Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 154

Voatz

I was approached by the student who was editing the article (Erikabucb), who stated that there was an IP address that was editing the article pretty quickly after they added content. Most of their edits lack any sort of explanation as to their reasons for their actions, which is concerning - especially as some of their edits removed negative material about the company like in this edit. This specific edit was reverted by Dibbydib, who warned the IP address about removing content without explanation. The IP removed the content again later, with only the explanation "Cleaned up criticism" - without stating why the material needed to be removed.

Essentially there is concern from the student and instructor that the IP address may have a conflict of interest. I wanted to reach out here just in case. There are some edits that suggest that it may not be the case, such as this one that adds an extra negative remark to the article, but the removal of content is a bit concerning and worth looking into. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I noticed this edit, which adds the words "abysmally stupid" to the page. It doesn't seem to be in line with the usual promotional editing methods. the removal of criticism is concerning, and the student should be encouraged to restore the good material. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

David Edwards (engineer)

User:Mxaviere stated here and here that they were editing on behalf of David Edwards. The individual was told of the COI policy here and later warned here that further promotion of David Edwards could lead to being blocked from editing. User:Mxaviere has continued to edit the article with which they have a COI including adding multiple external links in the body of the article.VVikingTalkEdits 21:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Çelebicihan

This user has made quite a few very promotional articles, including at least three deleted ones: Sergei Savateev, Aliya Prokofyeva, and Kseniya Shoygu. This user is definitely paid to edit, based on the blatantly promotional writing in the articles. See, for example, Andrii Ostapchuk: "In 2009, Ostapchuk studied in Chernivtsi Trade and Economic Institute. He was the only student on the course who got 'excellent' in all subjects. After a year of study, he passed the first session perfectly, decided to leave the Institute and find a job." In Nadiia Shapoval: "The first chapter is a collection of ceramics handmade in Ukraine using traditional craft techniques in collaboration with Kyiv-based artist Masha Reva. With its signature thick black lines and strokes of bold colours, Reva's art brings out the warmth and beauty of Ukrainian pottery, which has been an integral part of family and community for generations." Extremely blatant advertising, this user should be blocked indefinitely for numerous paid articles.

Note: I posted this, but it was archived with no discussion from others (the archive page). The user has not been blocked or anything as far as I can tell, so this discussion is still relevant.

DemonDays64 (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Referred to SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Çelebicihan. This is obvious UPE. MER-C 14:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Blocked as socks, spam quarantined or tagged. MER-C 02:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Schibsted

After I deleted Schibsted, I received a message from 90.232.110.139 pointing out that three editors had a very similar editing pattern - Alltidoppdatert, the IP 80.91.33.138, and Melodieinuk.

The IP is owned by Schibsted (see https://whois.domaintools.com/80.91.33.138), and I've blocked that for undisclosed paid editing and the types of edits summaries made by Alltidoppdatert, the IP, and Melodieinuk (see https://i.imgur.com/xmrZJXP.png, https://i.imgur.com/BpyTi8d.png, and https://i.imgur.com/da4ffGe.png) are similar enough to raise concerns.

Also something worthy to note is the Updated by Schibsted edit summaries found on the IP's and Alltidoppdatert's contribution pages.

Also reported at WP:SPI Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikiexperts.biz

Wikiexperts and affiliated persons was/were banned in 2013. Wikiexperts.biz is – according to the about page – affiliated with, founded by, or owned by Konanykhin, the banned individual. The company is still buying Google ad space; I searched for "cheap business wiki page creation" and got this: "Experts on Writing, Improving and Translating Wikipedia Content! Improves Visibility. Free Estimates. Money-Back Guarantee. Full Compliance. Complete Confidentiality." (note that the last promise violates Wikipedia's ToS, therefore "full compliance" is also a lie) ☆ Bri (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Urs Wiesendanger

Blatant promotional article currently up for deletion. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 19:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Article deleted via AfD.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Donald B. Dingwell

I am a complete novice, so I hope to get some insight, and forgiveness if I have overlooked some other pages with information I should know before posting here. I realized, after a colleague pointed it out to me, that the person editing the article in question (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_B._Dingwell) is an employee of the subject of the article, and likely this subject not only supplies the material, but does the editing too, using the employee's editor account. From what I have read, this may be a case of COI, especially because the page reads like an unnecessarily long list of past positions, awards and honours, down to the most insignificant ones, even though the subject is a scientist and far more coverage of concrete scientific contributions would be expected. Articles about other similar-level scientists in this field usually list just the most important 3 or 4 honours and awards, and a lot more specific scientific contributions, so this article appears to be affected by editor's bias. On the talk page of the editor in question, someone else posted a notice more than 6 months ago (in March 2019) kindly reminding the editor to disclose any COI, but there has been no response to that suggestion that I can find. Can someone advise me if (1) this is indeed a COI, and (2) if so, what should I do, since no action seems to have been taken by the editor involved, even after that reminder? This article is bothersome because integrity in all aspects of the job is expected from any scientist, and in science disclosure of COI is always a requirement too, so if a scientist is involved in their own Wikipedia page editing, at any level, I would expect a clear disclosure without having to remind the person to do so even once, let alone multiple times. --JurassicCrawler (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That certainly sounds like an undisclosed conflict of interest; they appear to have done nothing but add to the Donald B. Dingwell article and insert mentions of him into a few other pages. I started the job of trimming the article back to a reasonable level. XOR'easter (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Double Mountain Brewery

Sharing in case someone wants to help, add appropriate COI templates, or consider whether or not the Wikipedia user name is OK. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Username/COI template left on user page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Freyja10

This has got to be undeclared paid editing. Overly promotional fully formed adverts for too often non notable subjects. Dubious verification. Puffing up run of the mill details. Official photos from the subjects with otrs permission.

Some specific red flags.

Carol Case was created 21:34, 14 October 2017?. It was "reviewed" by a three edit account [1] on 03:55, 17 October 2017? [2]. That account had been dormant for over two years where they linked and unlinked the above David Charles (filmmaker) to the above Lanette Phillips [3] [4].
MaryAnn Tanedo was created 21:38, 29 April 2017?. It was "reviewed" by a one edit account 03:56, 30 April 2017 [5].

Perhaps an admin could check if that was the case for the deleted 2017/15 articles. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael Younesi

Hi, this article is being edited for promotion by the subjects "marketing technologist" on approval of the subject, please take a look, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

A marketing technologist is simply someone who works with technology regard an online medium. I make websites. I did not add anything that was conflict of interest or biased. simply facts. my update should go back and be approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shonnamartell (talk • contribs) 00:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Editing an article on behalf of the subject itself — which you explicitly stated as doing in the summary of one of your edits — is exactly conflict of interest. Besides being unsourced, the content was non-neutral no matter how "factual" it was, hence its removal. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 20:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Let's add user MrDeeds2019, a new pro-level editor who could benefit from a checkuser.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Tau Alpha

COI editing, reverting cleanup/tagging. Left messages such as "Good day! This is the editor of the page named "Tau Alpha". Please don't do any edits in my page for it was a clear case of vandalism. You're not even a member of the fraternity. Please just mind your own business. You don't know about the frat. Please please please just please" and "HEY I SAID DON'T EDIT ANYTHING ABOUT THE TAU ALPHA PAGE. MIND YOUR OWN PAGE AND BUSINESS. PLEASE. JUST PLEASE! YOU'RE NOT HELPING!" on my User Page and User:Naraht MB 18:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with MB. I got the same sort of edits on my User page. I'm probably not as far removed the topic as MB, I'm on WP:FRAT and I'm an alumnus of Alpha Phi Omega in the United States which does exist in the Philippines as well. (Which is on my user page). I did the initial *large* cleanup on the article and would be just fine if someone else wanted to look over my changes.Naraht (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I've warned the user about ownership of content. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The user should be blocked indefinitely. Oculi (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

B. J. Fogg

Moved from WP:AIV
 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

On B. J. Fogg (diff): Repeated attempts by user with actual conflict-of-interest to edit and remove posts without any supportive evidence or proof. User has freely admitted in Talk he is repeatedly updating articles about himself and has characterized other user posts as attempts "to attack me." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B._J._Fogg&action=history). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:F7F:F3D0:8DB:A87E:A646:5794 (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I left the user a uw-coi template. Hopefully, they take its contents to heart and we can go from there. El_C 22:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Was there ever a time when Wikipedia was not so strict about COI? B. J. Fogg was created in 2006 by User:Bjfogg, and doesn't look like the user account was ever warned about COI. Perhaps all the subsequent IP edits have been from the BJFogg himself. You can hardly blame him, if he's never even gotten a a warning in 13 years that he shouldn't be doing that. There is a website for this person linked in the infobox. I'm not sure the article meets eligibility, as it is a personal advertisement from the subject.— Maile (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I trimmed a bunch of promotional content (e.g. about how his book publishers had marketed him as the Einstein of something or other). The article is promotional, although the criticisms section does level some serious criticisms!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • BJ Fogg is continuing to post to this article under the IP address 73.170.62.70, even after being warned of his repeated violations of Wikipedia conflict of interest. Can we please ban him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:F7F:F3D0:F442:55FC:4483:B8EC (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Luis Alvarez Roure ‎

A WP:SPA account, editing primarily to promote Mr. Roure. This includes adding images of his paintings to other articles--the effect is akin to image spamming. I left a COI notice, and received no response, though soon afterwards a new account was opened for the purpose of editing the Roure biography. There may be nothing actionable here, but this seems to merit attention. Thanks. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Added Cumminsjohn48 to userlinks list.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I reverted this [6]. Given that 88 is the subject of COI concerns, it's not appropriate for them to remove the template. Further thoughts welcome. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Relationship of the two accounts clarified here [7]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, per the disclosure, Cumminsjohn48 is an intentional socks of Eightyeightkeysandhands and needs to receive appropriate blocks by an admin. User Xavier Zev may also be related. I'll open an SPI. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Opened. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Geoffrey Cox (British politician)

User "Adolph Verloc" (contribs) has performed extensive editing on this article, in a way that makes me strongly suspect it is a cover for the biographed person himself or an assistant of his. User Adolph Verloc has made circa 80 to 100 edits, most of which concern the article Geoffrey Cox (British politician) (history), a few edits concern titular details about Cox in the section King's College, Taunton#Notable students (edits 1, 2), one edit of the article about Cox' parliamentary constituency, and only two edits don't directly concern Cox, but the 2019_British_prorogation_controversy ([8]) which, however, is a theme that is very linked to Cox.

The type of edits made in the article Geoffrey Cox (British politician) are of a kind that appears typical for autobiographies. Some are 'vanity details' such as correcting titles or entering unnecessary positively biased, and non-descriptive details, for example adding "leading" before "barrister", or that his 2019 constituency result was "the highest vote share ever recorded in the seat and, once again, the largest majority in Devon and Cornwall. This result meant that he had increased the Conservative vote share at every general election in which he had stood." Another edit adds Cox' father's occupation, which is a relevant addition, but indicates that the user may know Cox' family history very well (no source is given). Some of the edits are done from a mobile device.

While it is acceptable to edit obvious errors or unfair sections, "Adolph Verloc" has extensively changed the wording of critical sections, the worst being the change of a sourced quotation by the Danish Broadcasting Corporation, changed from:

'Geoffrey Cox played a key role in Sanjay Shah's defence team by searching for loopholes and weak spots in the accusations against Shah. In total, Geoffrey Cox was paid more than three million DKK (330,000 GBP) for this work during 2015-2017, and last year [in 2018] he was appointed Attorney General with responsability for, among other things, the British prosecuting authority, Crown Prosecution. Indeed, Danish authorities are cooperating closely together with the British prosecuting authority during the investigation of exactly Sanjay Shah.'

— Danish Broadcasting Corporation, British top politician earned millions as a legal adviser for Sanjay Shah (10 December 2019)

to:

'Geoffrey Cox played a key role in Sanjay Shah's defence team, appearing for him in the court proceedings. In total, Geoffrey Cox was paid more than three million DKK (330,000 GBP) for this work during 2015-2017, and last year [in 2018] he was appointed Attorney General with responsibility for, among other things, the British prosecuting authority, Crown Prosecution. Indeed, Danish authorities are cooperating closely together with the British prosecuting authority during the investigation of Sanjay Shah.'

— Danish Broadcasting Corporation, British top politician earned millions as a legal adviser for Sanjay Shah (10 December 2019)

Obviously, it is absolutely not allowed to change a quotation to have another content. I originally entered the quoation and made sure to translate it correctly. If user Adolph Verloc believes the quote or the section is unfair, he should have take other measures to change it. If Adolph Verloc is identical with Cox himself, he should ask the Wikipedia community to give the article a check. --Sasper (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Does look like there's a COI at work. WP:COI/N is the place to report that. As for the article content (especially that section), honestly I'm not thrilled by it. The quote is too long and polemic, and there's too much detail about Shah. --RaiderAspect (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
The above sections were moved from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Geoffrey_Cox_(British_politician). --Sasper (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I have now restored the quotation mentioned above and altered the section slightly to secure a balanced point of view. However, several of Adolph Verloc's edits remain, including biased or irrelevant ones. --Sasper (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I've looked through their edits and made some reverts as appropriate. I agree that some of them are strongly indicative of COI as opposed to just being a 'fan' [9] [10]. That said, the coverage surrounding Shah was massively WP:UNDUE too. I've trimmed it down, but more probably needs to go - probably worth noting that this doesn't seem to have been picked up by any UK press. Looking through the article history, this it is concerning to see that this isn't the first WP:SPA removing less than complimentary content and adding promotional content to the article: Beulah1506 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Urthe14me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mfs1011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - stretching back a decade and via this confirmed to originate from the HoC. SmartSE (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Johann Bessler

Discussions on my talk page, Eb.hoop2's talk page, his talk page and the articles talk page have failed to address the issues. Ken Behrendt has added information originally sourced from his own book. The addition has been reverted a number times by myself and Eb.hoop2, citing issues with COI, original research and lacking a reliable source. In the more recent additions, Ken Behrendt has removed the citations to his book but not sourced it.

The entire addition talks about how he discovered something about Johann Bessler's wheels. The edit to me also reads promotionally in places for Ken Behrendt.

Posting here as this needs to escalate, as previous discussions have not addressed the issue. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have not reverted the latest addition. The first addition was in September this year. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, Ken Behrendt has removed Eb.hoop2's comments on the talk page and for most of his contributions has edit warred. It might be appropriate for an edit warring report, but have placed a edit warring warning on their talk page. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Ken Behrendt has explained himself once here, but it is not very convincing. He seems to be engaging in a slow-moving edit war since Christmas, with five repeated additions of the same material. It is adding his personal POV based on his book. I have reverted the most recent material he added, which was sourced to Youtube.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
collapse long reply by Ken Behrendt

To Whomever It May Concern:

I have been repeatedly forced to reload the two paragraphs I added to the Johann Bessler topic in an effort to make it more complete, less misleading, and more up to date. I have spent much time studying Bessler and his inventions over the last decades and only last year, due to an incredible stroke of luck in April of 2018, I was able to successfully reverse engineer the previously secret "self-moving" wheel mechanics he originally discovered and used about three centuries ago in his various wheels. Because of that, I did author and self-publish last February an 800 page volume on the inventor and his remarkable discovery in order to alert those interested in the subject of self-motive machinery about it. Currently, all I have to verify the discover are computer wheel models based on the very precise part parameter clues he carefully and cleverly hid in two portraits of himself that appeared in his last book that was published in 1717. However, the computer simulations of those model wheels DO work and they manage to remain imbalanced and to continually accelerate when released. I have ZERO doubt that I have, in fact, rediscovered his lost secret. Already, I have several craftsman in Europe who have expressed interest in trying to construct working physical replicas of Bessler's wheels based on the information in my book. My hope is that, when these appear, they will attract the attention of "serious" scientists and engineers and, with future improvements, Bessler's wheels can become important sources of clean, pollutionless energy. But, that's for the future.

I want to stress here and now that I am NOT trying to contribute my two paragraphs on Bessler's wheel mechanics to the Wikipedia article on Johann Bessler because I am hoping that will help me sell books! My book sales were doing just fine before I came to Wikipedia and are not dependent upon it for advertising purposes. My only objective here is to help Wikipedia have an article on Bessler's wheels from which a reader will actually LEARN something of value. So far, my material has been constantly deleted by "editors" who it is obvious to me are not even reading it or, if they are, are not technically competent to understand and judge it. My research was not based upon spending a few minutes reading an online "timeline" of Bessler's life. It was based upon, literally, THOUSANDS of hours of painstaking analysis of every scrap of information I could obtain about him and his wheels.

Someone said that the two links in my two paragraphs of material to "outside" Youtube videos are unacceptable for some reason. I only inserted those links because, when I attempted to upload MP4 videos directly to the Johann Bessler topic's editing page so that thumbnail video clips of them could be displayed along with my two paragraph contribution, the Wikipedia site would not accept the uploads for some reason. Actually, I would prefer just inserting the video clips with my two paragraphs, but after making multiple failed attempts I gave up from exhaustion. Since, however, the links to the Youtube videos were accepted, I just left them.

So, I hope this will convince those who feel an ongoing need to censor via deletion my two paragraphs that they are NOT doing Wikipedia any favors by doing so and they are only acting to preserve an important historical topic in an incomplete, misleading, and out of date condition. If this is how you wish to keep the various topics on this "free" encyclopedia, then I'm sure you'll get your way because I am growing weary of having to try to compensate for the incompetence and biases of others here. However, I will continue to reload my two paragraphs until someone here can either provide me with SPECIFIC instructions on how I can make them safe from future deletions or until you all decide to gang up on me for telling the truth and then take steps to block me from uploading the material again...whichever comes first! If the latter, then please don't congratulate yourselves for preserving the "integrity" of the "editing" process on Wikipedia. All you will be doing is demonstrating that the articles here are not to be trusted as accurate and up to date sources of information which is, apparently, why most teachers and professors will not allow their students to reference articles here in any papers they are assigned to write.

Ken Behrendt Sunday, January 5th, 2020

PS. Sorry if I offended anybody with the above, but I'm not one to mince words when expressing my feelings on a subject.

Ken Behrendt (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The text in question is a humdrum example of unencyclopedic fringe-science advocacy, as well as being unsuitable for violating WP:NOR, WP:RS, etc. Removing it is absolutely the correct call. XOR'easter (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ken Behrendt: you are welcome to add material to the Bessler article that has been discussed and published in reliable sources. Your book is not a reliable source as it is self-published. Your Youtube videos, which you used as a source in the latest edit, are not reliable sources either, as they are self-published. I see no recognition of your theories in Google Scholar, and in Google books all I can see is your book above andanother book on UFOs. So this is clearly Fringe science as XOR'easter suggests. If you continue to add your self-published theories as you describe above, we'll take this over to WP:ANI and ask for you to be blocked. As you have already added it persistently and said above that I will continue to reload my two paragraphs, you are a mere edit or so away from that ANI request. We are not a place for publishing personal theories. You can get yourself a personal web site, if you do not have one already, and publish your theories all you want. But we do not accept fringe science contributions here. Thank you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


@ ThatMontreal IP

LOL! The reality is that, currently, my book is the ONLY reliable current source in existence on the mechanics of Bessler wheels! My Youtube videos, based solely on the part parameter value information Johann Bessler purposely left in his last published book to aid future reverse engineers in physcially duplicating his wheels, are also the ONLY reliable video sources in existence that visually show exactly how Bessler's wheels worked. The fact that the book that documents these recent rediscoveries was self-published in no way diminishes the validity of the details it contains. I don't wonder that "Google Scholar" may not yet cite my work. What makes you think their citations are any more up to date than those on Wikipedia?! What I published is not my "personal theory"! EVERYTHING I've published was based on actual information that Johann Bessler carefully preserved in his published work. NONE of it is my "opinion" as you seem to erroneously believe.

So again I say that if one of you "think you know it all" editors here cannot give me SPECIFIC and RATIONAL advice on how to make my two paragraph contribution to the Johann Bessler topic safe from future censoring by "editors" that aren't even reading the material and are, imo, actually technically incompetent to judge its real value, then I will just have to keep reposting it. If, as a consequence, you are planning to continue the censoring of my efforts to make the Johann Bessler topic less incomplete, less misleading, and less out of date as it will be without my added contribution, then PLEASE do not wait for my next effort to restore the deleted material. Please submit your "ANI" request NOW before I yet again restore the material in the next few days. That will only prove to me that Wikipedia is not really the right place for factual information which is, unfortunately, exactly how most of academia now views it. Thus, they actually hold your "free" encyclopedia in the same low regard as you hold my self-published book! I'm sure you all just dismiss that opinion as due to their arrogance and ignorance. So, please do forgive me when I have the same opinion of the "editors" here who seem determined to continue to sabotage my efforts to provide readers of the Johann Bessler topic with some genuine, in depth information for a change about his wheels that they will not get anywhere else except, of course, in my book of last year on the man and his inventions.

Ken Behrendt Monday, January 6th, 2020

Ken Behrendt (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ken Behrendt:, When Wikipedia editors talk about reliable sources we're using a particular bit Wikipedia jargon, which really means 'meets the project-wide sourcing requirements laid out at WP:RS'. We don't necessarily mean that your book is unreliable or incorrect in the common English uses of those terms. We just have certain content requirements that all additions are supposed to meet. If you'd like your additions to be safe from 'future censoring' as you call it, the way to meet us halfway would be to republish your findings in a way that meets our sourcing requirements. In this case, I would think that would be in some relevant peer-reviewed journal.
You also make a point that the lack of your contribution means Wikipedia is 'out of date'. Yes, this is by design. Wikipedia also has a requirement that we do not publish original research, instead we wait for secondary sources to appear, so we know what kind of reception new research is getting from the academic community and the world at large. To cite a commonly used example, we wouldn't have allowed Einstein to publish his theories here - not until others had written about them as well. - MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Wikipedia does not lead; it follows. XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Fantastic work Ken, it's a pity we can't cover it here. Did you discover how he powered his wheels too? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


Well, THANK YOU "MrOllie" for your rather contributor friendly response. I think that you have finally and successfully convinced me that Wikipedia is not YET the right place for my recent research on Johann Bessler and his marvelous "self-moving" wheels. My research is, essentially, TOO advanced at this time! You have turned my irritating rejection into a well appreciated compliment and, as a result, I shall make no further efforts to repost the material (unless I am specifically requested do so at some future time).

I should mention that I did make an effort to provide Physics Review with a short article describing the results of my successful reverse engineering of Bessler's wheels. I emphasized that his wheels were NOT perpetual motion, but, rather had unique mechanics that chronically kept them imbalanced and, thus, created a situation where the rate of gravitational potential energy loss by the weighted levers on their turning drums' descending sides was always slightly more than the rate of regain by the weighted levers on their ascending sides even though the weighted levers fell and rose through the same vertical distance. That extra lost energy of the descending side weights and levers was then used to accelerate a wheel or drive attached outside machinery and could only be supplied by the energy content of the masses of the weighted levers if his wheels were genuine and did NOT violate the Law of Energy Conservation which I am most firmly convinced was the case. My "article" for Physics Review was approximately two pages in length.

Result? Within two hours of submission, I got a form rejection email back telling me that the article was "unsuitable" for them. I suspect that it was never actually read by a human. Rather, its text was scanned by an algorithm programmed to automatically issue a rejection email to anyone who dared to use the words "perpetual motion" in a submitted article even though its existence was being emphatically denied in the material. So, you can see why I'm a bit sensitive when it comes to having my research summarily rejected for reasons that seem arbitrary to me. Science cannot advance by pretending data does not exist! However, that now seems to be the accepted modus operandi when it comes to Johann Bessler's wheels.

Also, thanks to "Roxy" for the kind comment. Much appreciated!

Ken Behrendt Tuesday, January 7th, 2020

Ken Behrendt (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Jodie Rummer

Back in 2011, Luenw created the article Luen Warneke.[11] Recently, they also created Jodie Rummer.[12] They have written a lot of about these two individuals in many articles about mountains.[13][14][15] Luenw has also added a lot of information sourced to WanderStories which is written by... Warneke and Rumer.[16][17][18]
Seems to be a clearcut case of a COI. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree the concerns are warranted. I also found something quite concerning in the deleted contributions. Questions for Luenw:
  1. Do you have a conflict of interest regarding Jodie Rummer? If so, why is creating an article about her improper?
  2. Do you have a conflict of interest regarding WanderStories? If so, why is citing that website improper? What sources should you use instead?
  3. Have you edited Wikipedia for pay in the past? If so, please provide details.
  4. Do you intend to edit Wikipedia for pay in the future? MER-C 09:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: Regardless of the original motivations, Dr. Rummer certainly is notable by our standards, and I'm separately working on a new article that is free from the copyright and COI concerns. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: That's awesome! Thank you!!! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Tech support scammers

See WP:VPT#Heads up: addition of potentially malicious material to computer security articles. The OP referred to this probably added by a scammer. I also found [19] and [20] and [21] -- Bri.public (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bri: Didn't we have something similar to this happen before? Trying to think when and where... SmartSE (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't remember it being discussed at COIN before. Did a quick archive search just now, and didn't see it there either. Bri.public (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Very strange. Application security is not the name of a software program, as far as I can see, and recommending "Application Security" says nothing because it's so vague. Likewise, for one of the other edits, "External security" doesn't mean anything. Windows Firewall was recommended in Special:Diff/930204530, which does not appear to have a profit motive, but is also unsound security advice. From a content standpoint, none of these recommendations are verifiable because all of them are unsourced. — Newslinger talk 22:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Watch a scambaiting video on Youtube - tech support scammers' scripts are like this. MER-C 03:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Sidemen and KSI (entertainer)

Appears to be associated with KSI, sometimes removing sourced content, posting promotional, unsourced content or content sourced to twitter and primary accounts, and covering numerous related articles: [22]; [23]; [24]; [25]; [26]; [27]; [28]; [29]; [30].. In part, using Wikipedia articles to chronicle tiresome and often non notable arguments between group members. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I would add Zaydx to this. They are clearly coordinating with Timwikisidemen, based on this: [31] Hugsyrup 16:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm adding a related article, W2S; though there are many, this is newly relevant because it's another member of Sidemen, and the edits are new, made since this report. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
It's looking like it's a problem with all sidemen related articles. Idan (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I’m not sure what the correct course of action is here, but there seems to be a group of editors who are closely coordinating on these articles. I’m leaning away from them being sock puppets because of the talking to each other (though of course that is sometimes used by SPs to misdirect) but this edit by Masterpk404 on Zaydx’s talk page [32] followed immediately by undoing it does slightly smack of accidentally doing something while forgetting which account you’re logged in as... But would be good to get input on whether any of this is actionable, or just needs keeping an eye on for now? Hugsyrup 08:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok ignore me. In the least surprising turn of events imaginable, the users listed above are confirmed socks and have been blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Timwikisidemen Hugsyrup 08:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I think admin misses blocking the master User:Timwikisidemen, it's because I missed to include him to the list, just the title. RicherMan66 (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, masters aren’t always blocked - the reason being that blocks are preventative, not punitive, and you could argue that once the socks are blocked, the disruption has been prevented. I think often you would only block the master if they had shown themselves unwilling to stop socking. From what I’ve seen, though, admins take wildly different approaches to this, and it’s not unusual for the master to be hit with an indef block first time round. And you formatted it correctly - title should be master, socks in the list. Hugsyrup 09:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Timwikisidemen is NOT anybody's master, and is unrelated to the two blocked users Zaydx (talk · contribs) and Masterpk404 (talk · contribs). I have more suspicion over someone whose first edits declare themself to be a WP:SPA and file an SPI report.
Hugsyrup, the report wasn't formatted correctly. The page headers were missing so there was nothing linking to Tim in the report. It's easier to use Twinkle to be sure it's been filed correctly. As for the length of blocks, admins can see deleted evidence, and checkusers can see (but are forbidden to talk about) links to IP accounts. It's futile to try and double guess what went into the block decision. Cabayi (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Shashikala Dani

Moved from WP:AIV
 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Account is being used only for promotional purposes. Shashikala Dani. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 13:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

New Acropolis

Users
Articles

Besides the mostly-SPA behavior, Giladsom seems to be connected to the organization. If an admin cannot find the obvious evidence, let me know if it needs to pointed out by private email. Instead of acknowledging COI guidelines, the editor is deflecting the issue pointing to other users instead. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Eurasia Group

Hi! Happy new year! I looked at consultancy articles and saw some edits made to the Eurasia Group page. I was advised about the outing policy, so I will avoid linking to the individual in question. However, there is ample indication that an employee of said company is editing those articles. Please advise as to how to proceed, as I am quite new at this. Thank you, PK650 (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds logical but do be careful with accidental WP:OUTING. I imagine there are a dozen or more Brian Harpers in every major city.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

KristenDuever

Without trying to "out" this editor, there appears to be a connection to the London Chamber of Commerce in London, Ontario. Please see [33]], [34], and [35], as well as several edits to London, Ontario. I left a COI message on this editor's talk page, and their response was that there is no COI. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree: it appears to be a rather clear-cut case of COI, and most likely of the paid type. Denial does not change facts. The chances that this editor has no COI with at least some of the edited articles are negligible. --JurassicCrawler (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The Gardens at SIUE

The Gardens at SIUE (Redacted)

I am a novice at editing Wikipedia. This week I updated information on the page for The Gardens at SIUE, using the email address for The Gardens ((Redacted)). I am a retired administrator at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, volunteering in the role of Chair of The Gardens Advisory Board. My intent was to update some misinformation on The Gardens Wiki page which indicated the gardens property had been leased to the City of Edwardsville. I am not paid for my work for the board and am not promoting The Gardens through the Wiki page. We have many other ways we promote The Gardens (website, Facebook page, Instagram) and have no intention of using Wiki for this purpose. It would be helpful if I could update the Wiki information sometime in the future and I can do so, using my personal email address if that is a better approach. My personal email is (Redacted).

Thank you, Marian Smithson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.22.10 (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

K Stephen Bailey

Username is the exact same as the registered agent of said organization. I have no issue with paid contributors, and they are new, so I gave them 24hrs to disclose the connection. Per the terms this goes against WP:PAID. I personally do not recommend a perma-ban, just a topic ban until disclosure is made. Jerod Lycett (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

They disclosed with "I have worked here for 40 years", but need to follow the formal process. Bri.public (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The edits were primarily copyvio from the NMA website (went from 1% to 88% on earwig), so I reverted them. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Nicholson Baker

Three recent edit summaries—one at 21:16 and two others 50 minutes apart—suggest that User:Wageless is editing his own BLP, Nicholson Baker. This raises WP:COISELF. Please remind him of Wikipedia's behavioral guideline in this regard. NedFausa (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of the conflict of interest guidelines - the thing was that somebody had (bizarrely and falsely) edited the article about me to say that I'd gotten a divorce from my wife of three decades, naming her, and that I'd moved to South Florida following the divorce. I wanted to correct it right away, and did so, after deliberately logging in and indicating that I was doing the editing in the edit summary. Somebody then wiped my edit saying it was unsourced. I sourced it, again being clear that I was doing it. I have never edited my own article before (even though I would like to)--but the quick correction of obvious vandalism seemed okay. I also corrected my place of birth, which has been corrected before. (Born in New York City, not Rochester.) That seems to be a simple mistake. The edit saying that I'd gotten a divorce happened back in October; someone emailed me about it on Jan 7, 2020. The edit first appeared here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholson_Baker&oldid=921777314 and was done by 198.30.252.247, who seems to be in Columbus, Ohio. The user previously vandalized the Jonestown article, changing "Jim Jones" to "Bert and Ernie." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:198.30.252.247 Thank you. Nicholson Baker —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
NedFausa, this seems very much like the kind of edit that falls into the exception to WP:COISELF if "the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly." Going forward, if this occurs, Wageless should follow the rest of the guidance, and "follow [the edit] up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons, or the talk page of the article in question." I've added the article to my watchlist. If this issue pops up again, we can get it protected from IP editing. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@Wageless: You probably forgot a single edit in 2013 and another in 2014, but no matter. You might want to know about the procedures outlined at Wikipedia's advice for subjects of biographies. Bri.public (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks BubbaJoe I will follow the guidelines going forward. Yes Bri.public thanks for reminding me: in 2013 I corrected my college major (it was English, not Philosophy), which nobody else was likely to know and which reporters had gotten wrong, and in 2014 I added a more up to date photo (which was then removed, even though my son took the picture). I've never done rewriting or fiddling or tweaking, though, only these few factual fixes. Nicholson Baker Wageless (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Varsity College

I found this one too. ConversationLAB is actually a PR firm, which would also make those edits blatant UPE. Best, PK650 (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

If there's a COI issue here, it would be with Varsity College (South Africa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), since the only edit to Varsity College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is just a redirect hatnote. When the edits were made, the Varsity College article was about the SA school, not the AU one. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, I got the links mixed up. I think you're mistaken about the sequence of events though: the user appears to have initially tried to entirely replace the content of the Australian school (Varsity College) with their ad-like content for the SA university. This was obviously reverted. They then added links to the university's website on the Bachelor of Commerce article, edited Adrian Gore's biography, and finally edited Varsity College (South Africa). Best, PK650 (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing from Buzzinga Digital

Undisclosed paid editing ring operated by Buzzinga Digital (buzzingadigital.com), a marketing firm founded by Yashraj Vakil. There is an active sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BuzzingaWiki. Thanks, MarkH21, for filing the report that exposed this operation.

I'm continuing to search for affected accounts and articles. Feel free to add to the list above. — Newslinger talk 09:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Search complete. The SPI might reveal other accounts that don't use the word "Buzzinga" in their usernames. — Newslinger talk 10:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Added Weikfield Foods from the SPI. — Newslinger talk 08:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Vakilsearch

A website called Vakilsearch (vakilsearch.com) is closely linked to Buzzinga Digital. This domain was blacklisted in October 2018. See the COIBot report for details. — Newslinger talk 21:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Morbidthoughts

User:Morbidthoughts has written, edited, or argued against the deletion of many pornographic performer articles. Flickr accounts and other media suggest that Morbidthoughts works as a promoter, photographer, or otherwise within the pornographic industry.--NL19931993 (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am a freelance photographer, and I take photos of people in pornography. But you already knew that when you first approached me and got rejected. [36][37][38][39]. Thanks for the bad faith retaliation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
My purpose in contacting you was to work for the betterment of the project for article which meet Wikipedia's standards. My point is that your personal interest in the subject area appears to cause you to want to keep articles which do not meet Wikipedia's standards and which are not encyclopedic.--NL19931993 (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh you mean like these?[40][41][42][43][44] How did those nominations help improve the project again? Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
[aside] It's rather disingenuous to ask ([45]; SFW) a photographer to "temporarily change the licence so images can be uploaded to Wikicommons", when that involves making an irrevocable release. I'm disturbed to see our project misrepresented in this fashion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
NL19931993 is now blocked for sockpuppetry. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Dz369 and Peter Miller (Literary Manager)

The editor has exclusively edited articles on authors and books to add representation by Peter Miller. The editor has created a promotional article about the literary agent and claims no conflict of interest, but that's highly dubious based on editing activity. — MarkH21talk 22:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Earl W. Bascom

Single purpose account to promote Earl W. Bascom and introduce this commercial website which sells Bascom-related products. Has not responded to COI notice and continues to add the promotional website, as with this edit, and in the past, this edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Mark Mattson

I came to this via an WP:RfPP request. LogicandProportion has been adding content that has been reverted as "Per talk, all unsourced or sourced to Mattson's own works". User has messages about their possible COI on their talk going back to 2016, including a COI notice from Jytdog. User seems focused on Mark Mattson and related topics. -- Deepfriedokra 11:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Far too much material was removed. I added some material from the NIH. I'll add his papers, and the list of his degrees. . Regardless oft he puffery, he is actually extremely notable. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Help with cranial nerves

Hello all. I would like to ask for advice and help relating to a COI editor above. Summary of the situation

  • Active during 2015
  • Removed a fair amount of content from cranial nerve article
  • Changed 25 citations on that page to a book of the editor's authorship
  • Published an article in the journal of anatomy [46]
  • Ceased editing

I was reviewing the good article cranial nerves following a comment by Zmvictor and was disheartened to see how it has deteriorated. I did note this with the editor at the time [47] but only really in retrospect have I noticed the amount of damage and, with greater awareness of COI a few years on, I'd like some advice about how to repair it and anything else that needs to be done. With my retrospectoscope I think I may have been overly deferential to a claimed expert editor. Thanks for your help. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

AnatomyCzar has not edited in four years, so there is no pressing COI issue here. If you feel an earlier version was better, then revert to that version. Also, just a friendly note that connecting offsite articles with author names to WP editors ( I am not sure which one you're connecting it to, and please do not say) is not allowed per WP:OUTING. OK I see here that the editor points to his own publication. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I have added the WP:SPA Ijaz Mahmood.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. I've done my best to revert the COI editing (eg replacing citations without changing the text) but preserved helpful edits.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Fraudulent AfCs

CEOs, owners, presidents or founders
Corporations
Other individuals

There's a blocked sock who accepted all of the above AfCs. They are tied in to ADJEAD sockfarm I have a much larger list at User:Bri/COIbox92 which I'm going through for more likely bad-faith creations and/or accepted articles. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Real nice black eye for the rest of us at AfC.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Richard J. Arsenault appears to have been an autobiography, according to a malformed disclosure at User:1zstone. Would it be appropriate to draftify it and require resubmission through AfC. There is only one other substantial editor (SPA). ☆ Bri (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I would say so. I looked and these articles appear to be all over the board. I am not sure of the M/O of the blocked user but if they were approving submissions for their own benefit, they likely approved others that were not for their benefit. I would support moving anything to draft that may be questionable in the least. Unless it is clearly notable then ship it back to AfC and we will get to them when they come up in queue. We can then weed out the good submissions from the nefarious ones. Just my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I searched my list for biographies matching one or more of these criteria:

  • SPA creator
  • few or no co-editors
  • writing style and other matches for WP:Identifying PR
  • has been tagged as promotional
  • weak notability
  • media irregularities (copyvio/pro headshots especially)
  • explicit call-outs as "expert"

The matching entities are added to the articles list above. Bri.public (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

watch out also for minor awards, lack of exact dates for degrees & positions, and, for this particular editor (or group), disproportionately long lede sections. ,
Bri, there are several possible ways of handling these, and we need to decide so we do not work at corss purposes:
They can be improved into articles. (If we do this , I suggest we be even more drastic than usual in removing promotional material, PR references, and uncited BLP. )
They can be returned as is to draft space (best done by commenting out the cateogries, etc.)
They can be listed for deletion. If they're so promotional they would need complete rewriting this would be the usual (and I think the best) course, no matter how they got into WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
It will just cause confusion if w work at cross-purposes doing different things to the same articles. I suggest we indicate here who is taking responsibility for handling them which way. I'd also advise not adding categories etc .which will just have to be removed when re-draftifying.
I shall personally check all the academics tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@DGG: I agree, having a unified and considered response to this case and cases like it is important. That's why I brought this up here instead of acting solo and in haste. It's also important to improve the integrity of AfC and help prevent future incidents, if there's a path under which that is possible.
Your triage process is agreeable to me; in fact I've already implicitly done it by not listing every single article that was approved by this actor. I'd prefer to leave the rest that are listed in COIbox92 alone. Which isn't to say they are good articles; in fact they are mostly pop-culture dreck. However, our pop-culture articles generally are dreck, so they are unremarkable dreck. Bri.public (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
By the way, I noticed anomalies in these article histories. Acceptance was virtually on the heels of the last edit by the creator. Would one expect that in a randomly chosen, neutrally reviewed AfC where the queue is many thousands of articles? I've notated the time deltas above. Bri.public (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Of those who might be considered academics,
Atayants & Homan are notable,, and the articles are not unreasonable.
Polenova is notable , but the article needs substantial trimming. It's an edited translation of the Russian article--bios of this sort in the ruWP tend to be quite excessively personal by our standards.
Druzhinin is also notable . Our article is a adequate shortened revision of the Russian article (The German article is a more sophisticated expansion
Corado is notable (one of his booksi s from Harvard UP) , but the article needs to be rewritten. It's less competent than others in this group.
Yasmin is not notable as a physician, but as a journalist. I think the article is rather promotional
I'm moving Corado and Polenova & Yasmin back to draft, but the others are good enough for mainspace.
Looking at the Russian articles, whoever translated them has a decent knowledge of Russian and English, and knows Russian academic culture and the enWP--they kept in only what counts, which naïve translators do not. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
rechecking some articles that at first I thought potentially good enough for mainspace, I have returned Dmitry Zinn to Draft as most of the article ins unccited, and also Seema Yasmin, as some of the statements there have been difficult to verify. I may also move Slice --it's notable because of the NYT ref, but most of it is PR.
DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@DGG: Maybe you use a script and don't need this, but I'm preparing some text for user feedback on the draftified articles. The message will look like this:

An article you recently created, [[DRAFT:ARTICLENAME|ARTICLENAME]], had an improper review and is not ready to remain published. I've moved your draft to [[Wikipedia:Draftspace|draftspace]] (with a prefix of Draft: before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]] and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~~~~
edit summary will be: something like Draftified article due to improper AfC review by sockpuppet. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to work something out. Yours is better, and I'm going to use it. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Credit where credit is due: It's adapted from Evad37's MoveToDraft script. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@DGG: The editor has apparently simply copy/pasted Energa back. At the least, this is WP:Cut and paste move, bad from attribution point of view, but should they be admonished to go through AfC? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
This is getting more and more common. I did what I usually do, which is delete it as G6, improper move from draftspace. Since the ed. seems a possibly good faith editor in addition to whatever paid editing they has done . I left a friendly notice. If its not a good faith editor, I leave a warning. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Mahatma Gandhi Central University protest

Primary editor has written a very detailed description of the event, but is strongly connected to the subject. I've asked him to find some other editors neutral to the subject to scrub the article, but he insists that the article is non-neutral and notable and has provided lots of references. Is there a place where I can request a neutral editor to rewrite / unbias the article? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

As I can see this page has been deleted. If you want I can rewrite this article in my words. --HRC491 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yury Mosha

editor blocked by Bradv, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Çelebicihan

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.

Recreation of a recently deleted article. This time the editor seems to be the subject, hence the COI. The last time it was deleted was for UPE. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Just discovered this issue is being investigated at SPI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
All taken care of, this can be closed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2020 (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.

Reminders about verification

As hints in reviewing for COI (and reviewing generally):

Emmy awards: Most Emmy awards are from a particular chapter. This needs to be stated. it also needs to be stated which pf the many categories it was for. Emmys are not like the Academy Awards--there are a remarkable number of them, very similar to PR-based awards. It also need to be verified if it was an award, not just a nomination.
Pulitzer awards: Most pulitzer awards for news coverage are to a team, not an individual. This information is often omitted.
Degrees : Dates are needed for verification. Watch out for "studied at", "attended", and "studied [art, music,....]". They do not necessary imply a degree. This is especially true for business executives, as there are a great many short executive education programs leading only to a "certificate". Some are only a few weeks long. This is the case even for the most prestigeous schools, such as Harvard.
Positions Dates are needed. They need to be in chronological sequence. The most recent and most notable can be in the lede, but the whole sequence is needed. (this is a basic rule for evaluating CVs in the Real World also--watch out for gaps) DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Saad Anjum

I am a first time writer on Wikipedia. I wrote an article Saad Anjum and I did put the COI code in my talk section. I wanted it to be peer-reviewed and if someone can tell me the chances of my article being published. SaadAnjum (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Your draft has already been deleted, so it's not possible for me to review it. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Since I'm an admin, I took a look. It contained the parraph " He currently is trying to get bigger in the talent industry and setting his goals to be in more campaigns, productions, short films, and commercials as an actor and model. He is trying to expand and grow his modeling career with his goal to sign with Ford Modeling Agency. He is also trying to expand and grow his acting career with his goal to be in his own big-hit action movie in the future and be a A-List Actor." followed by a list of minor roles. This is self--promotion of a rather obvious sort, and also fails to show notability . When you become notable, someone other than you will likely write an article. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Alexander Proudlock

Promotional account. Writing biographical article whose submission was declined in September 2019. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 00:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Swarajya (magazine)

This account says that removed slanderous claim against my colleague which was sourced. Saying colleague means they have COI with company. Please block user. 106.213.242.170 (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

No. The user name is unfortunate as it suggests a single purpose for editing. However, attempts by the above IP to add BLP negativity to the article with poor sources have been prevented. We thank the reported editor for bringing the problem to editors' attention. In the faint possibility that they see this message, it would be better to report problems at the article talk page or at WP:BLPN if that fails. Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sue Hadjopoulos

Editing biographical and related articles, and engaging in edit warring upon removal of promotional content. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I've started a SPI at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rflans. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Scrum (software development)

User simultaneously says that he is 'not advertising or being paid for my edits' and 'I work for Ken Schwaber and he is the creator'. Seems contradictory to me. Thoughts? - MrOllie (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, definite COI regardless of whether or not their edits are PAID. Not strictly a contradiction, since paid editing , as I understand it, means that the editor needs to be paid for editing Wikipedia - an enthusiastic employee editing a Wikipedia page when it's not part of their job isn't paid editing. Either way, they need to start making edit requests on the talk page and stop editing the article directly. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 17:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I would agree with that. Classic coi and edit requests are the ideal mechanism for this approach. scope_creepTalk 17:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Two more apparent employees:

More discussion on my talk: User_talk:MrOllie#Removal_of_content_for_Scrum_(software_development)_written_by_Ken_Schwaber There is a bit of resistance to using the article talk page. MrOllie (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I do not interpret his statement as an unambiguous denial of WP:PAID. There are multiple possible scenarios: He may work for a PR firm that is being paid for its edits, he may be an employee and his job is pr for Schwaber or his firm generally, .... DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I've started a SPI report. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Vénera Kastrati

Would someone like to take a look at this? Article created and maintained by an WP:SPA, repeated additions of unsourced content. I've had a few shots at cleaning it up, but been reverted each time. Notability is very doubtful, so it may be that AfD is the best way forward here. Any thoughts on that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Ulugbekhon Yusuphonovich Maksumov

Editor who states they are not paid but a third attempt to create article about industrialist, a businessman with his business INKAS on WP. I sent the article to Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulugbekhon Yusuphonovich Maksumov. Both remaining articles are almost identical in content, fact for fact comparison, all from 3 ref's. scope_creepTalk 20:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Both articles can be looked at, this Ulugbekhon Yusuphonovich Maksumov and Draft:Ulugbekhon Maksumov. Both articles can be compared, one is written on WP:NPOV, which I wrote why the other article is a draft written on WP:PROMOTION with 1 or 2 reliable source.--Qamar645 (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Gib Carter

I feel like the name closely relates to the subject of the article. Also notability and the references should be a factor when looked at. Idan (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like an autobio, sourced to youtube and to google shortlinks that I'm not going to click...if it ever makes it out of draftspace it'll probably get the WP:A7 treatment in short order. I wouldn't worry too much about this, we know how to deal with autobiographies. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 14:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I took the bait and clicked... (on a VM) it's just google searches and his social media profiles. Idan (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Lee Jina

Promotional article for "49th best DJ in Asia" and a ONE Championship associate refunded after soft delete at AfD. Shortly after restoration, the article was kicked back to Draft space, whereupon ONEEliteAgency resumed editing the draft. As ONEEliteAgency is literally the name of the promotional arm of ONE Championship, I reported to UAA, and that editor was soft-blocked. Then new editor Sarahswj appeared and resumed editing the draft. It's not wrong to start a new account with a compliant name immediately after a corporate name is blocked, but is against policy to edit on behalf of an employer without disclosing that affiliation, so I dropped a UPE tag on Sarahswj's talk page asking them to respond before resuming editing. They waited about ten days, and have now resumed editing on the (promotional) draft, without disclosure or any response at all. More eyes on this would be appreciated, particularly since there are other accounts on ONE Championship articles that could plausibly be either UPE or just really enthusiastic fans. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

How to write an article about cryptocurrency on Wikipedia for the Signpost that won't just make things worse?

This is not a specific COI complaint - I'm just asking the esteemed and opinionated commenters here for general ideas on something that touches on a lot of our issues. Smallbones has suggested I write something about cryptocurrency and Wikipedia for the Signpost. 500-800 words on the situation here, nothing major.

As it happens, I'm someone with expertise in both - I was the UK volunteer press contact for Wikipedia for much of the 2000s (and still comment when asked), and I'm also an expert of telly-pundit book-author status on cryptocurrencies and why they're all terrible. And I also follow the crypto articles on Wikipedia, and do what I can to keep the firehose of spam manageable.

The problem is that whatever I write will be taken massively out of context, no matter what disclaimers I put on it. I tweeted a while ago about the Wikipedia COI rules including "holding crypto", several months after that rule was added - and it was immediately all over the crypto blogs. Because these guys think of Wikipedia as SOMEWHERE TO SPAM.

Our entire crypto problem, and the reason that GS/Crypto exists, is a stupendous COI problem - HOW GODDAMN MUCH THESE GUYS DESPERATELY WANT TO SPAM WIKIPEDIA.

The editors in the crypto area have come to a rough working rule on sourcing - WP:RSes only, mainstream press or peer-reviewed academic sources, no blogs, no crypto specialist sites (because they look like specialist press, but are literally all devoted to advocating their hodlings and never saw a press release they wouldn't reprint). This isn't a written rule - but it's enforced by the editors following crypto, and anything other than solid RSes in an article is a death sentence at WP:AFD. Crypto advocates complain regularly, but the rule has stuck - because WP:RS is solid.

(We also have many pro-crypto editors, who have realised that actually WP:RS is an excellent way to make our articles good and not suck!)

But literally anything I write will be treated by the firehose of spammers as a list of obstacles to work around to GET THEIR SPAM IN, and it's gonna suuuuuck.

So how should we approach this? I'm the person for this job, and Smallbones has been asking me to do this for months, but it's a tricky one. Should I even do it? General rambling ideas, advice and digressions welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Just be short and sweet. Ever wondered how to get your shitty crypto blah blah onto Wikipedia? Here's a step by step guide by insiders! Step 1.) Don't Step 2.) Turn off your computer. Praxidicae (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Do you think that writing 500-800 words on the 5th paragraph (requiring mainstream RS, things get deleted, etc) would make things worse? Or that combined with explaining/reminding a broad audience why we have GS/Crypto? I mean if they're getting mainstream coverage then they're not really gaming the system if they get their pet crypto in Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorta worried it'll hit the mainstream too. Crypto, Wikipedia, that's headline material maybe!! eegh. I emailed the movecom list too, in case of that danger. Seriously, I say dumb drunken shit in tweets and it makes the papers - and you'd be shocked how little money there turns out to be in that happening - David Gerard (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I would suggest carefully considering your audience. You are writing to editors to help them stay informed as editors. Most editors probably vaguely understand that crypto currency is a thing, but may not understand the context as anything other than normal COI editing. My understanding is that there is a type of Wolf of Wall Street aspect to it, where these people hold the currency they are trying to inflate the value of, and so it can turn into a type of Pump and dump scenario. Maybe that's totally wrong, and so I suppose that would be even more reason to write an article to inform editors on crypto to ensure they are well defended with a level of understanding relevant to function in the area as editors. GMGtalk 22:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Write something that is the modern offshoot. Cryptocurrency is really old antique junk, more than a 10 years old. Find the latest iteration, focus on that. If you can focus on Libra, and all the crap that is coming, splitting bitcoin and some relations to fintech and why its all generic muck but may be important as it will have scale, and it will need articles and how differentiate the generic from the notable. scope_creepTalk 23:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Libra's actually interesting - how to write about vapourware that's notable as vapourware - David Gerard (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
      • It is one area we are likely to get swamped. Do it. scope_creepTalk 23:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
+1 for consider your audience. Trying to write a signpost article asking spammers who deliberately twist what other people say to make it more favorable to themselves to kindly not spam anymore please isn't going to work. Educating editors, the Signpost's target audience, about what cryptocurrencies are, how cryptospam is written, typical tactics (within reason) of cryptospammers, and what to do about it is more likely to be productive. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
One important point to stress is the real-world consequences of cryptocurrency spam not being taken down, both for our readers and our reputation - this is a topic that is almost as sensitive as medicine. You may find [48], [49] and [50] especially helpful (in response to these edits, I applied indefinite ECP to the two articles concerned). MER-C 03:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. From his intro, you can see why I've been bugging David for this - he is the perfect person to write it. But sometimes the perfect person can be too perfect. Well, it won't be in this issue anyway. The thing about the audience is that there are 3 audiences, Wikipedia editors (primary), crytospammers (sure to pick this up) and the mainstream press (I'd actually hope they pick it up) The last 2 have pluses and minuses anyway. I don't think that we need to worry about the cryptospammers getting a check list of how to get an article on Wikipedia.

Although, the following might work

  • Start an exchange with no capital and a convicted felon as a partner
  • After the partner raises cash through an IPO, takes all the cash and leaves
  • Continue the business on your laptop in your girlfriends basement, just taking all the money that comes in.
  • The laptop is encrypted and you don't give anybody the key.
  • Get married in India, then immediately die.

That'll do it every time. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I've got a better idea.
  1. Buy a factory, steal the money, factory goes bankrupt, become a convicted fraudster.
  2. Found a cryptocurrency based on a SQL database blockchain
  3. Devise a multi-level marketing scheme to promote it, host lavish parties.
  4. Develop said MLM scheme such that it becomes a cult.
  5. Raise over $10 billion.
  6. Take the money and launder it.
  7. Ghost everyone before you have to deliver on any of your promises, answer difficult questions from pesky journalists and to avoid the Feds. MER-C 05:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I threw a draft into my sandbox, after I realised I'd basically drafted the article above. Ran it past a crypto journalist friend who made useful suggestions for non-Wikipedian humans. I don't think I've misstated anything that isn't clearly opinion ... suggestions welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Alison Jones

Adding unsourced and promotional content into biographical article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 23:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Peter Carey (historian)

Adding unsourced and promotional content into biographical article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 07:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)::

I have been trying to get the editor to read his messages, and I believe this is somewhat impatient for somebody who has no idea what is happening. Some patience is required, please JarrahTree 07:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarification on CoI

Hi all, one of the new editors has explained their relationship with Isha vidya which as per their website is a subsidiary of Isha Foundation run by Jaggi Vasudev. Is this covered under WP:COI. (also ping WBG )--DBigXrayᗙ 22:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • The editor has shown a great example of the tu quoque fallacy. And as a patron of a children's rural education non-profit run by the Foundation, they have a COI. - Bri.public (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I am an involved editor and can't appear to make an objective judgement; however, agree with Bri. There are other aspects of COI as well. ∯WBGconverse 03:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I am also involved and I too agree that editor has COI and TBAN over Jaggi Vasudev, broadly constructed is better for them.— Harshil want to talk? 03:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi all! New here! Could some one explain what I'm missing here? I've not made any edits that are non-factual, or opinionated. Isha Vidhya is a separately registered Non-Profit, and this disclosure has been made voluntarily at the beginning of the Draft of Isha Vidhya article, which was taken down in a mass nuking. Appeal to dismiss the COI and reject the TBAN here.
Moreover, all my comments and edits have been compliant to norms, both mandated and social, with proper attributed comments. If there's a valid reason, please explain a proven instance of misconduct or violation than what construes as a witch-hunt. Thanks :) KP (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
If any, WBG's page has a shown demonstrated pre-inclination towards Atheism bordering on hate for all organised religion. To quote a quote from the user's home page "Religion, a medieval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms." If any, it seems that it is this bias that has lead a lot of opinions to be construed and misrepresented as facts in the Section "Politics, Religion and Pseudoscience", a policy unambiguously violated multiple times, and defended by users User:DBigXray and User:Bbb23: in page Jaggi_Vasudev. I'll be happy to talk about why the edits were made, and let people decide if I've exhibited any bias, or if it is indeed a systematic tag-teamed vandalism and bullying targetting the two pages and now, me. Thanks! KP (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This thread is to determine whether you have a conflict of interest with Jaggi Vasudev and any derivatives, thereof. It appears that you have one (per the commentators till now) and you need to abide by WP:COI which (in a nutshell) means that you can't edit these pages anymore at own whims and need to *always* vet your proposed content past neutral eyes. This is not the proper place for discussing a TBAN, fwiw. As to me, that's a quote from a widely acclaimed author and extrapolating that to infer my hate about organised religions is nonsensical. Fwiw, Sadhguru's cult falls under NRM, which ain't exactly a religion. Yet again I will say that NPOVN and the relevant t/p(s) remain open for you (and other CO-afflicted editors) to debate any content. ∯WBGconverse 10:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, for the explanation, User:Winged Blades of Godric per your counsel, will try to add a NPOVN on the two pages for your edits. So, is there a follow up to this? Could you guide me about how I can contest this decision of COI? Thanks! :) KP (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This discussion (which is in-progress) aims to determine whether you have a COI or not. Feel free to make your case over this thread, about why a patron of an organisation can be deemed to not have COI with it. ∯WBGconverse 15:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@KumareshPassoupathi: I didn't want to spell this out, but maybe it's best if I do now. A conflict of interest exists if you have an outside interest that may not be aligned with the interests of Wikipedia. Since you have declared that you are a patron of an organization, we can infer that you are interested in its success and its being portrayed positively. That presents the conflict. This would be true for anyone in the same position, not just you. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bri: Thanks for taking the time out to explain this! I feel the relationship seems a bit of a stretch, but I'll comply. Would this also mean that I shouldn't participate in Talk Page discussions on the articles as well? KP (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@KumareshPassoupathi: You can absolutely participate in talk page discussions on articles with which you have a COI. Perhaps this guide for COI will help; see the first three bullets of "Summary" in particular. — MarkH21talk 08:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@MarkH21:! Thanks for taking the time out to help me understand! I'll follow these guidelines! Thanks again to the other users, Bri, WBG, Harshil169 and User:DBigXray for helping me get here! :) Happy Wiki-ing everybody!

Draft:Cameron Cornelius (Basketball)

Autobiography, isn't notable. Idan (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Jacy Reese

Lockedinthebox (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I am concerned about the Jacy Reese Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacy_Reese), and a user called Bodole. It seems likely that Bodole might be Jacy, one of Jacy's friends or loved ones, or someone paid by Jacy.

My concern is that the Jacy Reese Wikipedia page seems to be used as a method of disinformation--as a method of hiding true information--rather than being used to spread true information. Specifically, the page seems to be treated as a diversion so that, if someone tries to research Jacy, they won't be able to find information about his past.

This is because the user called Bodole goes to a great deal of effort to stop Jacy's original name (Anthis) and school (Brown) from ever appearing on the Wikipedia page. He seems to have an alert set to remove this factual information any time it appears.

Jacy's original name was Jacy Anthis and he originally went to Brown University. Jacy's original name is easily demonstrated from many, many sources. To share a few: (1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NrhuXtFEo, (2) https://earad.io/introduction-to-animal-advocacy-jacy-anthis/, (3) http://www.thehighimpactnetwork.org/about, (4) https://animalcharityevaluators.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/26.07.15Boardmeetingminutes.pdf, (5) https://issuu.com/browndailyherald/docs/2011-09-06 (photograph of Jacy Reese labeled as Jacy Anthis), (6) http://web.archive.org/web/20190328223000/medium.com/@marcgunther/the-peculiar-metoo-story-of-animal-activist-jacy-reese-eb921b72c9c9. And Jacy's original school can be found from sources such as this school paper photograph: https://issuu.com/browndailyherald/docs/2011-09-06.

Jacy ended up graduating from a different school, though, and recently started going by Jacy Reese. After that, he seems to have started doing a lot of things with the goal of making himself well-known under this new name, and his Wikipedia page appeared. Presumably, the goal of the name change was to avoid people researching information about Jacy's past that Jacy would prefer to keep quiet.

I understand that Wikipedia isn't a place to spread negative rumors about a living person. But it also shouldn't be a tool that a living person can use to (1) promote himself and (2) prevent the world from accurately researching him. In other words, without this Wikipedia page, it would be that much easier for someone to Google Jacy and find his original last name or school. And that would lead them to other factual, accurate information, which would be useful for them to know. The Wikipedia page, as currently designed, helps blot out that kind of information.

As a result, multiple different users have added information to Jacy Reese's Wikipedia page stating his original name (Anthis) and school (Brown). Each time, the user called Bodole removes that information. Bodole gave lots of reasons for removing the information, but the reasons never really made sense. He would say the info needed a source and state, blanketly, that none of the sources were good enough. But he wouldn't engage with the individual sources to explain why they were deficient. Worse yet, the user Bodole himself has added information to this very same Jacy Reese Wikipedia page which was poorly sourced, such as citing to Jacy Reese's personal website, JacyReese.com, or Jacy Reese's Facebook page. Additionally, there is plenty of other information on the Jacy Reese Wikipedia page which lacks any source at all. But Bodole hasn't removed that information--He only removes Jacy's original name (Anthis) and School (Brown).

What's the evidence that Bodole is Jacy, or an agent of Jacy? My main reason is that a huge portion of Bodole's editing is focused on (1) the Jacy Reese page, (2) the Sentience Institute page (a group started by Jacy and his romantic partner), and (3) the End of Animal Farming page (a book written by Jacy). My other reason is that Bodole is dedicated to removing Jacy's old name or school from the page.

Seeing all this concerned me. I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor. This experience is teaching me about the power and importance of editing Wikipedia. Until recently, I just read Wikipedia. But when I read the Jacy Reese Wikipedia page, I knew something was wrong. That caused me to dig into the information I'm explaining above. And I also started trying to re-add Jacy's old name (Anthis) and school (Brown) myself. Bodole again removed them. Bodole's explanation was that all my six sources can't possibly show Jacy's "birth" name--They just show that, at some point, he went by another name. True. So I made another edit where I said that Jacy Anthis was Jacy's previous name--But didn't use the word "birth." Bodole still reverted it, and then commented on my user page saying that I'm edit warring.

Bodole also hasn't given a real explanation for why Brown University can't be listed. At first, University of Texas was listed without a citation, so I added Brown, also without a citation. He removed it. Since I pointed out that U of T didn't have a citation, he added a citation to Jacy Reese's personal website. So I added Brown back in, with a citation this time to the Brown school paper, which is surely a better source than JacyReese.com. But he removed it again.

I feel stressed and anxious and I don't know what to do. I am reaching out to you all for help. I don't care if this Wikipedia page exists. I am fine with it being taken down entirely. But I can't stand to live in a world where this page exists just to affirmatively hide the truth. There are good reasons why people should have the ability to research someone's past before they choose to engage with that person, introduce that person to others, or give that person a platform. Thank you all for your help.

Lockedinthebox (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I started editing Wikipedia last year intending to provide improvements where I could given the subjects I know and don't know about. There has been several people pushing for what I see as inappropriate or misleading edits on Jacy Reese and related pages so I have ended up making many of my edits on those pages. I am not editing with any agenda except the improvement of Wikipedia according to its goals therein, and I do not have any conflict of interest regarding these pages. It appears to me that most of Lockedinthebox's concerns listed here are about specific issues with the Jacy Reese page. If you look at the Talk page, you will see that I have responded to their comments thoroughly and provided reasoning for my viewpoints on the page itself. I am happy to continue discussing these substantive topics on the Talk page in an effort to reach consensus, and I will avoid repeating myself unduly on this page. Bodole (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Onix Audio

I just did a big trim on the article for Onix Audio, which formerly featured a mountain of unsourced trivia and an incoherent lead full of inline external links. Tonyb1961 (who I believe is the Tony Brady referenced in his preferred version of the article) has reverted me, accusing me of 'Vandalsim', and remarking on my talk page that englsih is not you native langauge. Would appreciate a few more eyes on this. MrOllie (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, This.. feels like Tonyb is bordering on violating WP:PERSONAL to me, if he has not already done so. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to add on, Tonyb is asking for my help on the same article, see my talkpage. My views are as per MrOllie that he is the same Tony Brady of Onix Audio. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The user has since also been reported at AN3 for edit warring on this article. –Erakura(talk) 03:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 24 hours at WP:AN3. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Per Moonythedwarf, the user was indeed blocked 24 hours by Bradv; however, a cursory look at the user's contributions indicates they are a 7-year old single-purpose account with an obvious COI with regards to Onix Audio. Hopefully their COI editing ceases after the block expires, but I am doubtful. –Erakura(talk) 04:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
An SPA with one edit reverted the article back to Tonyb's version with the comment "Restoirng information that was remoevd by based editor". Sounds like a sock.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Soaveidea  Blocked and tagged and Tonyb1961's block extended — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Thisisqaziakash/sandbox

The new user is using their sandbox to make an autobiography. Idan (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Zvikorn, tagged for deletion as misuse of userspace (not a plausible draft). creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Veerabrahmam nakka

Appears to have created an autobiography draft at Draft:Veerabrahmam nakka film director. Hog Farm (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Newport Life Magazine

An IP has been editing a newspaper supplement's article over a period of hours. The article has been tagged as a COI problem for years. I have left three messages asking them to disclose their paid status but they have not responded. Ifnord (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Music Academy of the West

Music Academy of the West got promotional edits by user MusicAcademyW on 22 October 2019. I asked them to disclose COI. They didn't, but stopped editing. Shortly after, user ArmenianHoosier started editing in similar fashion, I asked them to disclose COI, they didn't either. Today, ArmenianHoosier came back for a good faith edit. I don't know how to handle this, since the proof of COI could potentialy out them. Help? --OrestesLebt (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Edits by IP 12.164.248.9 in 2007 seem to have been made from a device controlled by the Music Academy of the West.[51] --OrestesLebt (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I've started a SPI investigation. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Wendy Mayer

New editor who has updated the page with what I perceived to be resume like content and non-independent sources, and said it is the only article they intend to edit [52]. I asked the editor if they have a conflict of interest but they did not respond. They have instead continued the same kinds of edits and asked many questions reflecting what I believe is a misunderstanding of the issues, but then asked me not to correspond with them further [53] (also making an editorial comment about me within the article [54]). Requesting some other editors look at the potential COI and other issues. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Could be, but what makes you think he or she has a conflict of interest? Maybe this person is just not used to the way we do things. Also, it's best if you don't make comments in the Edit summaries. You can use the Talk page for that. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
BeenAroundAWhile the question about conflict of interest seems to be a pretty usual one to ask of WP:SPA editors who add unsourced details/personal information and other resume like content, I'm not sure why it strikes you as odd to ask? Melcous (talk)`
Hm. Well, all the info here seems to be sourced. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Manufacturedstudios

Using user page solely to self promote and user is managed by multiple people Idan (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey I am using the page as a professional to contribute to the WikiArt community. I will remove the InfoBox on my page if that is what is being considered "Self Promotion" I am here to help. Sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused. Manufacturedstudios (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, Manufacturedstusios seems to be an account representing an art gallery. I looked at the public web site for Manufactured Studios and it would appear they are in a different kind of art business than the kind that tries to sell old paintings. Additionally the account is only editing the draft above. Things seem to all be in good faith here. Just to be sure though, @Manufacturedstudios: could you confirm that you do not have a commercial interest in creating the Elizabeth Searcy draft? I think the only problem here is probably your choice of a username, as it represents a business. See WP:USERNAME for how to change that, and welcome to Wikipedia. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Searcy is of no connection to me. I looked to the Brooks Art Museum in Memphis at the female artist they have and she was the only one without a Wiki page. After learning she did work for the President I considered creating her page. I do not wish to promote anyone only to help drive forward Wikipedia’s Art information. I am affiliated with the online gallery website but after realizing linking it was promotional I quickly took it down. Manufactured Studios represents work from mainly none notable artist. I personally just love art history and would like to do my part in contribution. I apologize again for any wrong doings as I am still new to the wiki world. Manufacturedstudios (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Well that all sounds good, and thanks for explaining! Also welcome! We can use more editors with your interests. I think you might be smart to change your username. See Wikipedia:Changing_username, which is actually he correct link to do so. If you have any questions or need help on articles, drop me a line on my talk page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Manufacturedstudios/ArtWorldEditor has been blocked as confirmed to a promotional sockfarm, along with User:FadedOrange. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FadedOrange. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, some of the stuff on that Manufactured Studios website makes my eyebrow raise. He created Manufactured Studios Inc. to provide independent artist access to the gate kept privileges only available to gallery artist... Manufactured Studios Inc. was founded on the principal that independent artist deserve access to the gate kept luxuries only galleries have access to. Offering insider information and advice for younger artist the Independent Gallery is redefining what it means to be a fine artist in the internet era. Maybe I'm paranoid, but that sort of sounds like an advertisement for PR and/or paid editing. Might want to keep an eye out to see if articles on this gallery's artists pop up in the future. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Add another one to the list of times I have been taken in by a convincing sock. Not so many on that list, but there are a few.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Angela Orebaugh

Adding unsourced promotional content to article, as username indicates. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 21:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Belkas SC

User has admitted COI at own talk page. Poorly sourced and promotional content, edit warring. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

User has been warned about WP:PAID disclosure and edit warring. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Unambiguous advertising (again)

I reported this user here once before, for promoting a non-notable DJ named G50X. The user apologized, admitting that the DJ was his close friend and he wouldn't promote anything related to him again. It so happens that the new Records label that he created a page for, also belongs to someone who goes by the alias G50X. This is a case of COI and promotion after warning. Daiyusha (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Listed this editor at WP:AIV as a promotion-only account but it was declined. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Promotion on Armin Navabi

So I came across this BLP where the latter user has a WP:COI. That, however, is not the real problem. The problem is that the COI user has alleged that (among other actors) the two IPs have engaged in spam and promotion for a rival Facebook group of the same name. There may be legal action pending in the name dispute, but I have discerned no on-wiki legal threats yet. I did redact some comments on the article talk page because they were designed to promote the Facebook group. So far, that may be as far as it goes. But, as we say, more eyes would be appreciated. Elizium23 (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Changingguardsatbuckinghampalace

Another paid editing sockfarm. There is a lot of articles - I don't have time today to send everything to the UPE quarantine pool or tag, so I'm posting here. This sockfarm appears to be socially engineering, riding on the backs of the effort to address gender bias. That said, many of their articles about women work in spam-prone professions. MER-C 20:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

There's about 100 articles affected (so not listing them here), still not all tagged. I have quarantined 36 of them. MER-C 10:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Wiki-PR/Status Labs

Editors here may be interested in the RfC about Status Labs at

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#WMF Legal should enforce the Terms of Use against Status Labs to the fullest extent of the law

Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Dario Hunter

WP:BIOSELF WP:BLPSELF WP:COISELF

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dario_Hunter#Be_aware_that_Dario_Hunter_is_trying_to_alter_his_biography_before_2020_rally and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dario_Hunter&action=history

Apparently

are Dario Hunter himself, as he revealed in the edit history comments what he knew about the bogus copyright claims he sent to the web archives before the information was published on the talk page.

62.192.168.106 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

"as he revealed in the edit history comments what he knew about the bogus copyright claims he sent to the web archives before the information was published on the talk page." Huh? That doesn't appear at all in the edit history comments. In light of the talk page posting, I suspect there's a conflict of interest here. It sounds like someone with an axe to grind because of a complaint against them for copyright violations. Oh, and please sign your postings! 2605:E000:1701:C274:A9DB:BBD3:FF5E:ABD1 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Doña Ana Community College

This new editor initially created his or her account with the name "DACC-ExtRel." He or she has exclusively edited Doña Ana Community College so it's reasonable to surmise that he or she works for the college in its public ("external") relations unit. Although he or she has been warned about editing that article, he or she has ignored those warnings and has not acknowledged the obvious conflict of interest and violation of our prohibition against undisclosed paid editing. ElKevbo (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Spaniards and Portuguese people pages COI by user

<[[55]]> <[[56]]> This article keeps on being reverted by the user who has Conflict of Interest (proved by previous aliases) on this article and an obsession with manipulating content as attested on this endless strong of historical edits. Conversely the same user is on a mission to have the opposite end-result on this page I’ve tried Talk [[57]], See from Talk:

...In the Lead the Arab history of the Iberian Peninsula appears perfectly, I am not denying the influence or Arab history. Avoid adding equal or very similar information so as not to saturate the Lead of the same content. You have already been notified of this. NormanGear (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2020 NormanGear I am absolutely not repeating content. This is rhetoric you invoke when trying to justify your manipulation of this topic. My edits make complete sense in the historical context I placed them- an introduction which is further developed in the Lead, similarly to all other aspects in this Lead (and most academic articles which denote logical structure). There is a beginning, a development and a conclusion. Your rationale does not apply those. Your reverts reflect personal opinions and harassment as I have witnessed no such blatant antagonism, let alone systematic reverts from any other users. You appear to have made this topic personal, considering these are your sole contributions to Wikipedia. Again, I refer to Wikipedia:Five pillars namely: WP:5P2 WP:5P4. Finally and to address wrong assumptions you used previously “I noticed that Portuguese people are very nationalist”. I am British English, totally bilingual and with a fair knowledge of Spanish culture too. So again, you are going by pre-conceptions when suggesting I might take this personally. That is not the case, just to clarify. Melroross (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)...

Reported WANI, Harassment, Incidents to Administrators, asked for Third Party view/neutral collaboration... to no avail:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spaniards&action=history

Versus

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_people&action=history

Melroross (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Propagandist with poor English

User editing from the IP address 213.21.60.4 has little grasp of the english language and refuses to use sandbox instead of publishing their incoherent gobbly-gook in the mainspace. I first noticed their problematic writing when their appalling edits to Yekaterina Zelenko came up on my watchlist. Upon further review of their contributions, I observed a pattern of machine-translated Stalinist apologetics (like changing the link to "Soviet war crimes" to "Allied war crimes" in the article about Destruction battalions, changing Karelia from Finnish to Soviet, and formatting paragraphs in Russian Wikipedia style instead of English Wikipedia style). Worthy of a block to prevent further damage from their behavior. Can't say if they are a typical vestnik narrative-pusher or if they are in a more official capacity involving a financial COI, but either way unacceptable.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sheldon Yellen

The ip removed referenced content with an edit summary that they are from Belfor USA corporate team, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

A single edit of this nature, once reverted, hardly warrants a case here. And you have not left the required notification of this discussion on the IP's talk page. Furthermore, some of the material the IP removed, and you restored, was a BLP policy violoation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok, but it was referenced to an interview in a reliable source where the subject said it himself, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The subject (of that BLP violation) did not say it; his son did. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_154&oldid=940201603"