Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 137

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Li-Ning's PR outsourcing

The ip, which was registered to Ogilvy (agency), seem an obvious PR agency for Li-Ning. See also his edit summary "All the added information comes from the 2017 annual report of Li Ning and was authorized by the company to quote" and "We are the pr agency of Li Ning". May be block is more appropriate? Matthew hk (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Ogilvy has in the past said that these are "rogue" operators or something. See archive 87 for instance, and archive 89 or archive 102 for other Ogilvy incidents. Bri.public (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
They have now created an account with Jessiegaoxq. I left the appropriate templates on their talk page (and requested page protection) and OhKayeSierra has added a COI tag to the article. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
They declared they are a PR agency in some of their edit summaries [1][2][3], without specifying which agency exactly. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
It’s worth noting that 199.229.216.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (which is registered to Ogilvy) and Jessiegaoxq (talk · contribs) used almost exactly the same edit summaries for each of their respective edits. From the behavioral evidence and the WHOIS data alone, I think it’s fair to assume that there is indeed an affiliation between Jessiegaoxq and Ogilvy, though I’m unsure of what capacity that might be. OhKayeSierra (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Unique Features

No response to inquiry about

single-purpose account). May be either an employee editor or an undisclosed hired editor; it doesn't matter which. Robert McClenon (talk
) 01:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Editor violating Religious rights?

There is nothing about
WP:COI as defined in Wikipedia in this post. There are clear advocacy and competence issues with the poster. Jytdog (talk
) 21:24, 24 November 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.


original research
performed upon primary religious sources." He has also said "Torah is not a
reliable source
for Wikipedia articles."

I can find no basis for these comments in the wikipedia policy articles he used to back up these arguments. If such policies exist then they are clearly at best very bad practice and at worst religious intolerance and antisemitic.

How can a primary source be worse than be worse than a secondary source? "that would mean that I can't bring prove anything about Shakespeare's works from the works themselves" according to User talk:AmYisroelChai. As long as it's referenced correctly, it should not be a problem. As long as people are aware the source comes from Torah, they can make the choice not to believe.

People have the right not to personally find Torah credible, but that doesn't make it a bad source. Over 2 billion people in the world find Tanach to be credible for anything before the birth of Jesus written. This number is based on the number of practicing Jews, Christians, and Muslims in the world. This was originally about an edit made by me about the length of King Saul's reign being 2 years cited from Samuel I. It was not a controversial statement and it was sourced correctly as far as I'm aware. As long as people are aware where it was gotten from, that is not an unreliable nor improper source.

Please resolve this. Please make me believe wikipedia will not tolerate what appears to be bullying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mage67usa (talk • contribs) 19:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mage67usa: I do not see where you have provided any evidence that Tgeorgescu has a conflict of interest related to the article. To that end, I don't think this is the right noticeboard to pursue this matter.
That said, they are correct that the Tanach is classified as a primary source, and given the choice, it is better to cite a scholarly secondary source instead of directly citing Biblical text. If nothing else, it avoids issues where different translations of the Bible may present material differently. —C.Fred (talk) 19:54, 24 November 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.

Paulette Jordan

Nate Kelly was the manager of Jordan's gubernatorial campaign. Orange Mike | Talk 22:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Revision of Sun Tzu

I have written the first complete revision of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" in the English language. This has been done in Chinese, but not in English up to now.

Being new to Wikipedia, I posted the information on the Sun Tzu page, and it was promptly taken off. That was perfectly correct! Wiki is now a place for self-advertisement, as was explained to me.

I was away for a few months, and during this time, Soldier Magazine reviewed my book. (4 stars).

Underbar_dk who removed my post in the first place, then said he had no objection to me putting it in. He just asked me to cite the reference that this was the first full revisions in English. The only quote I could give was from my book. Having researched the subject, I cannot find any other revision. McNeilly comes near it, but his book is more a development of Sun Tzu's ideas.

That is how things stand at the moment. Berean Hunter advised me to use this page.

Just to recap: My book, The Revised Art of War, is the first complete revision of Sun Tzu's Art of War in the English language. As such I think it has a place under Legacy" on the Sun Tzu page. Of course, in my case there is a conflict of interest. Would anyone else be prepared to add it?

Cath Writer (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Gina Loudon

The subject of

talk
) 16:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

This account[4] smells like COI all day long. The account is now edit-warring.
talk
) 16:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

New UPE sock farm

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sangemarwa. It also has some overlap with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LogAntiLog, but that case has been stale for a year. Reviewing these for G5/G11 would likely be useful.

TonyBallioni (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

User:SarahReal

Editor SarahReal has been posting links to my talk page and that of other editors to what is stated to be the autobiography of Anthony Bell. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fNT9lQVlizo32eu7gozWGT6fLEFX_xbVy82cVCYxQH4/edit This statement is amusing in that I wonder whether SR knows what an autobiography is. It reads more like a resume than like an autobiography, although neither is anything that Wikipedia needs. SR hasn't answered whether she is working for Anthony Bell, which she obviously is. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC) A block for

undisclosed paid editing is in order. I have waited long enough for a disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk
) 20:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Robert McClenon, I'm not sure that the user is so confused about what constitutes an autobiography. SarahReal previously edited here under the name Bellanthony. Let me know if you happen to notice any more promotional edits – by either account. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Then the editor is trying unsuccessfully to confuse the reviewers as to whether the page is an autobiography, including by an apparent gender-bender. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Robert, I hope you don't mind me asking but could you explain why you mean by "an apparent gender-bender"? I'm not sure I follow. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
User:Richard Nevell - Sure. Anthony is a masculine name. Sarah is a feminine name. That's all there is to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Danny Gold (journalist)

Seems like this has been largely written by Phoebe Barghouty[5], who has "written and produced for VICE news", which Gold was a founding producer of. It's her only contribution. Battleofalma (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Battleofalma: I see that User:Phoebebarghouty uploaded the photo of Gold at Commons (which is perfectly allowable there). She also started the article on March 21-22, 2017 and made one more edit in May 2017. Has there been a more recent problem? maybe with a sock?
Without checking anything in depth, the article looks ok, though several of the many refs are to Gold's articles in reliable sources (but that makes them primary sources for this article). I don't doubt that there might be problems there, but spelling it out would be much appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Vision Éternel

Hey everyone. This is my first complaint on Wikipedia and my first time posting in the Noticeboard so I hope that I'm doing this right. Please let me know if I need to redo this or if anything should be done in a different way next time. I really value your opinions.

User Pigsonthewing recently reverted several of my edits on Vision Éternel's page, claiming that my changes are a "conflict of interest" and that I am involved with the band. I would like to state that I am in no way affiliated with this band, nor with any of the other bands mentioned or linked in that article (nor with any of the other articles that I have edited so far on Wikipedia). I am simply a fan of Vision Éternel and I wanted to improve the readability of the article. I really felt that the article read better after my corrections. I also added some missing information from within the last year, for which I provided adequate references. My references were formatted in the exact same way as the others on the page, so I'm having a hard time understanding why they were removed. User Pigsonthewing's sole reasoning for reverting my edits claims that there is a "conflict of interest", which is honestly not the case. If I was to edit Metallica's Wikipedia article next, with missing information and better readability, would that also make me an affiliate of that band? I don't understand how he came to that conclusion.

If I may however turn the focus towards user Pigsonthewing's behavior on Vision Éternel's page for a moment, I would like to point something out. Following the reversal of my edits, he then removed the official website from the page (which is valid on Wikipedia as far as I know), he removed the link to Wikimedia Commons (which includes several valid band images), he removed 64 properties and references from the band's Wikidata entry (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q29287816) and most oddly, he changed the image captions from "Vision Éternel in the Laurentian Mountains in January 2017." to "A moustachioed man in a fedora hat, in a snowy landscape". Come on now, is that for real? That's totally uncalled for, and so derogatory. I noticed that Pigsonthewing had also made several edits of the kind over the last year on that same article. I am aware that this is an established Wikipedia user (and the last thing that I want is to be perceived as that new guy attacking a respected user) but it seems to me that if anyone has a "conflict of interest" with this article, it's user Pigsonthewing. Why would he change something like that?

I'm trying my best to view this situation neutrally. I don't want to start an editing war with this user, nor with anyone else on Wikipedia. I'm a team player and I'm proud to be a Wikipedia editor. I just want to know what's going on with this article. Should a protection be added? Thanks in advance to everyone who will pitch in. – WikiGuruWanaB (t / c) 01:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Since WikiGuruWanaB, who has only belatedly notified me of this discussion, is now edit-warring to remove all of my edits to the page (which has long been the subject of CoI editing, and promotional puffery), and appears to believe that they have a veto over my editing the page, admin protection would indeed be a good idea. I note that WikiGuruWanaB offers zero evidence to support their allegation that I have a conflict of interest, and indeed that the rest of their post above is a similar tissue of unsubstantiated falsehoods. Perhaps a sock check would also be in order? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize for the belated notification on your talk page Mr. Mabbett. This is my first time posting in the Noticeboard and I'm still getting the hang of it. I had previously notified you through Vision Éternel's edit log but you may have overlooked my edit notes. The good news is that you finally made it here to get this topic sorted out! I'm really happy about that.
Please understand Mr. Mabbett, I'm not making any unfounded allegations, nor am I attacking you. I really respect you as a Wikipedian and am in awe of all the work you have done here so far, it has not gone unnoticed. I would like to resolve this in a professional and amicable way (can we please keep the elitist attitude out and try not to be so defensive). I'm only looking at your edits on Vision Éternel's article from an outsider's perspective, and it looks to me like you have a personal grudge against this band. That's what I meant by Conflict Of Interest. Your edits are more in line with slowly deteriorating the article, little by little, until it's fit for deletion (I did see that you attempted to have the article deleted in the past). One only has to look at your past edits on that article to see that, I haven't "tissued" nor "falsified" anything mentioned above. I assure you it's nothing personal, and I really do not think that I have a veto over your edits on that page; I just want this issue cleared up by a neutral party so that they can assess the changes made by each of us, and see which is better fit. Clearly you and I have a conflicting view of what's a proper edit for this article.
– WikiGuruWanaB (t / c) 9:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
"I'm not making any unfounded allegations, nor am I attacking you... elitist attitude"} QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@WikiGuruWanaB: The very first item at the top of this noticeboard states: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period."
I have seen no attempt by you to engage
assuming good faith
as all editors are required to do.
In addition, your edit summaries that state "Please do not edit this page until the issue is resolved..." is a sign of
ownership
. You neither have the right to keep an article at a version you prefer, nor tell others that they can't make changes.
Since you are a new user with fewer than 100 edits, I wouldn't expect you to know everything about Wikipedia policies and editing culture yet. I advise you to read and follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for the proper way to resolve disagreements. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough for those points but no one has addressed the fact that my edits were being reverted for a COI claim, which is false. Since I've provided proper references for all of my edits to the article, what reason is there to continue to remove my edits? Why is user Andy Mabbett still flagging my edits as COI? – WikiGuruWanaB (t / c) 01:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

In answer to part of your question (why edits were being reverted) I've addressed 2 edits from the last revert session on that article's talk page. FYI  Spintendo  04:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately these issues continue, with several of my recent edits being reverted - with edit summaries including one accusing me of editing "mischievously", and another of "incorrectly" adding red links - to restore, for example, a shopping-list of supposed influences, who are supposedly "responsible for the [band's] sound", cited only to the subject's own website, plus the fact that the band sells "

posters" (yes, Wiki-linked), cited to the subject's own merchandising page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
23:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

And again... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hanna Jaff

This article was originally written by an undisclosed paid editor, and still has problems with people adding promotional material. Somebody please make it stop. Natureium (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Evidence? There is nothing about this on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Long term COI

Editor appears to just be here to promote their family. They removed the COI tag from Asha Khadilkar, which I have reinstated, and I have removed more than 1,000 bytes of promotion and copied content. I mean look at this puffery. They also created an autobiography it seems just today with

WP:NOTHERE. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk
) 06:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

World Patent Marketing, Acting Attorney General Whitaker, Bloomberg, and Wikipedia

This is a bit of a mess and I'm just trying to clarify to myself what happened. I'm not accusing anybody of anything here. Bloomberg has an article (corrected version) headlined "FTC Emails Show Whitaker Fielded Gripes on Miami Firm" Nov. 30, 2018 about Acting AG Whitaker. Included in this version is

'On Nov. 21, 2014, soon after Whitaker joined the firm’s advisory board, Cooper, the CEO, wrote an email to a brand building company with the subject line, “Let’s build a Wikipedia page and use Whitaker to make it credible.” '

If that were done undeclared on that date it would be against the terms of use. I was wondering who the "brand building company" was. But I can't find anything on World Patent Marketing in 2014 - the article was only started in November 2018 and I can't find an AfD discussion. Maybe there was something in draft or user space or a speedy deletion? The current article was started by @Smartse: and obviously, I don't suspect him of doing anything.

The closest I can find to UPE editing on WPM is this edit to Matthew_Whitaker_(attorney) which has an inline external link to World Patent Marketing. @Vinnylabarbera:'s editing record is sparse so it's difficult to draw any conclusions from it.

The Bloomberg article was widely published in an earlier version, which looked very serious for Whitaker, the corrected version less so. But the changes to the paragraph mentioning Wikipedia made the potential UPE look a bit more serious (from a WP:COIN POV). Any help in figuring this out would be appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Fascinating. The same email is mentioned by The New York Times who call the other party "a web company". I believe the documents are all FOIA, they may be posted by DOJ somewhere. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The FOIA material is here. There's at least one recognizable name there.
I've asked @Vinnylabarbera: about COI on his talk page and asked him to join us here, but since he only stops in to edit every few years, I doubt that he'll see it. Based on his last 2 edits (not so long ago) I think he could be blocked for UPE - but I'll let others decide that. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Rdunwoody6

User with suspicious name editing adding seemingly personal information to article. Also, the article is the only one edited by user

Richard C. Lukas

This little edited article (93 edits over the past 12 years) has been edited rather heavily by SPAs (all the users above edited only or mainly the Lukas article. Some of them also added Lukas material to other articles - e.g. [6][7]. Content over the years has consisted of unsourced flattery - e.g. the first edit of the bunch which introduced "He is recognized as a leading authority on Poland during World War II.". RichardLukas admitted a COI - diff "These changes were directed to me by my father, Richard C. Lukas. For any questions, please contact me at <redact>. Thank you." in a minor marked edit which wasn't minor. The latest editor, White Eagle 70, has been adding (in minor marked edits) flattering OR - [8] "the first systematic English language study" (an assertion which per my reading of this very well trodden field (going back decades) - is false), as well

WP:OR/disparaging content towards some of Lukas's critics - diff - which included Jew labelling an historian (while un-linking his article). Some help from a COI regular would be helpful here.Icewhiz (talk
) 14:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I concur with your assessment. I went in and did a first round of POV-scraping, but there is more to be done. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Oliveboard article created by apparent Search Engine Optimization analyst (they're transparent enough to use their own name as their username)

Hello. I didn't realize the potential (hard to be coincidental) severity of the situation until I started looking at their edits and discovered this (potentially) deliberate sneaky use of Oliveboard as a source in another article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seabed&type=revision&diff=869792352&oldid=864647903 I imagine this is to boost search rankings. I'm a new editor, so I think I'm out of my depth here. Someone else should take over for me. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 11:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I think that they didn't notice my notice on their talk page, so I replied to them on the Oliveboard talk page and encouraged them to come here for help. Here is what I wrote:
Hi, Abhishekkramesh. Sorry for not replying until now. If this is some kind of mistake, then of course you are editing legitimately. Obviously my intention is to help you. However, because I am a new editor and I don't have enough experience with (potential) conflict of interest editing, I deferred to the conflict of interest noticeboard. There you will find experts who will better be able to help you! I provided a link on your talk page to it, but I will link you to it here too: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Oliveboard article created by apparent Search Engine Optimization analyst (they're transparent enough to use their own name as their username). They will be able to answer all of your questions. Be warned: they might be less friendly than I am, but if you are persistent and assertive while talking to them, you should get resolution.
They have questions about how to prove that they don't have a conflict of interest. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Time for a review of all cryptocurrency articles

The price of bitcoin, the 1st and most important cryptocurrency, has crashed by 40% in the last 2 weeks, and by 80% since last December. The rest of the cryptocurrency universe is generally doing much worse. Reuters has an excellent article on the cryptocurrency press today - how they accept cash, or even bitcoin, to write biased stories. I'll link to it below together with some earlier stories that show pretty much the same thing.

  • Irrera, Anna; Dilts, Elizabeth (27 November 2018). "Special Report: Little known to many investors, cryptocurrency reviews are for sale". Reuters. Retrieved 28 November 2018.
  • Faife, Corin (25 October 2018). "We Asked Crypto News Outlets If They'd Take Money to Cover a Project. More Than Half Said Yes". Breaker. Retrieved 28 November 2018.
  • Biggs, John (18 September 2018). "Inside the pay-for-post ICO industry". TechCrunch. Retrieved 28 November 2018. - this story links to a price list for various publishers here

Needless to say, we need to avoid citing any of the sources named within those articles. We've got hundreds of cryptocurrency articles (300? Let me know if you have a better estimate) and most have very poor sourcing. It might be a good idea to clean them up or delete them before the industry disappears. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Cryptocurrencies totals to about 243 articles if you include the subcategories. Category:Digital currencies also exists - not sure how many articles are in both categories. – numbermaniac 10:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm preparing a report at User:Bri/COIbox83 on all the articles, drafts, userspace drafts that use the "tainted" sources. It's a large list. Will report back with final results. Bri.public (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Followup below... by the way, my report is based on external links search for the Breaker list of media that take cash for coverage: AMBCrypto.com, bitcoinist.com, blokt.com, BTCManager.com, cointelligence.com, coinspeaker.com, cryptoninjas.net, cryptopotato.com, cryptovest.com, coinidol.com, globalcoinreport.com and newsbtc.com Bri.public (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Have added icobench.com to my analysis per "de facto investor fraud" in Reuters story linked by Smallbones. Bri.public (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm in. Starting with userspace and draftspace where I have a lot of experience. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Since Legacypac has started nominations for deletion, maybe the list speaks for itself. I'll just say there's a lot of SPAs involved with these crypto articles, no surprise there. Bri.public (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I've begun checking mainspace articles also in using the list created by Bri. Should we mark there (or somewhere) which articles have been checked by a volunteer? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Most of the ones I've checked in user and draft have or will soon turn into redlinks. I sent a few to
WP:MFD for consideration. You can edit the list to add notes. Legacypac (talk
) 21:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Everyone probably knows this already, but I thought I would repost links to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies and {{blockchain notification}}, as it would be relevant to notify COI editors in this topic area. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've searched Draft space for "cryptocurrency" and was able to G11 around 100 pages. Other words "fintech", " crypto currency", "blockchain", etc are worth searching. I've not even touched userspace yet. Legacypac (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

More questionable drafts

More here for consideration, also found with external links for questionable coin publication(s). Bri.public (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I tagged all U5/G11 and expect they will he deleted. Pretty much anything in this subject area can be G11 and/or U5 tagged and will disappear. Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Possibly questionable articles

More ... two (noted) have survived AfD but look wobbly to me. Bri.public (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A lot of old stuff (from the 2013-2014 era) turns out to have RSes because academics loved to write about it as interesting ideas ... but almost everything here, the sourcing is really bad - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

United Daughters of the Confederacy

This article appears to be one of several targets of an organized, coordinated editing effort by members of the subject organization. See the article's talk page for details. I came across the article while patrolling for vandalism, and am not going to intervene myself at this time as the issues are complex, the edits are not vandalism, and the subject matter is outside my area of expertise. The article could use attention from neutral editors. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I am guessing the relevant thread is Talk:United_Daughters_of_the_Confederacy#United_Daughters_of_the_Confederacy's_project_to_"fix"_Wikipedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
UDC does not like sources that define them as White Supremicist, KKK supporters, proponants of the Lost Cause narrative and other such truisms. More eyes always needed at UDC Legacypac (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that quite a few of us are already aware of this issue, but as Legacypac notes, more editors having the article on their watchlists would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Chris Wilson (pollster)

I stumbled upon this edit by User:Amy Catherine R while I was RC Patrolling the edit filter log, and it caught my interest by the wording, so I took a closer look at the page history. A lot of it seemed like PR to me, and was almost identical to this edit from May. I came to the conclusion that the editor might have been an undisclosed paid contributor, so I warned them with the paid disclosure template, none of which have been answered. Looking further at the page history, it seems that editors that have claimed to be from WPA Intelligence in the past have made edits to this article going as far back as 2012. Because of that, I tagged the article as having a potential COI as well as a potentially undisclosed paid editor involved in it. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked both accounts as spam only accounts. Alex Shih (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Huge Amount of Paid Editing and Paid article creation is done in India

Not a good faith report. ☆ Bri (talk)

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.

Please Take a look at these articles most of the artcles are just "GRADE SCHOOLS" and we all know that grade schools are not notable at all. The citation provided are not independent, and grades school are not notable these types of articles are created by such private school to attract students so they can increase their PROFITS, it's a very common practice in india. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G11 And also check who creates such advertisements he should be banned from editing Wikipedia there are more than 1000s of such non-notable paid advertisements in English Wikipedia.

You are my last hope for Independent Wikipedia in India. parents are forced to pay high fees in these schools as we all trust wikipedia, and these schools take advantage of it.

i am just a user with no rights like you, so i can not delete them all requested for deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Public_School_Ghaziabad and it got deleted.

LIST OF SUCH SCHOOLS BY STATE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_schools_in_India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuksanhai (talk • contribs) 14:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nuksanhai: thank you for bringing this up. I don't know if this is an especially big problem in India, but it seems to be a big problem almost everywhere. For example, see Category:Elementary schools in British Columbia, or more narrowly School District 23 Central Okanagan.
I'll encourage you to bring a list of non-notable elementary schools here (start small) and also to take some others directly to AfD. My feeling is that almost no elementary schools are notable unless they have something special about them such as being a historic site, being the teacher of x Nobel Prize Winners (well there's at least one high school that should be notable that way), or perhaps a "founding school" of a well-known teaching method. This will take a lot of work to clean up. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
(off topic) See Uni High Alums Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Smallbones thanks for your interest in this, here is a list of about 8 schools

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._K._Ghosh_Memorial_School

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Bosco_Bandel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.A.V_Public_School_Sreshtha_Vihar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Public_School,_Mathura_Road

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Banyan_Tree_School

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebells_School

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springdales_School

Nuksanhai (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Ponyo, could you provide minimal details about the indefinite checkuser-block of Nuksanhai, and/or if this should affect this noticeboard thread in any way? Are we being trolled or is this a legitimate request by a currently-banned user? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
The account has been blocked as a sock of globally locked Skymhnty.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:27, 17 December 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.

User:恒冰

This user appears to be a single purpose editor. They have not responded to three requests by me on their talk page to disclose their CoI status, and they continue to perform problematic edits.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwmhiraeth (talk • contribs)

Blocked by Edgar181 for undisclosed paid and disruptive editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The Culinary Institute of America

After some recent warnings/instructions at User talk:Jnormy from Jytdog on not directly editing articles, Jnormy continues to directly edit The Culinary Institute of America. I would notify Jytdog, but it appears they've left Wikipedia. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Yes, editing under a COI is to be discouraged, but it has never been outright banned, and the content here seems fairly neutrally worded. The recent additions are of a tone I would expect of someone to write in who didn't have a conflict of interest. If you had written it, I wouldn't change a word of it. For that reason, I don't see the issues with the recent edits. COI is only an issue when it produces bad writing, and when it doesn't, I don't see the problem. We only require that people declare their COIs and that they write otherwise neutral text. The user seems to have done both. --Jayron32 19:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, these edits look fine to me as well and seems to be within existing guidelines. Only when they start to insert promotional/corporate puffery under the disguise of "updated information" I would start to be alarmed. Alex Shih (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Well they have in the past... Just because these recent edits are okay doesn't mean they can subvert WP:COI and only request-edit when they think it'll be problematic, can they? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
"Subvert WP:COI"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Niall Ferguson

Negative material being removed without explanation, and replaced by more positive material. Failure to use edit summaries, failure to respond to User talk notices. DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked Koolhausmedia for the username. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Edits by User:Munenejohn

The user has repeatedly moved

WP:AFC
despite request. Munenejohn has not provided disclosure despite requests:

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I have requested move protection, but ideally a response can be got from Munenejohn.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure enough, a simple off-wiki search implies (on the basis of username) that the editor in question may be affiliated with the Africa Policy Institute. Cant really say more, respecting
WP:OUTING.--SamHolt6 (talk
) 00:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
For anyone looking into this, please keep an eye on the revision history. The user still doesn't seem to understand that they should not remove COI templates (or AFC comments) until the article has been reviewed. See this revision just 20 minutes ago. – numbermaniac 07:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
He's again gone and removed the template with no explanation in the edit summary. He either doesn't understand it despite a billion explanations on his talk page, or he deliberately doesn't care. Is there something we can do about this? – numbermaniac 05:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@Numbermaniac: I have started a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Munenejohn concerning this issue. I am guessing this will be resolved shortly.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Another new user, with a one week old account, has created a draft at Draft:AFRICA POLICY INSTITUTE (API). This user appears to be following the process by submitting their draft for review properly, but the content of the article is, in large parts, identical to the original at Draft:Africa Policy Institute. Don't know if this user is an undisclosed paid editor, but this might be worth keeping a watch on. – numbermaniac 12:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of AfricaPolicyInstitute. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

General advice on COI policy - New article I am creating - advice if this is a COI issue?

Hi - I'm a University librarian (in the Business faculty) and a Wikipedian. I'm creating a page for an academic staff member who is also a composer of note in another faculty (Music). Is this of itself, a COI issue? While we both work for the same institution, he isn't in the same department, and I'm not otherwise connected to him, and not doing it for the cash....just to help out. Any advice here would be good, thanks!!! Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Deathlibrarian, and thanks for reaching out in advance for advice. I see you've been around Wikipedia for a long time so I imagine you are pretty well-versed in policies and guidelines. If you aren't representing his interests, then I don't see a conflict of interest. Nonetheless, putting a brief note on your userpage (User:Deathlibrarian), summarizing you wrote above, would reassure everyone that you are editing in good faith. If you have any kind of personal or professional relationship with him as a colleague, friend or acquaintance, it would be good to note that. Here's an example I whipped up, which you could alter to your liking:
I work for (institution). I created an article about (person), who is also a faculty member at (institution). I am not being paid to write about him. (Any other relevant details)
Perhaps other will have different opinions, but I think that should be enough. Good luck with your article! --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much Drm310, I'll do that.If anyone else has anything else to add, or sees it as an issue, please comment - (I've now added the draft of the article to this post as well).Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Epic Sciences

New user; username suggests they are affiliated with or representing the subject organization. The only 2 edits so far have included removal of the Undisclosed Paid COI template from the article. Amp71 (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Amp71. I left a response on my User talk page. Apologies for the confusion. My previous edits were not meant to include removing the 'Undisclosed Paid' COI (I'm not a native coder) and I must've deleted it while drafting new text. The goal of updates was to refresh the history, funding rounds, and current offerings of the company. How do I best disclose that I work for Epic Sciences when posting? Thanks,
talk
) 01:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

NeedaAnsari00

Returning to an editor I took an interest in previously,

boldly moved several of the articles they created and edited without the input of other editors. I started this thread to inform other editors.--SamHolt6 (talk
) 00:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Koko.BMF

talk | history | links | watch | logs
)

Koko.BMF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User appears to be promoting themselves as an "up-and coming road rapper" on the page - see [9] [10].

Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I left a reply for them at Talk:Koko, here. Hopefully that gets the message through. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Claire E. Walczak, Ph.D., Indiana University & Draft:Valerie Dean O'Loughlin, Ph.D.

While perusing the AFC feed, I noticed an interesting phenomena. Before I begin reviewing an article (Walczak's), I always check to see if the author may have a conflict of interest. While the article seemed clean, (for some reason) I clicked back on the new pages feed. I don't know how to explain this with words (in an efficient manner) so here is an image. Im not really sure what the protocol for handling this is, so I figured I would ask.

The author of these posts appear to be the subject of the opposite.

SilverplateDelta (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

User: Pranay.offcl

User created draft talking about themselves in a heavily promotional way, which I tagged as G11. I have also left a COI notice on their talkpage. Agent00x (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The username alone suggests a COI and I will block this user. Deb (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI

Jytdog appears to be leaving: User_talk:Jytdog#That's_all_folks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

My guess it's a "you can't fire me I quit" situation in light of the Arbitration case that's about to be opened to look at what he's been doing offwiki. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Well not quite, as he says "I urge Arbcom to do just do a motion and indef or site ban me." So I think it's more a case of "you can fire me, but I will have already quit". A shame really as this was, as far as I can see, a big mistake rather than something really malicious. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
And a big loss to Wikipedia, that such a prolific contributor had to leave. Mistake no doubt, but that wasn't a reason enough for indef or a retirement. hope he returns back someday.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Rjensen

Rjensen is involved in a discussion regarding the External Links section at Military history. They have a close connection to two of the links: Web Sources for Military History and H-War. Rjensen's conduct and editing seem to be entirely appropriate, however I have encouraged him to disclose his COI when discussing these sites, which he disagrees with. This is a very minor issue and there's no need for sanctions, but I'd like to get input from a few uninvolved editors. –dlthewave ☎ 18:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I do own "Web Sources for Military History" and americanhistoryprojects.com. the possible COI issue was not hidden-- another editor already raised COI about the website and they dismissed COI as not an issue http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=873954699 As I told Dlthewave, I think I am following the COI two guidelines: a) = WP:EXTERNALREL Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise and b) from WP:SELFCITE Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. On the second point, H-War. No. I have no "close connection" with H-WAR--I am a subscriber like thousands of people & I posted a few messages in recent years. It is one of 200+ academic discussion lists published by H-NET-- i was one of the leaders of H-Net when 130 new lests were created in the mid 1990s. Richard J. Jensen covers my permanent departure from H-Net in 1997. (I did remain active on some lists until a few years ago, but not H-War). I suggest that "close connection" is not a useful criterion here regarding ne & either H-War or H-Net. I did complain that the guidelines on COI are very vague --they seem to be specific only on paid editing (I was never paid to edit) and I hope the folks here can make some improvements. Rjensen (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I think this is a non-issue. It would be one thing if Rjensen was editing articles on those sites, but participating in a discussion on a related article about a list of external links which includes them? Come on. A formal disclosure would be completely over the top. – Joe (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok, if others don't see it as an issue, I'll let it go. Thanks for your perspective Joe Roe. –dlthewave ☎ 02:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Human Appeal

Both users are

WP:DAILYMAIL journalist in MEE). Icewhiz (talk
) 10:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Leonid Afremov

Pages on this artist are being spammed. I can't see what account has been doing the previous spamming because the articles have been deleted. The account is probably a

sockpuppet, but I need admin help to identify the sockmaster. Robert McClenon (talk
) 16:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Not spamming at all. Just one article was created two days ago. Since it was deleted we responsibly created a DRAFT to be examined by Wikipedia. It was deleted too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scm5791 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Scm5791 - Who is "we"? You say that you "responsibly created a draft", but creating copyright violation is not responsible. Anyway, in Wikipedia, one account should belong to one human. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@
WP:COPYVIO. General Ization Talk
18:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Scm5791: As were previous versions of the article, going back to 2013 in both draft and mainspace, for the same reason. General Ization Talk 18:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with 2013 version. I'm just a fan of Leonid Afremov trying to post an article of him. I'm from Argentina. What has to be done to use that excellent biography? https://afremov.com/Leonid-Afremov-bio.html scm5791 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The "excellent biography" is copyrighted. What can be done to use it is that users can view it on the web. If you think that its subject is passes
artistic notability, you can rewrite the biography in your own words. The question about how to use an excellent biography shows a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. Robert McClenon (talk
) 11:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
You apparently have something to do with the most recent version, which was deleted as a copyright violation, as I stated above. See the guidance at the link I posted above. General Ization Talk 18:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I will try to post a draft of Leonid Afremov with my own words. Not Copy/Paste from other websites. Thank you. scm5791 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Bazadais created an article in mainspace on December 15, 2018 - about the same time as Scm5791. None of the accounts in the deleted history appear to be blocked; Special:Contributions/Bob Roberts created the original article and Special:Contributions/Afremov appears to be the oldest coi account who says he is the son of Leonid Afremov. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Marcel Saucet

Articles on this businessman (who may or may not have a doctorate) have been deleted. See

gamed
by using the honorific. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC) 

 Robert McClenon (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Accounts blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialBiancaJ. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the User Mukesh.bhardwaj40

I've been following this user for a while as part of New page patrol since he created an article about an agency called Oye digital marketing, It was deleted by someone else. That company states on its page that it tries to promote people's social media presence. I posted a COI notice on his talk page. After that incident he created a page about Rhythm wagholikar, a non-notable author. I Nominated it for CSD and got it deleted, This user approaches me and tries very hard to convince me of its notabilty. Now that attempts by the user to promote a non-notable author and his books seem dubious . And I am almost certain of it being a clear promotion, once I googled the username along with the agency's. Daiyusha (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@
paid editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk
) 21:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Update: I just noticed that this editor actually did disclose his employment here. But they still need to make a formal indication on their userpage if they are going to write about their clients. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
This has been done, so they are now in compliance with
WP:PAID. --Drm310 🍁 (talk
) 17:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Global Knowledge Training

Speedy deleted by admin ☆ Bri (talk)

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.

This page for a company of dubious notability has been edited by a string of COI editors who are ignoring talk page notices. shoy (reactions) 19:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Multiple
WP:SPA
editors, at least most of have an apparent COI. MatthewGeorgeGK appears to be an employee.
I've stubbed the article, moving the refs to the talk page because it was unclear what they verified and if they are appropriate to use.
Let's see if we get some response. --
talk
) 20:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I think this article is a candidate for speedy deletion, and has been since it was created in 2010. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2019 (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.

Polo shirt advert

Cleaned up, thanks ☆ Bri (talk)

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 don't have time to address this right now. If anybody else can take a look at Polo shirt, it would be fine. The problem since my December 12 cleanup should be apparent (look for "La Martina" reappearing). Bri.public (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Anachronist and Roxy the dog: Thanks for cleanup ☆ Bri (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. It didn't look like COI editing to me, but I did remove a bunch of unsourced stuff that could probably be put back in if sources were found. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't sure about COI either (as distinguished from merely bad content), which is why I didn't list any specific editors. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2019 (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.

Marilynn Erika Hughes

Most everything is deleted and sockpuppet investigation has run its course ☆ Bri (talk)

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.

articles

The first 2 users have similar names, and have tried creating the same page about marilyn hughes. In the first 2 user's pages, you can see that many(if not all) of their created pages were deleted for non-notability. The third user is a recently active user(made a single edit in 2016, and then active again in January 2019), and he too created the marilynn Erika Hughes page. What I think is that these three users are either the same person or more likely belonging to a marketing agency and were paid by the Relevant party for every single page they created. Daiyusha (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cbrtutor. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Checkuser is finished, it looks like a medium-sized UPE sockfarm. CU-confirmed and blocked accounts listed above. Some cleanup to do...especially if we follow back to the Wikibaji sockfarm, which is implicated (also looks like UPE to my eye).
Could an admin do us a favor and compare Bombay Hemp Company to Wikibaji sandbox? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
​Neither version of Bombay Hemp Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was the same as the sandbox. The version that was deleted on 20 July 2017 was created by Jigjagmusic (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and edited by Wikibaji (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and 122.160.30.242 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), which were all blocked in connection with Wikibaji. Based on the history and deletion log, Doc James and I agreed that it was UPE. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:18, 5 January 2019 (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.

M.Soumen and Vistara related articles

This editor is an employee of

verify the content. — LeoFrank  Talk
15:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the above fact that I work for Vistara. However I deny any malpractices which can be categorised as conflict of interest. Edits done from account mostly supported by published articles. In few incidents when I had edited despite lack of published supporting material those were removed as'original research" and I have accepted those changes against my edits. I am primarily an aviation geek and love to read/learn/edit wikipedia articles on aviation (airliens/airports). M.soumen Talk 16:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether you deny a COI or not, it exists. Please do not edit the article itself, but confine yourself to requesting edits on the article Talk page. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@
verifiability policy per the edit you have made here. — LeoFrank  Talk
 17:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Also the fact that you have created the article Sanjiv Kapoor. Your talk page is full of warnings related to citation and most of them relate to Vistara. — LeoFrank  Talk 17:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Meprolight

Extra eyes on this article would be appreciated, MeproUS was warned about COI with no response and then another new user Cadlaxer23 shows up and starts making edits. shoy (reactions) 14:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:CORPNAME or might not if they've gone stale. --Drm310 🍁 (talk
) 16:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Martha L. Black-class icebreaker and User:VintageCCG

I believe the user has COI based on his testimony on his talk page where he quotes CCG policy at me without ever linking to it and misunderstands the difference between ship classification and a ship class, attempting to assert CCG methods of classification over that of reliable secondary sources, based on that misinterpretaion. He claims to have been a "marine professional" and "Just isn't done that way, notwithstanding that some other fleets might follow that convention. We don't." I asked him to declare his COI and refrain from editing in this area, but he denies it. I hope maybe this can help shed some light if I was right and maybe ask him to refrain from trying to impose Canadian Coast Guard guidelines on Wikipedia. Thank you. Llammakey (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed I provided a link to the CCG source material http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0013696 and here is a second source link https://inter-j01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fdat/vessels/vessel-details/84 I have no COI other than being an expert on Canadian Coast Guard policies and history, and I am merely seeking to correct inaccurate identification of CCG ship classes in this and other Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, readers will be confused by the conflicting misinformation ... outside this Wikipedia reference, if you cited a "Martha L Black Class icebreaker" then anyone with knowledge of the CCG would wonder why you were calling it that rather than the published name of the ship class i.e. High Endurance Multi-Task Vessel HEMTV which is cited in all CCG publications and communications. The "first-of-class" naming convention is common in naval fleets but is not followed by the civilian Canadian Coast Guard. This is not a subjective matter nor an opinion which might be subject to bias or agenda. It is simply a reflection of class naming conventions as practiced by the Canadian Coast Guard. I am not sure how to effect a correction for accuracy that is repeatedly reverted by an editor. VintageCCG (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Vintage's got a strong POV and isn't listening to us, but technically I don't think they have a COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Jean Beauvoir

On December 21, I stumbled upon this page due to unusual edits from an IP. At first, it seems oddly spammy [11] because they were adding "X-apple-data-detectors://22". I later realized this was a long term article that has been edited by COIs since 2012 [12]. It was not until the page was protected by

only here to promote themselves. I am posting here for help since clearly, our discussions are not working. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk
) 20:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a good situation. It looks like there are a lot of accounts that have a narrow interest in this individual. My gut is saying that the easiest way to deal with this is to slap extended confirmed protection on the article. Has the editing been disruptive and/or obviously promotional? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Sorry for the late rely. As I have just stumbled onto this page recently, I can only tell you what the edit history shows and my own experience. It does not seem to have been disruptive (they were mostly allowed to edit in peace until this year) until I started challenging the edits. I am still amazed this got by us for so long, they weren't actively hiding their COI. This is likely because they did not understand our rules but since I have explained it to them, there is no more excuses. There are undertones of it being promotional [15] but it was fixable and mostly namecruft (just listing everyone he has ever worked with indiscriminately). The major worry of mine was that it was all unsourced (although every edit summary said it could be verified, I am having problems finding sources) and again, promotionally undertoned. It was not an obvious promotion as in "so-and-so is the best musician ever" but it needs some NPOV tweaking. I am not comfortable taking the COI tag off just yet. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Flippin, Kentucky

This editor has stated they have written a book about this county, and that "we" are attempting to update and improve the current entries for this counties bicentennial. The editor is adding unencylopedic drivel such as "Flippin’s schools, churches, Masonic Lodge, bank, hotels, stores, mills, and factories once contributed to the quality of life in this community and County" I have tried to remove and explain that it is promotional and unencylopedic but the editor seems to have the mentality of

owning the article. VVikingTalkEdits
14:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I wonder whether the editor’s user talk page or the article y’all page could be used to discuss some of these issues. My perception is that the editor is making good-faith edits, even if they could stand to be refined a bit. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree for the most part the editor has made good-faith edits, my concern is they have an undeclared COI, and have added promotional unencylopedic information back into the article after being told why it was removed. (The editor has been using the edit summaries so they know what they are) --VVikingTalkEdits 15:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:BITE? The only time you've ever edited their talk page is to notify them of this discussion, and the only edit you've made to the article talk page is more of a complaint than an attempt at discussion. Besides that, if we're going to add COI templates every time a new user edits an article on their home town then we've got a lot of work to do, because that's like 135% of new editors. GMGtalk
15:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Withdraw then - I don't like COI and promotional, but if other editors feels like this is biting and inappropriate it is not worth it to me. But it is COI editing Thank you, VVikingTalkEdits 15:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a good report, thank you. The user in question just removed 8K of the history section, which I restored. He or she appears to have a lot of ownership issues with the page, and has added extensive original research.
    talk
    ) 02:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I had a little back and forth with the user. They seem to just be a little outside the normal rules, but well-intentioned. It's probably not so much a COI issue as it is a new user issue.. They're working on the OR issue.
talk
) 02:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:HASHAN

User appears to be creating a draft article about themselves. I have left a COI notice on their talk page. Their only contributions have been to their own draft. Agent00x (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Dr Greg Wood

I have discovered that

WP:COI. It mentioned that naming editors should be avoided, so I asked on the editor request for help page if this user had COI, using a pseudonym for Greg Wood.[17]. User:JohninDC responded that it could potentially be COI. He also told me that he had worked out who the editor in question was and had contacted them. User:Dr Greg Wood later responded that he was the doctor who blew the whistle on Atos on his talk page, but denied he had a conflict of interest [18]
. I decided to look into how the content that refered to Greg Wood came to be on the page.

I found that the Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment had been split from the Work Capability Assessment article. I found that Dr Greg Wood had added the content on 15 August 2014.[19] He cites two sources; both of which are interviews that he gave to different media outlets. He edited the content again 3 times on the same day.[20][21][22] Here are all the other edits that he has made regarding his actions:

2014

2015

2016

2017

On 27 June 2017, the Work Capability Assessment article was split and a new article:

Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment
was created, which included the section on Dr Greg Wood's actions. He made the following edits relating to his actions:

On 25 August, the page was nominated for deletion. Dr Greg Wood advocated keeping the article.[135]

Dr Greg Wood has also contributed significantly to other articles in relation to the Work Capability Assessment. I'm not sure if he has a conflict of interest in relation to these articles, but I feel these articles have an undue emphasis on the Work Capability Assessment.

In the case of the Incapacity Benefit article, I removed some content relating to the Work Capability Assessment, but Dr Greg Wood reverted my edits to put the content back.[137][138][139]. I initially removed this again, but realised it would be in violation of

WP:1RR
so I put it back.

CircleGirl (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Czechia Initiative / Helveticus96

I have wrestled with posting this for a few weeks. In my invesitgations of User:Jan Blanicky I discovered they were an undisclosed editor for their boss Vladimir Hirsch, who I also eventually found out helps run something called the "Czechia Initiative." Most of that can be found [here], and [here.] I was prompted to post this via a previously unseen by myself post on my talk page from a Mobile IP [here.] It is the only post they have made to Wikipedia and they are based out of Virginia. They claim that someone named Vaclav Sulista is the "ring leader" and they try to proliferate usage of Czechia, things I already knew. Most of these edits take place at Name of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic, and across all instances of it on Wikipedia. You will see many Czechia Initiative members (including Jan Blanicky and Vaclav Sulista) engaging in discussions on Talk:Name of the Czech Republic, and talk pages of any users seemingly against their agenda, including myself, and User:Khajidha.
Currently there is a lenghty moratorium on the discussion of the name at
WP:COMMONNAME, "Czech Republic" should be used, and that any attempts to proliferate "Czechia" be reverted on sight. Numerous users and I have dealt with this. In this I have come across one user User:Helveticus96, who has taken part in such edits. The user claims to be Vaclav Sulista on their talk page. Numerous user talk and article talk page interactions show a concerted effort to convince people to use the word "Czechia." A person named Vaclav Sulista is named as one of two "team members" at the Facebook page ([[140]]) and one of 12 "contributors" at the Czechia Initiative's "about us" page.([[141]]) In my invesitgations I found that some of his interactions are being posted to Facebook as the user attempts to convince people that Wikipedia is "censoring." [This post in particular] is from [a comment on Helveticus96/Vaclav Sulista's own talk page
] with this added commentary:

(translated from Czech via Google)"Unbelievable arrogance and madness of anonymous Wikipedia administrators. After several months of change from Swaziland to Eswatini, a false claim that Eswatini is more used than Swaziland. That is clearly not true. The official list of EU countries in English states Czechia, Wikipedia immediately erases and returns to the Czech Republic? How are these people a hidden agenda? I do not understand obsession with suppressing Czechia everywhere, even where it is obviously used. Any discussion of the topic is blocked by July 2019, it's just ridiculous!"

I had previously suspected sockpuppetry, or meatpuppetry, at the very least, based on the nearly in tandem edits Helveticus had with
WP:COI edits at the very least.- R9tgokunks ⭕
03:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Update: I noticed that Helveticus again [confirmed his identity on my talk page], saying: " I am not ashamed of my identity, and I am declaring it openly on my Wikipedia page, apparently something, most admins are afraid to do." This seems to be in response to the Mobile IP which made another edit to my talk page under a different string. [[142]], where they point out that their first post about Helveticus was [posted onto the Facebook page for the Czechia Initiative.] with the commentary (from Czech): "Anonymous administrators of Wikipedia nominally attack members of the initiative!" Intersting that they would accuse Wikipedia admins of being "anonymous."
Update 2:I've also found a nonactive user by the name of
WP:SOCKPUPPET, but I- R9tgokunks ⭕
04:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
pinging previouslty involved @Ground Zero: - R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Marilyn Kirsch

Artist183, a SPA user with a lot of inside information on Marilyn Kirsch refuses to answer a simple COI questions, claims she or he owns the page, and is engaging in edit warring and

talk
) 00:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Added a new SPA account that removed the autobio and 3rd party tags on Gabor Herman.
talk
) 22:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I am neither Gabor Herman nor I am using a login name similar to Gabor Herman. I can confirm that the information on the previous wiki pages is correct. What's the problem? Magneto2011 (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

the problem is that your only edits here on Wikipedia have been to remove valid tags on the article page placed by myself and another editor. Please stop this.
talk
) 21:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Czechia Initiative / Helveticus96

I have wrestled with posting this for a few weeks. In my invesitgations of User:Jan Blanicky I discovered they were an undisclosed editor for their boss Vladimir Hirsch, who I also eventually found out helps run something called the "Czechia Initiative." Most of that can be found [here], and [here.] I was prompted to post this via a previously unseen by myself post on my talk page from a Mobile IP [here.] It is the only post they have made to Wikipedia and they are based out of Virginia. They claim that someone named Vaclav Sulista is the "ring leader" and they try to proliferate usage of Czechia, things I already knew. Most of these edits take place at Name of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic, and across all instances of it on Wikipedia. You will see many Czechia Initiative members (including Jan Blanicky and Vaclav Sulista) engaging in discussions on Talk:Name of the Czech Republic, and talk pages of any users seemingly against their agenda, including myself, and User:Khajidha.
Currently there is a lenghty moratorium on the discussion of the name at
WP:COMMONNAME, "Czech Republic" should be used, and that any attempts to proliferate "Czechia" be reverted on sight. Numerous users and I have dealt with this. In this I have come across one user User:Helveticus96, who has taken part in such edits. The user claims to be Vaclav Sulista on their talk page. Numerous user talk and article talk page interactions show a concerted effort to convince people to use the word "Czechia." A person named Vaclav Sulista is named as one of two "team members" at the Facebook page ([[143]]) and one of 12 "contributors" at the Czechia Initiative's "about us" page.([[144]]) In my invesitgations I found that some of his interactions are being posted to Facebook as the user attempts to convince people that Wikipedia is "censoring." [This post in particular] is from [a comment on Helveticus96/Vaclav Sulista's own talk page
] with this added commentary:

(translated from Czech via Google)"Unbelievable arrogance and madness of anonymous Wikipedia administrators. After several months of change from Swaziland to Eswatini, a false claim that Eswatini is more used than Swaziland. That is clearly not true. The official list of EU countries in English states Czechia, Wikipedia immediately erases and returns to the Czech Republic? How are these people a hidden agenda? I do not understand obsession with suppressing Czechia everywhere, even where it is obviously used. Any discussion of the topic is blocked by July 2019, it's just ridiculous!"

I had previously suspected sockpuppetry, or meatpuppetry, at the very least, based on the nearly in tandem edits Helveticus had with
WP:COI edits at the very least.- R9tgokunks ⭕
03:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Update: I noticed that Helveticus again [confirmed his identity on my talk page], saying: " I am not ashamed of my identity, and I am declaring it openly on my Wikipedia page, apparently something, most admins are afraid to do." This seems to be in response to the Mobile IP which made another edit to my talk page under a different string. [[145]], where they point out that their first post about Helveticus was [posted onto the Facebook page for the Czechia Initiative.] with the commentary (from Czech): "Anonymous administrators of Wikipedia nominally attack members of the initiative!" Intersting that they would accuse Wikipedia admins of being "anonymous."
Update 2:I've also found a nonactive user by the name of
WP:SOCKPUPPET, but I- R9tgokunks ⭕
04:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
pinging previouslty involved @Ground Zero: - R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Marilyn Kirsch

Artist183, a SPA user with a lot of inside information on Marilyn Kirsch refuses to answer a simple COI questions, claims she or he owns the page, and is engaging in edit warring and

talk
) 00:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Added a new SPA account that removed the autobio and 3rd party tags on Gabor Herman.
talk
) 22:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I am neither Gabor Herman nor I am using a login name similar to Gabor Herman. I can confirm that the information on the previous wiki pages is correct. What's the problem? Magneto2011 (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

the problem is that your only edits here on Wikipedia have been to remove valid tags on the article page placed by myself and another editor. Please stop this.
talk
) 21:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

India News Haryana

This editor's only edits have been to create new articles. Three of them were draftified. Subject editor admitted association with LD Sharma. Subject editor has now moved India News Haryana and Ajay Shukla back into article space without relying on AFC process (although they were told to use AFC). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

SuperDerivatives

User blocked indefinitely for persistently making disruptive edits

At present edits that mention other founders or the fact that David Gershon is only a co-founder of superderivatives are being ignored and do not make it to the main article.

The claim is that David Gershon is the sole founder of super derivatives where in actual fact he is a co-founder with three other people

Even worse, in the editing page, it is claimed that Menashe Banit 'Falsely claims to be a co-founder of superderivatives. This unfair liable. It is also harassment.

Enclosed are the contract that clearly specify who are the founders of the company superderivatives:

/Users/banit/Desktop/superderivatives Founders Agreement Parr_20181024161623.webarchive

Mbanit (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You need to post a URL where we can find that superderivatives Founders Agreement. We cannot read documents that are on your home computer's desktop. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
User blocked as clearly continuing the disruption by multiple IPs on the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Tony Kemp (nurse)

Just like

• whaddya want? •
16:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

For now the account is blocked per
WP:NOSHARING as there seems to be a lack of understanding about that part of the username policy. If they clear up that bit of business, then we can move on the COI stuff. I've also added British Association for Immediate Care to the affected articles. --Drm310 🍁 (talk
) 17:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
At
request edit}} template. --Drm310 🍁 (talk
) 20:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Julie Wyman article move to main space

Fist, user SeaBass200 (which looks like a SPA) creates the article as a draft, next user Karentalent, who had previously declared COI for another article, moves it to main space. Please check, I am not sure how to handle such issues. Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I left Karentalent alert-blp and paid1 notices. This certainly looks like paid editing.
It's not clear what to make of SeaBass200's edits.
I hope both will respond in an attempt to clarify what's going on. --
talk
) 18:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Czechia Initiative / Helveticus96

I have wrestled with posting this for a few weeks. In my invesitgations of User:Jan Blanicky I discovered they were an undisclosed editor for their boss Vladimir Hirsch, who I also eventually found out helps run something called the "Czechia Initiative." Most of that can be found [here], and [here.] I was prompted to post this via a previously unseen by myself post on my talk page from a Mobile IP [here.] It is the only post they have made to Wikipedia and they are based out of Virginia. They claim that someone named Vaclav Sulista is the "ring leader" and they try to proliferate usage of Czechia, things I already knew. Most of these edits take place at Name of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic, and across all instances of it on Wikipedia. You will see many Czechia Initiative members (including Jan Blanicky and Vaclav Sulista) engaging in discussions on Talk:Name of the Czech Republic, and talk pages of any users seemingly against their agenda, including myself, and User:Khajidha.
Currently there is a lenghty moratorium on the discussion of the name at
WP:COMMONNAME, "Czech Republic" should be used, and that any attempts to proliferate "Czechia" be reverted on sight. Numerous users and I have dealt with this. In this I have come across one user User:Helveticus96, who has taken part in such edits. The user claims to be Vaclav Sulista on their talk page. Numerous user talk and article talk page interactions show a concerted effort to convince people to use the word "Czechia." A person named Vaclav Sulista is named as one of two "team members" at the Facebook page ([[146]]) and one of 12 "contributors" at the Czechia Initiative's "about us" page.([[147]]) In my invesitgations I found that some of his interactions are being posted to Facebook as the user attempts to convince people that Wikipedia is "censoring." [This post in particular] is from [a comment on Helveticus96/Vaclav Sulista's own talk page
] with this added commentary:

(translated from Czech via Google)"Unbelievable arrogance and madness of anonymous Wikipedia administrators. After several months of change from Swaziland to Eswatini, a false claim that Eswatini is more used than Swaziland. That is clearly not true. The official list of EU countries in English states Czechia, Wikipedia immediately erases and returns to the Czech Republic? How are these people a hidden agenda? I do not understand obsession with suppressing Czechia everywhere, even where it is obviously used. Any discussion of the topic is blocked by July 2019, it's just ridiculous!"

I had previously suspected sockpuppetry, or meatpuppetry, at the very least, based on the nearly in tandem edits Helveticus had with
WP:COI edits at the very least.- R9tgokunks ⭕
03:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Update: I noticed that Helveticus again [confirmed his identity on my talk page], saying: " I am not ashamed of my identity, and I am declaring it openly on my Wikipedia page, apparently something, most admins are afraid to do." This seems to be in response to the Mobile IP which made another edit to my talk page under a different string. [[148]], where they point out that their first post about Helveticus was [posted onto the Facebook page for the Czechia Initiative.] with the commentary (from Czech): "Anonymous administrators of Wikipedia nominally attack members of the initiative!" Intersting that they would accuse Wikipedia admins of being "anonymous."
Update 2:I've also found a nonactive user by the name of
WP:SOCKPUPPET, but I- R9tgokunks ⭕
04:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
pinging previouslty involved @Ground Zero: - R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Laura Pedersen

Another self-promotional editor adding unsourced content about themselves.

• whaddya want? •
16:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I looked at this page; it's the typical promotional piece based on weak and marginal sources. I added the notability tag to the page, and would support nominating it for AfD if someone else things this is a good call. The sources I could find in a search were pretty minimal.
talk
) 22:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Found a article telling "entrepreneurs" how to spam and manipulate the site, is there anything we can do about it?

The article is here, under the section "Week #10: Wikipedia". I've seen some pretty bad articles but this one really takes the cake for me. The section regarding Wikipedia tells "entrepreneurs" to spam and manipulate the site. Saying stuff like, and I quote: "The key with editing Wikipedia articles is to first adjust tons of pages that aren’t about your website. It’s not just about linking to your site, it’s more so about providing value to the community." and other stuff along those lines. The writer of the article recommends to "adjust 12 to 15 articles", which I feel like will just encourage people to make a bunch of unhelpful changes, and would just so happen to give them autoconfirmed privileges. I'm sure the writer of said article had nothing but good intentions in mind but it is worrying.

But I think perhaps the most worrying part of the article is that the the author of the article also claims that the people at Comedy Central have done the same thing. He seemingly implied that they have done this to hundreds of pages and that they gave these "tips" away at a marketing conference "years ago", which was where he got these ideas from. Not sure what should be done about this though, as if everything the author says is true, and that people who follow his advice do what he suggests, that means that potentiality hundreds of articles have been edited by both Comedy Central and readers of his article. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

it’s more so about providing value to the community Is this not what we want? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but not if they plan to spam links to their website immediately after :p. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
We give them a warning about spam like we would do with anyone else. They hopefully will carry on providing value to the community and not spamming. If they spam then they have had a fair chance like anyone else. I don't doubt that people like spread those "tips" with other. I can't find of any solution for the Comedy Central issue at the moment though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Somewhere, perhaps in a galaxy far far away, there exists a spammer who hasn't yet figured out that they need to make 10 dummy edits to get autoconfirmed. Such is life. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I would just tell people that before they start spamming Wikipedia, they should make a few thousand good edits and write a few dozen good articles that are totally unrelated to the subject of their spamming, and that by the time they get done with that, they'll have realized that they don't want to do the spamming anymore. bd2412 T 22:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see a major problem. Is there any evidence that anyone is following the advice? It's pretty stupid anyway. So their strategy is that people reading an article that mentions Comedy Central will click on the piped link to "Comedy Central" then click on the external link to their website. It is not believable that Comedy Central gets 100,000 visitors from Wikipedia each month when only 25,000 people visit their Wikipedia article each month. Anyway, if you want, you can check the editors that added internal links to Comedy Central and see if they made disruptive edits to other articles. TFD (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I haven't seen any evidence that anyone actually used it, just wanted to post it here just in case and/or for future reference. Also, maybe the author is referring to every article in which Comedy Central had added links to their website? Not sure, and i'm also not sure if it would even be possible to check that. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

We can have a filter that tracks if users are making the same repeated edit, like making small edits with the word "Comedy Central" multiple times. Would that help? Daiyusha (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_137&oldid=883055375"