles of pages such as zcash or zclassic. Along with Jimmy Wales, I am a co-founder of Open Rights Group, and I was tightly involved with early work on distributed database design for Wikipedia. I have generally not been using Wikipedia whilst signed in and would thank you not to use that against me. Nick Hill (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I invited Zazzysa on their talk page back here 8 hours ago. It doesn't appear to me that this user rectifies problems, and withdraws allegations, or even bothers reading rebuttals as quickly as makes them. I can't help but feel somewhat disappointed if it is becoming just a place for authoritarians to get their power kick. In some ways, I am glad this has happened, so I now know this is where Wikipedia is going, and I know what to do next funding round. It is also worth mentioning, either my edit wasn't clear enough or Zazzysa didn't bother reading the article. Since it is not about a Bitcoin web site. If the user engaged with me, this would have been immediately resolved. Engage with me. I will then give you enough background knowledge to know at least that you are not moderating a page about a web site. To be sure, BitcoinZ is no more a web site than Bitcoin or Ethereum is a web site. Nick Hill (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Nick Hill Thank you for taking time out to respond to the query, i do apologize for my late reply. Currently you should understand that this discussion is open to other users or admin to participate in, As such i am also awaiting inputs from admins who would close the discussion. I am also sorry for the mixup of calling BitcoinZ a website, however that wasn't the reason your article was tagged or deleted. If i may ask, are you the owner of BitcoinZ ? Zazzysa (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Nick Hill you have written a lot, but you have not responded to the point, which is whether you have some relationship with the BitcoinZ community and whether you hold the coin. You are claiming to be a person named Nick Hill; someone with that name is promoting this coin on twitter. I don't know if that is you or not.
But you should be aware that Wikipedia has been hammered by promoters of various cryptocurrencies; we are very aware that there are many people who want to take advantage of Wikipedia's openness to promote currencies they hold, which of course drives up their value.
Please be aware that holding a cryptocurrency creates a conflict of interest in Wikipedia; this is discussed in the
WP:COI
guideline.
The former article was speedy deleted for being promotional and the Draft:BitcoinZ you have generated is also very promotional and shows no notability, being sourced solely to the website and white paper, with no independent sources.
Please disclose your connection to the community generating this coin and whether you hold any. Please stop the drama. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Zazzysa Thank you for your response. I can confirm I am not the owner of BitcoinZ. There is no owner of BitcoinZ. There was no initial coin offering, and there is no founders reward. As such, there is no single entity which benefits from BitcoinZ. Like Wikipedia, ownership and benefits that accrue are diffuse and diverse. Presumably, this is why I am attracted to BitcoinZ in it's early days as I have been attracted to Wikipedia in it's early days. Like I have fostered Wikipedia early in it's development because if it's potential for general good, I fostered Wikipedia for the same reasons. I do mine BitcoinZ with graphics card. I don't consider this to be adequate to recuse myself since this is part of the fostering act, and my interests and support are congruent for both Wikipedia and BitcoinZ, which have much in common. I would also like to respond to Jytdog that this question was not originally explicitly raised here, and as such, it appears to be a post-fact justification, which is not a justifiable position. Nick Hill (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Of course there is no owner; many crytocurrencies have no owner but are created and run by communities. Most of what you wrote here is yet more distraction and not relevant. The issue here is that your
WP:PROMO)? Thanks. Jytdog (talk
) 18:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I was asked if I am the owner, so I responded to that question. Read above. I feel like I am a victim of circling sharks here. Nick Hill (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes that was a poor question but raising the issue at this board was well done. Please deal with the purpose of this board. Please be aware that as a member of the editing community you promise to aim toward the mission of this place as well as the spirit and letter of the policies and guidelines. What you are doing is frankly silly legalistic dancing around the issues. If you really "get it" as you claim you do, please start demonstrating that cluefulness. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
1) Yes, 2) No. Did not address valid issues in the first instance. And I have responded to the question which was subsequently posed. 3) Yes, we need Wikipedia to be a well functioning system to be an excellent place of reference. At the same time, we need to be respectful. Do inaccurate and derogatory allegations have a place in Wikipedia? Under such circumstances, don't you think a defence is sanctioned? To be clear, I intend to abide by the rules irrespective of others behaviour. Nick Hill (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
This is my last reply before I make my recommendations here. What are you saying yes and no to in "1) Yes, 2) No."? Please be brief and clear. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
1) I agree it was a poor question. 2) I disagree raising the issue on the board was well done since it incorporated superfluous and unfounded allegations. This should be avoided. 3) I do agree to abide by guidelines. 4) I disagree with your use of characterisation such as "silly legalistic dancing around the issues" etc and consider such characterisations to be unhelpful in resolving issues. This type of characterisation I am sure you understand will elucidate a response, and to then criticise a response to this may not be seen in the best of faith. It may be seen as a deliberate provocation. That is not good. On the other hand, direct and pertinent questions are useful. I hope your recommendations will encourage statements placed here in relation to persons to be provable, factual and relevant. I hope you will discourage characterisation of people as sock-puppets unless there is evidence, such as consistent log-in credentials, or weaker, but perhaps pertinent, ip address. Just because someone may have touched the same article as someone else, it does not imply sockpuppetry. I do value the work of diligent people like yourself in helping form Wikipedia as a great reference. I also appreciate the tenacity you have shown in staying the course with infraction allegations you have dealt with personally which you discuss on your talk page. This gives you a unique insight. And I hope this discussion has brought more light than smoke. You have probably shown more tenacity in this regard than many others might. In terms of my involvement with BitcoinZ, I had done some mining using graphics cards from November to January. I have watched the development of the community without involvement. Being impressed with the efforts being made, printed and gave out some paper wallets (for free) to help friends understand crypto currency. I have also helped a friend with a shop set up a payment gateway. I could see a draft for a BitcoinZ article on Wikipedia. It appeared to be somewhat POV'd. I edited the article to make it what I considered passable, having stripped out material which appeared like marketing speak. Basically, to a bare bones, and with links to various resources. I moved it to main space. This got flagged in about 10 minutes. At this point, it appeared there must be some history here. The allegations cropping up on this board pretty much proved this. I have nothing to do with any history clearly going on here. Edit an article and POW. Allegations. Whilst I am not criticising COI guidelines, and the need to recuse oneself in the event of COI, I do think allegations of COI should be reasonably founded in the first instance. In this case, they were not. I have not attempted to re-instate the page. To be clear, I have not been paid to edit. I have done this entirely voluntarily. I have also voluntarily recused myself. Whilst at the same time, I am aware most things are done at far less of an arm's length. Nick Hill (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Your editing about this cryptocurrency has been unambiguously promotional and that you cannot see that just shows important the COI guideline is, and how important it is that you follow it with regard to this topic in the future. In the future please disclose that you hold it and mine it, and that you promote it in the real world, and please do not edit directly about it in the future. Likewise with any other cryptocurrencies in which you are involved.

If you keep abusing your editing privileges to promote this cryptocurrency or others you will very likely end up indefinitely blocked. I have no more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Your point of view about what my point of view is about my editing hardly seems relevant, since I have recused myself. In other words, I don't intend to do further edits. In other words, I accept that if someone thinks my edits are promotional/POV, then I accept this. It would be silly of me not to. Sometimes it takes another's words to bring wisdom. I trust you will take the time to reflect on the other issues raised and address those. Nick Hill (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Galileo Galilei

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Galilean COI is pretty impossible to exist.And, I would safely bet that the IP is trolling.~ Winged BladesGodric 13:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

These articles are being edited by racialists and perverts, with conflicts of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.170.129.121 (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't see any recent edits that fit your description, and it is hard to see how anyone could have a COI with regards to an article subject who has been dead for almost 500 years. SmartSE (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bankex

Something really suspicious is going on here, I don't know what it is, but I think it's a person or group of people from the company or paid by the company to make this article and halt the AfD. All these IP editors is suspicious, but also the article creator is suspect. Really if someone good at detecting paid editors could check it out please. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Probabe socking/meating.But not much uncommon in AFDs of the genre and we can probably live with that for seven days, unless and until the disruption rises to extremal heights.~ Winged BladesGodric 03:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I propose we rename COIN as the blockchain noticeboard. SmartSE (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Sathish1127

Undisclosed paid editing concerns. This user has previously admitted to paid editing , but I see no disclosures on any articles created, or on their talk page (which has a long list of deletions and copyright issues).

π, ν
) 02:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

GetUp!

Article is about a political organization in Australia and has occasionally attracted NPOV "adjustments" in various directions. A self-declared employee of the organization has taken upon themselves to remove it, but has a clear COI. Some of the changes they made are likely good, but others appeared to be whitewashing. I think a few more eyeballs on the situation might do some good, particularly since I have edited the article in the past (albeit mostly to fix references). I notified the editor about COI (and will about this discussion). TeaDrinker (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Wait and watch-The edit is Paul's lone edit and he has been duly informed of our PE Guidelines and disclosure requirements.Let's wait for his response.~ Winged BladesGodric 11:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Anyways, I will take a look at the article.~ Winged BladesGodric 11:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
It states on the first contribution of the filing editor: I work for the organisation the article is about. The article has been maliciously edited to criticise the organisation rather than reporting facts accurately and without bias. I have removed those attacks. scope_creep (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Abu Sayeed (film director)

The account is being used only for promotional purposes. This user in the past tired to hijack Abu Sayeed on a Bangladeshi minister to an article about a Bangladeshi director with the same name. Since then they created Abu Sayeed (Film director) multiple times and which were deleted. They successfully created Abu Sayeed (film director), which was not deleted, then they created articles on the movies directed by Abu Sayeed. Their contribution, excluding Moving Road which reads like a personal essay, have been on Abu Sayeed and his movies exclusively. In my opinion he may be Abu Sayeed or works for the director. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

  • One of the spams (Moving Roads) have been draftified.Evaluating the others.~ Winged BladesGodric 13:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Brain Balance

This user is 100% a promotional

WP:SPA and have not responded to the paid editing notice on their talk page Jytdog (talk
) 21:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Kevin Adell

Smith apparently works for Adell (who owns the other three subjects), but has not disclosed this in any way. While at one time Smith edited on other topics, they now concentrate on polishing the articles on Adell and his properties, getting Adell's publicity still on his article, etc. Smith moved the WFDF article to the station's latest branding, a violation of our article-naming conventions which I have undone, and continues to make undisclosed edits to bring the articles closer to how Adell wants them. Orange Mike | Talk 00:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the update and alert to this talk page. I do not work for Adell or for any of the organizations in the above mention. If there are recommended procedures to better the updates I have made I am more than happy to work on them and welcome suggestions. Tsmith47 (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Aside from all the work you've been devoting to Adell and his companies, the suspicious behaviors which made me raise this issue were your posting to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions about an image you insisted belonged to Adell (even though it's obviously not a selfie, and therefore it presumably belongs to the photographer who took it); and your move of WFDF (AM) from its real name to a brand name, a notoriously problematic habit of media PR people who want to abandon the actual name of a station in favor of whatever slogan they've come up with this year. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing concerns

Possible undisclosed paid editing. These users removed sourced information about the subject from highly reputable local and foreign medias. They didn't edited any other articles. Quickfingers (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit: The administrator NeilN found out that Gorgelee78 is a sock puppet account of Lee-ann-25, a user that attempted to insert unsourced and controversial info about Ivo Prokopiev in the article about him. Prokopiev is Peevski's arch rival and he is constantly bashed in his medias. I found another account, Becattt that was created and instantly used to edit Peevski's article and most likely another sock of Lee-ann-25. Please take a look. Quickfingers (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I have started a SPI case against the main editor of "Monitor". I believe she's behind all of these socks. For more information, check out the COI discussion about her from December 2017. Quickfingers (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
And just as I thought, "Monitor" did an article about this. Link English version of the exact same article exists in "Europost" here . Quickfingers (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Nobin Paul

Image is the work of Priyankalalan. Seems to have jumped

WP:AFC. This is the third article I've seen this. Actrial is still running for at week, well under a week. Very successful it has been as well. scope_creep (talk
) 14:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Wait and watch--@Scope creep:--The banner at the top of the noticeboard states:--This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue.Some aspect of gaming is prob. involved but the activities of the editor aren't enough to justify immediate intervention.~ Winged BladesGodric 15:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah right. Next time. scope_creep (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the reason I posted it here, is because the image posted on Nobin Paul is the work of user:Priyankalalan. scope_creep (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
You are doing a commendable job, at the board and this looks like clear-cut UPE.But, please give him a chance to respond on their t/p.~ Winged BladesGodric 16:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Coolio. scope_creep (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
For starters, none of the sources are about Nobin Paul. So unless in depth RS can be found the article should either be PRODed or sent to AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Just noticed it was PRODed by Insertcleverphrasehere. AfD seems to be the answer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The more prudential question was about the user:)~ Winged BladesGodric 13:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Increase the uw level? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Last haul of spam before the end of ACTRIAL

Once again, the usual suspects. MER-C 15:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

UPE concerns

Malcolmrevere's editing history looks UPE-like and they use socks. Are the subjects of those articles notable? I wouldn't know. Rentier (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler

Obvious UPE, creator indeffed today ☆ Bri (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

We need a CSD criterion for articles created in violation fo the terms of use. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely. I think it should have been available a while ago, as it is classic boundary issue. If it is outside and fails TOU, it gets deleted. I think there was impression the a dodgy article could perhaps be cleaned up and saved, but there is so many coming through now. scope_creep (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Did you say doggy article? Okay, to business: I won't vote on all of these "for reasons", but I note a clear pattern described by WP:Identifying PR. Certainly we have lists of clients and software products, namedropping tangentially related but powerful people, and an overall uncritical PR-ish tone. A PR agency "known for representing [people and books] as well as negotiating television and media deals for its clients", gee, wow, that's unique. I'm making use of this essay as frequently as possible to highlight and socialize these issues. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
They essentially follow the same kind of pattern, where knowledge seems to be ok to the reader, but is substandard and in a way deceitful. Dodgy, dictionary definition low quality, dishonest and unreliable. They essentially follow the same kind of pattern, where knowledge seems to be ok, but is substandard and in a way deceitful. It is a practiced art, well established and understood by the PR. I think think anybody has sat down formalised how these pr are created. I think the essay is a good start. scope_creep (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like Anthonyhcole voiced concerns about this account's paid editing back in 2012, but was rebuffed w stuff about harassment. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

​​Given the block reason, someone may want to revoke autopatrolled. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Done. MER-C 11:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Some more which look suspicious:

SmartSE (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Ori Feibush

I placed a prod on Ori Feibush, per above as I thought he was non notable and Bridge to Somewhere who hasnt been on Wikipedia for 3.5+ years, came in, and removed the prod and made some light edits. scope_creep (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me of Plot Spoiler but I will start an SPI to confirm and look for other accounts. SmartSE (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@Scope creep: That was confirmed so I've merged it up to here. SmartSE (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Miron

I thought him notable enough to be worth rewriting., & I've started. DGG ( talk ) 10:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

User:StrRdYUUdK

Obvious evasion of ACTRIAL to create spammy articles about startups. Shows all the hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing. MER-C 18:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

This is with regards to my editing issue. I have given my contribution without any sort of payment and to help grow more information of the present world by building and editing articles from the information derived from the global news sites. With no motive of income, these edits are absolutely free and have been made during the free and pass time as an interest in writing and editing. Please consider the request for letting me help to build new informative and present company, popular icons, and upcoming innovators who shape are shaping the world and bringing change. Strictly following the interest and laws of Wikipedia, I swear to continue to do free edits and creation of pages.

Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrRdYUUdK (talk • contribs) 19:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Something looks a little strange here. StrRdYUUdK, I couldn't help but notice the marked contrast between what you've written above, versus the clear and grammatically correct use of idiomatic English in your initial edit at SkyWatch. It really does jump out quite strongly. Can you give some background that would help resolve this for me? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


Queens of Hearts Couture Cakes

Ivarhcp4ever has declared a conflict of interest associated with the company. Ivarhcp4ever created the draft article, but when it was declined Ivarhcp4ever just copied the article into mainspace, subverting the AFC process. Queenofheartscouturecakes has an obvious username connection and has only edited the mainspace article. Katm23 is a new account whose only edits are to recommend accepting the draft article. Peacock (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you can add the above user to the list as another sock of Ivarhcp4ever. KJP1 (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Three of the accounts have now been blocked as socks (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ivarhcp4ever), the multiple drafts have been redirected to the article, and the article has been nominated for deletion. Peacock (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Something of interest

There is a discussion underway about whether to merge the {{connected contributor}} and {{connected contributor (paid)}} templates. This may be of interest to participants of this noticeboard. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Saint Louis Science Center

IP has been adding large amounts of detailed minutiae to the website shown above. When I removed copyrighted text which was added to the article by the IP (shown here) another editor Scalliewag reverted my removal. I have approached both editors on their talk pages and left COI welcome templates asking for more information regarding their relationships with the Science Center, asking them to reply either on their talk pages or here at COIN. Spintendo      00:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I trimmed the lede of some items ("in 1991, it was the most visited"). The article seems not so bad, no so good. Neutral.104.163.147.121 (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

COI/ SPI on People v. Turner

A new user with contributions only to the People v. Turner article. No use of edit summaries, and the article itself mentions "Michelle Dauber, a sociologist at the Stanford Law School and longtime advocate on campus sexual assault, who is also a family friend of the victim" Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I assume a Stanford professor would write better (nor would a law professor change the language of the charges as this editor did). (Michele Dauber is btw a law professor and a professor by courtesy in the Sociology department so the article is itself a bit misleading there; it also spelled her name incorrectly in one place [now fixed]). I have connections with Stanford and live in the area though I don't know the victim or any of the other players in the article. Things are getting heated around Stanford/Palo Alto, including accusations of dirty tricks (including false flag), as the recall election for Aaron Persky is on the June ballot. This editor could be a novice working in dangerous waters or it could be someone who has a conflict of interest but not the obvious one (or both). --Erp (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Have you met many academics? Being a university professor definitely doesn't go hand-in-hand with being a good writer. I don't feel that you've offered any sound arguments against Mdaub being Michele Dauber. --Laser brain (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Have you considered that this conversation may in effect be outing a user?104.163.147.121 (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I am Mike Daubert. You have all accused me of a COI. Just look at the source data I've tried to add: https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/06/10/county-releases-brock-turner-court-documents. I will no longer help here. Any responses will go to spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdaub (talk • contribs) 17:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

William Beaumont Army Medical Center

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
POV etc. into his writings.Best,~ Winged BladesGodric
12:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This editor since their account was created has edited military articles with almost total exclusivity. I have just today approached the editor on their talk page to inquire about any possible COI's including any work done at WBAMC or the US military. Their prompt reply is shown below. Spintendo      07:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thesofine Response

- Hello and thank you for all you assistance. I used to live in El Paso and had a friend that worked at WBAMC as a nurse practitioner, who has since died; I met my friend in El Paso where she worked proudly at WBAMC. I can provide her obituary if you are interested.

One day I was thinking of my friend and found the WBAMC stub. It made me sad to see it undeveloped . . . as if no one cared. I was new to being a wiki contributor so I have worked to improve this (and other pages) from start class. I found it was interesting and fun. I like contributing to wiki pages I know something about . . . and I like learning about these topics as I research. I like contributing to USG articles because much of the information is public domain. I would like to see the rating for the WBAMC page go from a Start-class to a higher class on the quality assessment scale. Maybe in some weird way contributing to the WBAMC page is something I do to honor my friend's memory.

I do not work for the Army or for WBAMC. She did work at other hospitals, but I do not know anything about those other hospitals. I have not lived in El Paso since 2005. The last time I spoke to my friend was in 2012 while she was on her death bed. I do not have family or friends in El Paso. The last time I was any where close to WBAMC or El Paso was around 2008, I think. I am not paid to make these contributions.

- I have not edited or created articles about myself, my family, my friends, company, organization or competitors. My friend who died is not mentioned in this or any other wiki page.

- I have no COI to disclose

- I have not linked to my organization's website in other articles. I do not contribute to my organization's website.

- I always do my best to comply with Wikipedia's core content policies . . . I do learn more as I contribute more.

Oddly enough, I have always been expecting someone from the WBAMC Public Affairs office to contact me about the wiki page but that has never happened. I have emailed them several times to ask questions or get clarifications, but they never respond to my emails.Thesofine 09:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I had thought that since your edits were predominantly to military articles and Ft Bliss is very prominent in the El Paso area, that you might have a connection to the uniform. You said that you don't work for the Army. Just to be clear, would that statement also be true for the other branches of the military? Thank you again for clarifying this, it's most appreciated. Spintendo      11:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thesofine Response to Follow-up Questions

Thank you for your response. Just to be clear: I do not work for any branch of the military (US or foreign), and I do not work for any company or entity in El Paso or Texas. I have not been to Texas in almost 10 years; I only lived in El Paso for 2-3 years; I no longer have any friends in El Paso (they all moved away). In fact, I do not know anyone who works at Fort Bliss or William Beaumont. I do not receive payment in any way for my singular, Aspergers-like focus on these pages I am trying to improve. I will try to expand my focus, but I must admit it has been very satisfying to see these pages mature from mere stubs. I have also learned a lot about this wikipedia community along the way. As you may have noticed, I do go through spurts of editing that seem to arise only when I think of my dear friend from El Paso or when I am really bored at airport lounges. I think this is another reason I keep returning to these pages: I already know their problems and deficiencies so I can pick up almost where I left off.

I must say, I have tried to be as unbiased as possible when making contributions and I hope they have been worthwhile. I have tried to present the good and the bad as objectively as possible, which has been relatively easy since I mostly focus on history.

While being associated with the other cases on this page is somewhat embarrassing, I can understand the concern. I do hope my edits in my very small corner have contributed to our shared endeavor to freely share in the sum of all knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesofine (talk • contribs) 15:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possibly malicious UPE

Articles dealt with. Rentier (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I came across this user while investigating the Kickingback77/DongLee sockfarm. The UKAT article looks misleading and promotional, and the article may be a part of the operation described by The Times, aiming to "exploit" vulnerable persons [25] Rentier (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wewritewikis4u looking for help

You might want to also watch Mark K. Markarian / Mark Markarian, the name of a Boston plastic surgeon. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:ParkMyCloud

The subject editor User:Gibmul has (after being pushed) declared that they are a paid editor with respect to various drafts including Draft:Indow. However, they have not made the declaration with regard to the four most recent drafts, and did submit one to AFC for review. What we have is, at the best, a paid editor who forgets to make the declarations, or, perhaps, a paid editor who doesn't care about the rules until reminded. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Or more likely a sock with this being their first edit.[26] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, it was an oversight on my part. I put notice of the articles in question on my User Page but forgot to place the notice on the Talk Page of the articles. I have now rectified the matter.Gibmul (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Politics sockfarm

articles


This is a bit stale, but never too late to look at COIntributions, I guess. This sockfarm wasn't labeled for whatever reason but all CU blocked within a few minutes of each other. The underlying theme of their creations seems to be politics, think-tanks and their executives, plus one oddball smartphone app. Anyway, maybe folks here want to have a look. Some are well-sourced but some are not; a few of the latter type listed above. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Ana Dias (photographer)

This article was created in a single edit, the second edit ever of the article creator. Perhaps somebody could have a look at it, it's not my area. Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty. Actually, he's been editing on the Portuguese Wikipedia on and off since 2011 [27], although that doesn't necessarily exclude a COI. Ana Dias seems notable enough to me, despite the citation overkill. However, it needs editing to remove the considerable peacockery. Voceditenore (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I saw the 22 (!) pt edits. The pt article is equally well-formatted. It's remarkable to get this done in one single edit and the English is quite good, too. I definitely get a whiff of possible paid editing here. --Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • PS: and did you note that while the photo in the infobox is a thumb in the pt version, this editor knew apparently that we don't do that here? I find that a telling detail. Even many long-time contributors often don't get this rigth... --Randykitty (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
From what i'm seeing, its likely more of a case of COI editing than paid editing. From a google search, their is an individual by the name of Gonçalo Jorge that produces much of Ana Dias's work. This seems to indicate a connection between this producer and the editor in question. I will add a COI tag and inform the editor--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Borgarnes

Editor has exclusively edited the article mentioned, predominantly to add unreferenced promotional material more suitable for Wikivoyage. Spintendo      12:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I have heard back from this editor and they informed me that there is no COI: "I am not paid nor do I know anyone in the text below." (The original post is on my talk page). Thus, the report can be closed. Regards, Spintendo      16:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Suiteness

Author is a

single-purpose account who has edited only this draft for about two years. Robert McClenon (talk
) 16:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Shinichi Mochizuki

A large sockfarm has been observed editing these three related articles, apparently seeking to unduly promote Mochizuki's work and possibly give it undue precedence over Fesenko's. This has been going on since at least 2015. Both bios have been indefinitely protected. All three articles need a thorough review from experienced neutral editors. I'm also going to notify WikiProject Mathematics. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it (and although I am a mathematician, this is just lay knowledge), Fesenko is one of the few (the only?) non-Japanese mathematicians to have asserted publicly that he understands IUT theory and (?) the purported proof of the
talk
) 15:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
same here (mathematician outside of their expertise area) and I want to add that the issue is that the offending revisions (by the SPA mentioned in the SPI) of these pages do not portray the prevalent consensus that Mochizuki's proof is not accepted (nor refuted) by the number theory community in its majority. This has been dealt with at Shinichi Mochizuki, I am currently revising abc conjecture (done) and Inter-universal Teichmüller theory (in progress). jraimbau (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding own papers

We have a user adding lots of primary sources they wrote themselves:

Hailholyghost

They are working to edit war them into place here.[28]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

They spammed them in other places too. Have addressed those and left them a note too. academic spam.Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Bobby Kalotee

The aggressiveness with which the author is canvassing to get an article approved is more typical of paid editors than of volunteer editors, although he may simply have one bee in his ear. The author is currently a

single-purpose account.Robert McClenon (talk
) 23:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon - I've been working on this page for sometime and would like to have this article live, hence the speed. I'm doing it as a hobby and I've no personal or commercial interest with the article or the subject. I've almost rewritten the complete article and backed every detail with a verifiable reference. Let me know if it now passes your criteria. Sagar vaibhav (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

promotional
material, there isn't much left (which sometimes happens with people of marginal notability). If you really want to improve Wikipedia, you can just as well do it on any of the 5.5 million articles that we already have as with this one article that is in draft space.
You certainly have a personal interest. If you mean that you don't have a personal financial interest, it would have been a good idea to avoid inserting copyrighted material the second time, after you were warned the first time by
In Wikipedia, there is no deadline, rather than arguing with multiple editors. However, I will let other administrators decide. Robert McClenon (talk
) 23:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
If it were solely up to me, I would temporarily block Sagar for disruptive editing. I do not really think he understands the issues and perhaps a temporary block will help concentrate his attention. Deb (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Just odd

editor
articles
business people/entrepreneurs
singers, musicians, artists, celebrities
writers
athlete or sport
companies

This person has said that they are volunteering and that they are editing WP in part to improve their English. Maybe this is true. But their editing - especially source selection - is poor and kind of typical of paid editors. And what they are doing at Naveen Jain especially at the talk page, starting in Talk:Naveen_Jain#Notability_Review and moving down from there, is very hard to understand if unless there is some external interest driving it.

Along with the stuff above (all living people) there is some work on people long-dead that is clearly not conflicted.

Am very unsure about this and that is all the more reason to bring it here for others to consider. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC) (corrected Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)}

Previous COIN discussions about the Naveen Jain article:
Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Naveen_Jain
Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_46#Naveen_Jain
Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_67#COI_editing_at_Naveen_Jain_yet_again
I noticed Lidiia right away because of her first edit to Naveen Jain. I've been trying to work with her (most recently trying to get her to focus on a much simpler BLP, Brian Dyson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), and also started a discussion at User_talk:Kuru#users_Lidiia_Kondratieva_and_Lyupant.
It looks like Lidiia is working with a number of similar editors, or she's getting editing assignments from someone who's also giving them to a number of similar editors.
Lidiia, while you don't have to answer this, I'd appreciate it if you would answer: Is someone giving you at least some of your Wikipedia editing assignments, are you finding them completely on your own without any outside direction, or perhaps there's some other explanation? --
talk
) 17:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I just took out a big chunk of Moon Express that appeared to be OR attempting to providing legal foundation for the company's extraterrestrial operations. Naveen Jain is a principal. Coincidence? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
It appears there is undisclosed paid editing going on at
talk
) 19:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for such a honor, the discussion devoted to me!:) Ronz, I'm not a conspiracy expert, but I'm afraid it would be too "smart" to start my editing from Jain's page if I had an intention to fix this article as the main one) would be not the best idea. Sorry, my mind is not so beautiful...But later, when I realized Naveen Jain is a victim, I decided to help the article. But, as I see, good edits are the problem here.

Ronz, answering your question about "editing assignments". Usually I try to take an example from you. Also I read WP rules and address to Help Desk if needed. Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That's no answer to my question. If you don't want to respond, just say so.
when I realized Naveen Jain is a victim Howso? --
talk
) 22:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
My answer was about nothing else, but truth.
"Howso?") - I think every second businessman faced a negative experience at least once in his life, whether it were lawsuits, his business downfall or anything else. Do you agree? But it doesn not mean Wikipedia should make his personal article about the failures. Naveen Jain article is one of the most poisoned articles of tech entrepreneurs in Wikipedia, seems as someone hates Jain and revenges in such a way. But the hater chose a nefarious way to do it. I think if you're a true man and polite yourself you won't act like that. It's my personal point of view, whether you like it or not.
I am hoping Wikipedia will reconsider its attitude to the article. Best wishes, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
And some words about your claims here) I am not paid for any of my edits. Who would pay me for all these edits? Show me please where I have violated any policies with my good, fair edits. I have made some mistakes, but have listened to advice to improve. I ask for help and make balanced edits. The issue seems to be good edits. Thank you, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Here is some neutral information about Naveen Jain in Time: 1) http://time.com/4433455/moon-express-robot-nasa/?iid=sr-link1 2) http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/18/by-2035-well-all-be-eating-grasshopper-tacos/?iid=sr-link2 Dear partners, won't it be "COI" if we use the info to add to Jain's article? Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Folks at this board have now gotten somewhat a flavor of what has been going on here. Lidiia doesn't understand WP very well, and is more or less combative. There are some issues with English as well. In my view there one of the following three things is going on, and I am listing them in most likely order to me:
    • a) undisclosed conflict of interest here (which fits with the history of the page)
    • b) advocacy for Jain (Lidiia is a fan of him in real life and is not self-managing that or making it apparent enough that we can speak to it)
    • c) this is a just a new editor who stumbled on this (although it was their first edit here) and the behavior is just unfortunately difficult.
Would other folks here please weight in?
If folks are not hearing COI and we need to close this and move it to AN for a straight TBAN that would be fine. Am just looking for input from others. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Clare Rojas

Peggyhoneywell (talk · contribs) began editing on February 28 by copying and pasting from https://www.tayloepiggottgallery.com/artist/Clare_Rojas/biography/ (which has since been redacted). I sent them a copyright warning but they have again posted a copy-and-paste from this website [29] today. The reason I believe this to be a COI is that Rojas' stage name is Peggyhoneywell (as listed on her article). Their only edits are to this page and they have not responded to the three warnings I left on their talk page, even the more personalised one I left. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, with an explanation. If the new user is not aware they have a talkpage, I hope the block helps them find it, and as soon as they acknowledge concerns and accept our policies, they may be unblocked. Bishonen | talk 22:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC).

Academic promotion from Cornell Food and Brand Lab

I have gone through and cleaned all this up, with the exception of a few AfDs. Just wanted to record this. This is one of the most clear examples of academic spamming I have encountered. Tons of promotional content and bad sourcing, including no sources, SPS, press releases, churnalism, primary sources (self-citing of course), and popular media hyping primary sources, about work from this lab, which is about health. This has been going on since 2006 or so; the most recent edits are from Jan 2018. Last year it was shown that the lab had a)

p hacked their data and b) framed studies, article titles, and abstracts so they would be media circus ready, and c) had great success getting lots of media hype. They had 6 papers retracted and 14 corrections issued - see retraction watch database and this buzzfeed piece
. WP was clearly part of their PR strategy.

pages
spamlinks
users

-- I haven't notified any of these accounts, as none of them are active. If someone feels that should be done I have no objections of course. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC) (update Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC))

Thanks for bringing this here Jytdog. There are more accounts and articles dating from before 2015 listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PortionScientist/Archive. SmartSE (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Further accounts

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Typical UPE stuff created by these accounts listed above. What's with all the surgery spam lately? Do people actually try to qualify their surgeons through Wikipedia?? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I think a Wikipedia article may be included when you buy yourself a place as a "Top Doctor"[30]
But we get a lot of spammy articles about physicians. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
where I see the surgeons primarily is for those doing plastic and cosmetic surgery, where patients pay privately, and attracting patients is to a considerable extent a matter of publicity. And I have seen them listing their WP articles on the websites, among the other testimonials. I've deleted many as G11/A7, but there are always more. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Open Book Publishers

AtosiOBP is repeatedly adding links to books published by "Open Book Publishers". The username suggests a connection to the organization. He has been asked to stop doing this in the past (diff), but he apparently hasn't complied. There is also a previous discussion regarding this issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2018_Archive_Jan_1#openbookpublishers.com. I'm rather new around here, so I'm not sure how to proceed. Can someone with more experience please take a look? Thank you. ANDREVV (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I requested block per

talk
) 21:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

There are other accounts doing the same. Lrodrp11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was mentioned at the spam report, they then blatantly began socking with Lrodrp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'll indef them all. There are links that have been added by other editors though, so there is no need to remove all links or blacklist at the moment. SmartSE (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh and this actually goes back to 2011: User_talk:Cruzgirl. SmartSE (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
81.101.15.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked twice late last year as well. Also 62.31.89.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) SmartSE (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Alessandro Mocellin, Academia de ła Bona Creansa and MacroStandard

I want to draw your attention upon a series of sockpuppets (confirmed at it.wiki) trying to push a proposed standard for Venetian language through Wikipedia, while promoting the involved association and author. CC @RHaworth: who accepted a db-a7 by me. Vituzzu (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Cleaned up links. I do believe this is the first time we've had a COI reported over a letter of the alphabet. Bri.public (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I learnt to be never surprised by COI ;)
--Vituzzu (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Quickfingers

Possible COI editing and Undisclosed paid editing

Possible conflict of interest editing and very likely undisclosed paid editing. For more information please look at those articles [[REDACTED - Oshwah]] and [[REDACTED - Oshwah] here]. The user himself has quoted the second one in a malicious attempt to accuse me of paid editing here, yet not saying a word about the first one. Possibly because the first article reveals [REDACTED - Oshwah] here, thus admitting that he should not contribute to any articles related to Prokopiev, Zahov or Peevski. Yet he not only does so, he also blocks any attempt for erasing unsourced information and adding objective facts to those articles/

Lee-ann-25 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't have much credibility here either, given that you've created at least one sockpuppet account (Gorgelee78, now blocked). Quickfingers is a well-established editor who edits a wide variety of subjects. I'd say this entry was created in bad faith. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not affiliated with Econmedia and their people. These articles prove nothing and are written in gossipy and defamatory manner from a single point of view. Also they put Wikipedia in bad light for the wrong reasons. All of the information about me presented there is false. One of them mentioned that I'm supposedly connecting from Spectrum Net. I never had that ISP in my area. Shows how accurate they are. By the way I didn't mentioned the first article because It wasn't published by the time I wrote in Oshwah's talk page. I have nothing to hide. Quickfingers (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@Quickfingers: Just so we're all clear here, when you said "information about me" do you mean about Delyan Peevski? In other words, you are Delyan Peevski? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Bri: No? My username is mentioned in the said articles. Quickfingers (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh I see, when you said "articles" I thought you meant the Wikipedia articles. Sorry. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Paolo Casali, again

More of the same at Paolo Casali, previously discussed here last August. A new SPA is edit-warring to remove the COI tag from the page, thus demonstrating his/her COI. Ping @Bri, DGG, and Bilby: who participated in that earlier discussion. As before, this is inappropriate paid-editor content in mainspace, and as before I suggest that the only sensible way of dealing with it is to remove it completely and replace it with neutral encyclopaedic content written by volunteer editors; for that task I – most reluctantly – offer a small amount of my time. I've started an SPI based on the behavioural similarities and monothematic interest of the various editors. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted the article is currently goldlocked. The issues seems to be mainly: should a 15kB list of publications be included in the article; and should COI tags be present or not. I think this noticeboard is the appropriate forum for either question but especially the question of COI tags. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
My understanding of the routine practice by experienced editors here working on scientific bios is to list all the books, but only the peer-reviewed articles that made the most impact, and in the absence of a third party statement about which they are --which is almost always the case--to use the citation figures as a surrogate. Sometimes there will be reason to refer to other papers in the text. Even for famous people, it's expanded it only a little: see Linus Pauling -- our only full bibliography is List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein, though I link it would make sense to do similarly for Darwin and Newton.
As for COI tag, my opinion (and practice) is to leave these on the article as long as there is any text written by a COI editor. Even when I partially rewrite the article, I do not remove them, but perhaps in those cases we should instead move them to the talk page. DGG ( talk ) 15:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the practice DGG outlined. There should be really substantial contributions from other editors, amounting to a rewrite of the COI portion, before the tags come off. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Cluster of promotional activities

I crossed a series of edits coming from

Onomata Kechiasmena and Bojano's "Associazione Culturale Leonardo". --Vituzzu (talk
) 13:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, its very promo. I Prod'd a few, as they were totally redundant to other articles and flagged others. --Theredproject (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Ukpong1 revisited

I blocked Ukpong1 after Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_127#Ukpong1 was archived. These are more articles that I think were paid for. SmartSE (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Added some more including a few listed last time which haven't been edited. SmartSE (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I flagged and Prod a few of them. Theredproject (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Pete Hawkes

Someone (most probably Pete Hawkes) has been continually editing the Pete Hawkes article since at least 2013, continually using new throwaway accounts, to promote the subject of the article. I've only listed the single-purpose accounts from the last year or so here - there are plenty more. This is continual, blatant violation of the CoI policy. I'm not sure what the best solution is. I'd say permanent semi-protection would at least force the author to make some edits to other articles before polishing his own article. --Slashme (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I've put six-month protection on it - autoconfirmed only. Deb (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! --Slashme (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Jackie's Boy Official

Account seems to have a clear conflict of interest as related to the subject of its draft article, Draft:Jackie's Boy -- The Anome (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The account seems to be transparent about the COI, given the username and contribution history. I am curious what is the point of reporting it here? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what is the appropriate thing to do here. Send a templated message? Block? Let someone else deal with it? -- The Anome (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Account names of the form "[insert name here] Official" have often been blocked as promotional accounts at
WP:UAA. You could post it there and see if anyone disagrees. --Drm310 🍁 (talk
) 17:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
That's only a half solution because at least the templated message {{uw-softerblock}} encourages them to return with a new username and is kind of light on the COI part. It doesn't address the conflicted editing very well IMO and treats it as a footnote. They should be warned about that on their active userpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
first time editor and contributor for wikipedia here, is there anything I can do to address my COI besides disclosing my relationship with the subject? Jackie's Boy Official (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I suggest, to begin, that you click that glaring red link that you have instead of a user page, Jackie's Boy Official, and create a userpage that fully and frankly discloses your conflict of interest. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jackie's Boy Official: I would like to know whether you are Jackie Boy himself, or someone else who is representing him. The question of your account name will depend on your answer. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

DXC Technology

Both of these editors seem desperate to get the ceo onto DXC Technology. Earlier today, the 77 editor tried to add the ceo name into the article without, and was revereted several times. I had to contact Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, and he withdrew with some warnings, and abuse. The second editor, immediately tried to add the name, it was reverted again by Kudpung กุดผึ้ง and he has just now adding this minute. They seem to linked. scope_creep (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox company "Do include top executives even not individually notable, but do not wikilink them." It is officially allowed to add non-notable executives there.--PibeDeOuro (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
They both seem to the same editor. scope_creep (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet SPA at Cleanmax solar

Looking over new articles today I came across the new article Cleanmax solar. I recongized the name, and after some digging found that CleanMax was deleted via G11 recently. From the new editor's (User:NiceGuyGDC) edit history it seems like we might be dealing with an SPA or sockmaster. Would an admin be willing to see which editor created CleanMax and see if the content is in any way similar to that at Cleanmax solar? SamHolt6 (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: Well spotted. They're a DUCK of HansTV who was obviously a sock of an underdetermined sockfarm themself. Blocking and G5ing. SmartSE (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Relevant
WP:AN
thread

There is a relevant current thread on

WP:AN at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Prolific spammer. -- Softlavender (talk
) 09:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Julian Kabza/Annex Press

I thought I saw this here before but couldn't find it ... sorry if a double post. Just noting for the record that the two articles were deleted (one !voter said "big pile of conflicted, promotional editing") and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Domostyle had some related results. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

However there may be more article cleanup required (small list here) ☆ Bri (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Zebronics

This is just a documentation post since the socks keep coming up with alarming regularity and I believe they are now getting hold of compromised accounts (my most recent sock block from this farm). A sock from the company emailed me a couple of times asking for help in ensuring their article stuck (right after I deleted one version) and in the second email they tried to address me in Tamil too. I did not respond and just blocked the sock, so they sent an allegation to UTRS in an unblock request that I asked for money and some such crap! I've forwarded the original emails to a couple of arbcom members early on, so that's that. But as this has come up again today, under a different title and likely using a compromised account, I'm bringing it here, just so that more eyes can be had. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Regex salted. MER-C 09:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Homeriko

on

π, ν
) 18:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikibablu

This edit by a now-blocked sock is likely to be aimed at a competing UPE operation, thus implicating Wikibablu. These articles are fairly blatant, but there are others that do with checking over too. SmartSE (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Smartse:--Any ideas about the master?!That would be the real interesting issue, given that he was too indulged in PE.~ Winged BladesGodric 07:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: No afraid not. The Rinaldi article was previously at Anthony T. Rinaldi and created by Ricegodoter, Bullus and Heena73 but they are all long stale and only Bullus was blocked. SmartSE (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

MazaCoin

IMHO this article shows the worst of cryptocurrencies and the very worst of Wikipedia, since we can't delete such an obvious advertising-scam article in any reasonable amount of time.

MazaCoin's claim to fame is that it is the official currency of the

Oglala Lakota Nation. Nevertheless, that claim in transparently false. Neither the MazaCoin website https://www.mazacoin.org/ or the Oglala Lakota website http://oglalalakotanation.info/
makes that claim. A Wall Street Journal blog did make that claim which was soon corrected https://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/03/07/lakota-indian-promotes-new-digital-currency-mazacoin/ and some otherwise reliable sources followed giving the incorrect info for a few days.

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MazaCoin (3rd nomination) where I've put more complete info and User:Jonpatterns seemed to accept that info. I have no idea what Jonpatterns is doing now or why.

User:Sterlingp2 claims on my talk that he is a "concerned party", and I have no doubt that he is. I'll notify him asap of this section and that he needs to have a COI notice.

Finally, I have to say that I don't have time to follow up on this today. Becoming the official currency of a sovereign nation is a very serious matter and it needs to be properly disclosed. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXRrKgQZpOA , a link Strlingp2 sent to me. There the promoter states “MazaCoin is the official currency of the Great Sioux Nation” at 22-30 seconds of the video. A “Tribal elder” says “Right now I stand on my own” 5:50-5:58 indicating that anything related to official currency status is his own opinion. The video is extremely hard to watch, but indicates the incompetence of this entire promotional effort.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It is hard to assess whether Payu Harris is cynically motivated to use Oglala Lakota Nation as an advertising tool, or whether he is genuinely trying to help them. I can see no proof either way. Harris has contacted the Nation and there is a later document where they request more information about the cryptocurrency ( bitcointalk .org/index.php?topic=508849.3100), circa 2015. I can not read the WSJ article as its behind a pay wall. Regarding the video for the Great Sioux Nation, this is a poor quality source that doesn't seem to prove much of anything. I would not object to a fourth AfD that wasn't issued by a sock puppet account. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I am new to wiki editing, but I want to adhere to the rules. I am an investor in mazacoin, fan and I would like for it to be accurately represented. I find it a bit strange to remove the claim to be the Oglala Lakota currency 4 years later, and does someone want to completely delete the page? I have put out requests for clearer documentation to the Mazacoin community. Is it because of the exchange rate that Mazacoin is questioned? Because it is performing better than the Venezuelan Bolivar on the open market. There is a wider push for Mazacoin to be used by all Indigenous communities around the world. Mazacoin is a mined crypto currency, so all of the Mazacoin after the pre-mine/ trust held for the Tribes is an open reward to anyone with the computing resources. To the best of my knowledge Payu Harris is Oglala (The differences in lineage and tribe groups is difficult for me to keep track of) and wants to help his people. I am open to cautious wording that all of crypto currency is risky and people are not always do what they state that they will. Some of us also follow closely because of this question of sovereignty. The American Indian tribes (300+) have a strong claim to be nations and with that, their own currency legally(instead of just using bitcoin). So, I know this is a very difficult issue to document. Sterlingp2 (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment--Howbout' floating a new cryptocurrency board?!~ Winged BladesGodric 06:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but if it's a COIN-type review of cryptocurrency articles, I'm all for it. The problem with editing any cryptocurrency article is that almost any edit that doesn't fit in with the "cryptos are wonderful" meme will be reverted or drastically changed by an interested editor (broadly defined). I've worked on articles related to retail forex and binary options, but cryptos are the most affected set of articles that I've seen by this interested-party editing. If anybody wants to concentrate on crypto articles, please do. I've got limited time now to help, but will try. BTW Facebook, Google, and recently Twitter have all banned crypto and ICO advertising because it tends to be fraudulent. That should tell us something. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yehezkel Lazarov

The only edits that this editor Yehezkel lazarov (talk · contribs) have made have been about Yehezkel Lazarov to add their resume [31], [32] and other content similar. Two questions about COI has not been answered but it seems pretty clear. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I gave it a significant haircut.104.163.147.121 (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

COI and block/ban evasion

Keevaymusic (talk · contribs), self-identified as the minor Canadian musician Catman Cohen, created articles on himself and other members of the Cohen family of Calgary, Alberta. He was permablocked in 2006 for repeated legal threats. Where that account left off, he continued to create and add to articles on his relatives via a series of sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keevaymusic. The articles in question are:

--Softlavender (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • My first thought is hey, what's the secret to getting an Order of Canada? (Philanthropy?) Secondly they all appear notable by our standards and the articles are not that bad. However I get that there is some sockfarm issue that may require deletion on principle. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_128&oldid=853418011"