![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A reputation management firm has been retained by Jonathan Dach to secure the deletion of his article from WP (see: [1]). Within minutes of WWB Too posting a request for an uninvolved editor to nom the page for deletion, a freshly minted account - that became active just 30 days ago [2] - immediately chimed in (within 54 minutes) saying they would do so [3] (note that this article's Talk page has averaged 0.2 daily page views this month - not exactly a hotbed of interaction that would organically attract viewers). It seems clear and obvious to me the shell game this firm is attempting to run. Further discussion is at the BLP Noticeboard. As I just went through this same thing with the people trying to sanitize and whitewash the Frank Gaffney article, I'm pinging those editors involved in that one as well, namely - DMacks and Doug Weller. This is not a canvassing of editors but an alert of persons who have a special background in these types of sensitive situations. (For the record, I'm not entirely convinced this article doesn't merit deletion - it may, I'm undecided - my issue is more with gaming its expungement.) LavaBaron ( talk) 21:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A single purpose and apparently autobiographical account. I'm on the fence as to whether WP:ARTIST, let alone general notability guidelines, are satisfied. A show in a small museum and a few articles don't appear to constitute significant coverage or significance, though work in several museum collections is helpful. Still, this needs better sourcing and removal of copied text and puffery. I admit, I'm loathe to copy edit an article with any enthusiasm when it's clearly a self-promotional vehicle. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 20:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
User has specifically and only edited content for Dan Price and his company Gravity Payments. Most notably commending Dan Price on the company page and removing any negative (and well-cited) information from the person's page. A search of the IP address links it directly to Gravity Payments in Seattle. "GRAVITY PAYMENTS PAET-SEA-GRAVI-1 (NET-40-139-138-240-1) 40.139.138.240 - 40.139.138.247 Windstream Communications Inc WINDSTREAM (NET-40-128-0-0-1) 40.128.0.0 - 40.143.255.255" — Preceding unsigned comment added by InitiatedCall ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 April 2016
User:Fabyan17 has declared that they are the son of Vicente S. Santos, Jr. in this post made on Wikimedia Commons. Fabyan17 has been informed a number of times that he is considered to have a conflict of interest (as defined by Wikipedia) at User talk:Fabyan17#Conflict of interest on Vicente S. Santos, Jr. as well as in Talk:Vicente S. Santos, Jr.#COI issues, but he insists that he does not. He has also been advised/warned twice here and here that it would be better for him to discuss changes other editors have made to try and improve the article on the article's talk page, instead of engaging in edit warring as he has done here, here and here. Requests for assistance in assessing the article were posted at WT:TAMBAY#Vicente S. Santos, Jr., WT:MILHIST#Vicente S. Santos, Jr. and WT:BIOG#Vicente S. Santos, Jr. to try and get feedback from other editors. Two who responded, Anotherclown and Keith-264, and myself have made to good-faith attempts to try and improve the article, but these have been reverted by three times without discussion by Fabyan17. So, perhaps other editors from this noticeboard would be willing to review the edits and assess according to WP:COI. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
In March, 2016, User:Joeldiamond made this horn-tooting edit "from actual manager & producer Joel Diamond". Mr. Diamond was cautioned here on his talk page regarding a conflict of interest. Today, Mr. Diamond added himself here as a "notable person" to Calabasas, California. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Biophony has contributed extensively to a group of five closely-related articles
all of which have numerous citations of papers by Bernie Krause. He has also contributed to
I'm not saying there's anything wrong here, the articles are all competently written without obvious bias. But there's strong evidence of CoI, and I'd like a more experienced editor to have a look. Maproom ( talk) 11:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Creation of a hagiography for Alexander Tuschinski and promotion of his endeavors.
ATuschinski shares a name with the centre of this spam.
The first 16 articles above are the first 16 articles created by Mike300578. All link back to Tuschinski. The next 4 are by ATuschinski, also linking back to Tuschinski.
There is more editing that links back to Tuschinski. This is one big mass of promotion for an individual with questionable notability.
duffbeerforme (
talk)
10:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Have blocked User:Berkoar. They first added copyrighted content. Than they stated that they work for the school in question. Requested they read WP:COI; however, they have not disclosed and continue to edit. Thought? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Akash Dahariya has been editing extensively within the Bollywood area of interest, despite the fact that it is clear that this person is involved himself, as shown here. In particular, see here and take note of who wrote the Mini Bio. Vicky Kewat, whose article is up for deletion. Akash has been warned twice on his talk page about WP:COI here and here but he appears to have taken no notice whatsoever, extensively editing Dinesh Soi since the warnings (I have just a few moments ago reverted all of them under WP:COI). Strongly recommend a warning from an admin and if that fails a block is recommended. 1.125.48.81 ( talk) 11:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be writing WP articles for IDEA Public Schools Other edits also look paid for. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Recreated here as the copyright issue at Byron Good was deleted.
Discussion here [11]
Thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion underway concerning guidance for editors on removal of template messages, and specifically whether they should be removed by COI and paid editors. See [12] Coretheapple ( talk) 15:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi all, first time doing one of these. I believe this page's article has a significant COI; specifically WP:COISELF and WP:EXTERNALREL. I'm not sure who to email with external evidence as I obviously can't post some of it here owing to WP:OUTING, but nonetheless there's some on the article history. An edit by this user on an Old revision of Ashley Reed was commented with ″If you try to remove the bit about Reed being a delegate to Womens Conference- are you really expecting a source to exist? I was the returning officer. Trust me it happened, she won, end of.″ This user is the creator and significant editor of the page — this comment displays a relationship between the two and its use in justifying an edit. I believe it stands as evidence to this user writing the article with a clear COI, and thus the extent to which it adheres to NPOV is also questionable — plus, of course, external evidence which I'd like to email. Thanks all — like I say, first time process, and I'm not entirely sure on what I'm doing, so more than welcome on feedback etc.
Maragil ( talk) 13:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
These users, most with an obvious username connection to TechnologyOne, are all single-purpose accounts adding promotional content to the article about the company. Many of their edits have been reverted by established users over the years and warnings have been given, but the pattern is persistent dating back to at least 2009. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 14:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art4em/Archive
User:Wwwwhatupprrr has recently created an article Julia Friedman which was nominated for deletion and with a messy AfD. I noticed that Wwwwhatupprrr had created the article and had edit warred to remove the COI tag. I tried to open a discussion on their talk page. Somehow I was met with "uncivil comments". You can read the exchange and see that the editor denied all connections. However, there a lot of inconsistencies in the editor's approach which makes me suspect that the editor is actually linked to PCP Press or Lawrence Williams (The Estate of LG Williams) and that it is the publisher who is trying to create this Wikipedia article. Here are some evidence which I would like others to examine.
It appears that the JAVA's website has been reconstructed, which is why I did not find it in the first place. So, I have yet to find another digital version at the time of writing.
I want the community to have a look and determine if the evidence is reasonable. I strongly suspect this is a sockpuppet of User:Art4em and what we have is a case of WP:PROMO. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 04:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
User used the talk page of the Women in the art history field article to promote an issue of Coagula, also similar promo material added to the article on Eric Minh Swenson, one of the subjects being covered in the issue. Coagula is a magazine that is called out in the Julia Freedman article as one that endorsed the subject. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 05:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi! I work for a communications firm that represents Applied Materials, and I've been working with Altamel on some edit requests to the Applied Materials article, here. (Please refer to my most recent reply, dated 4 May, for the latest in the discussion.) In particular, I've proposed a couple short paragraphs (fully sourced) to flesh out a gap in the article's "History" section, and I've also provided secondary sources for much of the information already in the article (which is flagged as relying too much on primary sources). Altamel asked me to seek a second opinion on these latest requests, which is why I'm here. If anyone can glance over what I've proposed and provide feedback, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you! Mary Gaulke ( talk) 01:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been an active contributor to this article between 2008 and 2012. But I have done contract work with this person in 2009 and 2010. After then, I was became disassociated with the subject for personal reasons. I haven't been sure about my "connected contributor" status and cited WP:IAR as a reason not to disclose, as I have edited the article according to policy. Today, I decided to tag myself as a connected contributor. Does this count as COI? -- wL< speak· check> 23:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Starting in April 2016, IP-editor User:64.60.211.2 has a clear pattern of SPA editing in theater-related articles, focussing on tangential namedropping for Darryl Maximilian Robinson and the Excaliber Shakespeare Company in as many Wikipedia articles as possible (see Special:Contributions/64.60.211.2). Both topics appear to be non-notable (by Wikipedia's standards). Despite notices and warnings from several editors (see User talk:64.60.211.2) the editor continues to add this content. To be clear, the content is not outright promotional, but overly detailed puffery with completely undue WP:WEIGHT in most of the affected articles. As the editor has ignored talkpage message so far, I'd appreciate another uninvolved look into the user's editing pattern. GermanJoe ( talk) 16:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Have been doing a fair bit of follow up of the copy and paste bots flagged concerns. [13]
What becomes quickly obvious is a large portion of copyright issues come from "paid editors"
For example I blocked this person User:Authorincharge as they had repeatedly added copyrighted material. They claim that they have permission to do so as the person's editor.
How should this sort of situation be handled? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
These users wish to return to editing. What restrictions should be placed on them? A few I would consider essential:
Thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Kioj156 is insistent on adding particular rankings to the lead para, to the point where Banedon (with a much more diverse edit history) has opened a WP:DRN case based on it. literally all of Kioj156's edits have been to articles that pertain in some way to St. Andrew's university, so i suspect undisclosed COI. SubcommandanteLOL ( talk) 06:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It has come to my attention that there is an off-wiki campaign (prob SEO related, via Peopleperhour) to promote DigitGaps on ENWP and delete articles relating to several named competitors. One probable related account appears to have replied by clumsily blanking the articles. The other has started PRODding. Brianhe ( talk) 01:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
It seems that editors are adding promotion to this article, such as User:NJgirl07005. More eyes would be appreciated. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vbctv created this article, sourced entirely from the company site. It has all of three employees. The company used to be called VBC TV. Seems pretty clear to me. MSJapan ( talk) 01:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A user (first edit) deleted content about criminal history of fraudulent sale of franchises, diff the article is on my watchlist from an AfD I voted on.
Here was my logic for keeping:
* Keep the company is notable because it doesn't seem to be dying a natural death, even after the owner was arrested for check fraud and the assets (without the liabilities) were purchased from Java Jo's where that former owner served time for tax evasion charges. [17] The Cuppy's website is still active and they appear to still be attempting to sell franchises. My first impression is that this may be a pyramid scheme and that the article should (more prominently) detail more of the company's sordid past. This is information which, if it proves to be RS, should be easily attainable to anyone considering doing business with the firm. The knife cuts both ways, Wikipedia articles can have the effect of keeping corporations honest, deleting this article may be a favor to a possibly less than reputable firm. [18]
I would have just reverted, but I'm not really feeling the community spirit right now. 009o9 Disclosure (Talk) 19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blatant WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour going on here. The editor Ankitkmwt has admitted a COI and it attempting to use the page for promotion. They had copied stuff from the movie's website which I had tagged for revdel but my tags were removed multiple times and the editor refuses to understand. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 17:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll watch the page. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
A single purpose account dedicated to promoting Ben Rider and his films.. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
BIG W DDS ( talk · contribs) has recently made several edits to Big W, at least some of which are (in my opinion) blatantly promotional. Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd welcome a bit of external input and comment on this bio. (Sorry, don't usually use this board.) It's a new article about a Harvard academic - created first by an account with the name of the department she heads (which got blocked and invited to change name), then an account with the name of an administrator there, and now from an IP after that account got a COI notice. All these edits (presumably the same editor) have been totally promotional and none of the accounts have done any kind of response to warnings or done anything like disclosure. (Text like that she "has been a leading scholar and activist at the at the intersection of health, human rights and development for over 20 years. She has been a pioneer in the development of the right to health" etc.)
I've tried to explain the problems politely on the user account talk pages (the academic does seem notable), toned down the promotional language in the article (much of it would be true for any high-level academic) and add in external sources, but they just reverted everything without discussion. I'm not that much of an expert on COI problems, so I'd prefer it if someone else took a look since I don't want to seem too like I won't get off their back, but it does seem like ownership behaviour. Blythwood ( talk) 16:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
In this edit, the user blatantly admits: "I was co-founder and First Production Director". User has also attempted to use their own personal website as a source. Electric Burst( Electron firings)( Zaps) 23:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
(moved from User:KatrinaMcCaffery & User:Kittymccaffery, above)
On further investigation, I discovered this second account ( Kittymccaffery ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) which lead to Kevin Healey (autism activist), (as recently discovered) he asked her to raise his profile which led to this Tumblr page and RMcD's and then when I nominated it for AfD, this led to him getting angry because of it, a number of abuse I received by him and his social media friends as well as they abusing Wikipedia, also as a result of me placing this nomination to WP:DSD, he found an open space for his soapbox and encouraged his followers to troll me. ( You can see the rest of the harassment I received by him and his friends.) Since the AfD, he now treats his Wikipedia page like if it's his social media page ( OWN) he feels entitled to. After all this, I still question the notability as none of these source say how is he notable, all they say is that he is "leading activist" because that's what he proclaims himself. Talking of editor retention Wikipedia likes to talk about, I say to them good luck with that because this has hastened my "retirement plan" further soon as hopefully week. They don't simply know how to protect their editors from this type of harassment and I simply lost faith in Wikipedia totally. I just don't know what is the next step? TBH, Donnie Park ( talk) 20:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:JonathanGodwin created a page for National Center for Victims of Crime in March 2016. This is the user's first and only Wikipedia edit in the last four years. Article only has primary sources cited, absolutely no secondary sources. Article reads like an advertisement. Possible financial conflict of interest. Questionable notability for the organization. ~ Quacks Like a Duck ( talk) 21:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking over the edit history of this user, it seems like their only interest is Suman and his productions. Both articles listed above are rather spammy, I think, and the references are flimsy (most are stuff published by Suman himself). I am not too familiar with what is needed for a journalist to be considered notable, but Suman does not seem to meet WP:JOURNALIST. However, before doing anything, I'd rather have some other opinions of some of the regulars here. Randykitty ( talk) 16:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I recently reverted the edits of this user on the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) article, because the source he cited comes from his own works. I'm not sure if the sources fit the reliable sources policy, but since he is the author of the source and because this is a controversial article, I wanted to make sure that I'm going through the correct channels first. He isn't a representative (upper level administration) of INC but the author of a book which is critical of it, so I would like to ask if this is COI, and how he approach the article. -- wL< speak· check> 19:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
As I can tell from the conversation between the user and @ SwisterTwister:, this isn't a COI problem, my apologies. But this became a complex issue that may need the attention of the original research noticeboard or invocation of Ignore all rules.
According to the talk page of KatrinaMcCaffery ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), these appeared to be her clients according to her client list and one of those she created because she claims to admire. Donnie Park ( talk) 18:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The article TheLiberal.ie was created on 27 October 2015 by Keepfightingeveryday, their only ever edit. I have serious concerns that all of the above are single-purpose accounts with an obvious conflict of interes, namely an agenda of promoting TheLiberal.ie and presenting it in the best possible light:
On the face of it, there definitely seems to be COI at play:
Ultimately I think it's fairly obvious we're dealing with a series of sockpuppet account with a serious COI. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
NB: Article has now been deleted; the SPI is ongoing. Would still like a resolution to the COI of issue. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Probably a new account - COI editing - above user is author of a French language book he/she is trying to insert as a reference into the College and university rankings article (diff here: [21]). It appears they have changed text in this article to reflect book content as the source - which I will roll back shortly (diff here: [22]). They have also edited the other two listed articles in such a way as to somehow add the College and university rankings article into the text or as a part of a reference. I have been rolling back their edits in these other articles. I will have to double check to see if I got all of it. I wonder if this person is doing the same to the French and Swiss Wikipedia since French and Swiss seem to be their focus at the moment, as can be seen by their edits. Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
If an editor operates a website devoted exclusively to advocating for a particular person, does that editor have a conflict of interest with respect to editing that person's WP article? 32.218.46.78 ( talk) 18:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems that the August Burns Red's management don't like the reliable sources that state the band is "Christian" band. The band has attempted to distance themselves from the moniker, but RSes disagree. With that said, the user's comment while making the revert, "As a label representative speaking on behalf of the band", seems to be that the account was created for one purpose: to push a specific PoV. I usually like insiders editing, but I can't stand censorship. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
COI. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 00:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This appears to be a single use account that was created to promote Matthewswood Productions, its films, and employees. A notice about COI, promotion, and username policies was placed on their talk page after the first page ( EMO the Musical) was created, and they have continued to create pages without notice. JamesG5 ( talk) 05:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Dictionarylady has a conflict of interest regarding this article (see discussion at User talk:Cordless Larry#re: Jayne Joso and the edit summary here), which is an unsourced BLP but too old to qualify for proposed deletion on those grounds alone. I could do with some help working out what to do with the article content. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
This article seems to be heavily edited by the above three SPAs, and Nnahum was given a COI template back in 2012, with no apparent further action. The last username, who is an active user, should definitely be blocked for promo, and the other two are stale by now, but I will bet there's some sockpuppetry going on. MSJapan ( talk) 06:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
85.118.69.49 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adding references to S. Georgiev to multiple articles, including fringe references. Also abusing multiple accounts: 85.118.68.17 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Aabatangle makes edits to the Untangle page, in some cases removing critical comments and performing ongoing unsourced updates to the page.
No response to my talk page comment, I believe this user is being a naughty boy and should be censured appropriately. Deku-shrub ( talk) 19:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A reputation management firm has been retained by Jonathan Dach to secure the deletion of his article from WP (see: [1]). Within minutes of WWB Too posting a request for an uninvolved editor to nom the page for deletion, a freshly minted account - that became active just 30 days ago [2] - immediately chimed in (within 54 minutes) saying they would do so [3] (note that this article's Talk page has averaged 0.2 daily page views this month - not exactly a hotbed of interaction that would organically attract viewers). It seems clear and obvious to me the shell game this firm is attempting to run. Further discussion is at the BLP Noticeboard. As I just went through this same thing with the people trying to sanitize and whitewash the Frank Gaffney article, I'm pinging those editors involved in that one as well, namely - DMacks and Doug Weller. This is not a canvassing of editors but an alert of persons who have a special background in these types of sensitive situations. (For the record, I'm not entirely convinced this article doesn't merit deletion - it may, I'm undecided - my issue is more with gaming its expungement.) LavaBaron ( talk) 21:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A single purpose and apparently autobiographical account. I'm on the fence as to whether WP:ARTIST, let alone general notability guidelines, are satisfied. A show in a small museum and a few articles don't appear to constitute significant coverage or significance, though work in several museum collections is helpful. Still, this needs better sourcing and removal of copied text and puffery. I admit, I'm loathe to copy edit an article with any enthusiasm when it's clearly a self-promotional vehicle. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 20:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
User has specifically and only edited content for Dan Price and his company Gravity Payments. Most notably commending Dan Price on the company page and removing any negative (and well-cited) information from the person's page. A search of the IP address links it directly to Gravity Payments in Seattle. "GRAVITY PAYMENTS PAET-SEA-GRAVI-1 (NET-40-139-138-240-1) 40.139.138.240 - 40.139.138.247 Windstream Communications Inc WINDSTREAM (NET-40-128-0-0-1) 40.128.0.0 - 40.143.255.255" — Preceding unsigned comment added by InitiatedCall ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 April 2016
User:Fabyan17 has declared that they are the son of Vicente S. Santos, Jr. in this post made on Wikimedia Commons. Fabyan17 has been informed a number of times that he is considered to have a conflict of interest (as defined by Wikipedia) at User talk:Fabyan17#Conflict of interest on Vicente S. Santos, Jr. as well as in Talk:Vicente S. Santos, Jr.#COI issues, but he insists that he does not. He has also been advised/warned twice here and here that it would be better for him to discuss changes other editors have made to try and improve the article on the article's talk page, instead of engaging in edit warring as he has done here, here and here. Requests for assistance in assessing the article were posted at WT:TAMBAY#Vicente S. Santos, Jr., WT:MILHIST#Vicente S. Santos, Jr. and WT:BIOG#Vicente S. Santos, Jr. to try and get feedback from other editors. Two who responded, Anotherclown and Keith-264, and myself have made to good-faith attempts to try and improve the article, but these have been reverted by three times without discussion by Fabyan17. So, perhaps other editors from this noticeboard would be willing to review the edits and assess according to WP:COI. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
In March, 2016, User:Joeldiamond made this horn-tooting edit "from actual manager & producer Joel Diamond". Mr. Diamond was cautioned here on his talk page regarding a conflict of interest. Today, Mr. Diamond added himself here as a "notable person" to Calabasas, California. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Biophony has contributed extensively to a group of five closely-related articles
all of which have numerous citations of papers by Bernie Krause. He has also contributed to
I'm not saying there's anything wrong here, the articles are all competently written without obvious bias. But there's strong evidence of CoI, and I'd like a more experienced editor to have a look. Maproom ( talk) 11:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Creation of a hagiography for Alexander Tuschinski and promotion of his endeavors.
ATuschinski shares a name with the centre of this spam.
The first 16 articles above are the first 16 articles created by Mike300578. All link back to Tuschinski. The next 4 are by ATuschinski, also linking back to Tuschinski.
There is more editing that links back to Tuschinski. This is one big mass of promotion for an individual with questionable notability.
duffbeerforme (
talk)
10:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Have blocked User:Berkoar. They first added copyrighted content. Than they stated that they work for the school in question. Requested they read WP:COI; however, they have not disclosed and continue to edit. Thought? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Akash Dahariya has been editing extensively within the Bollywood area of interest, despite the fact that it is clear that this person is involved himself, as shown here. In particular, see here and take note of who wrote the Mini Bio. Vicky Kewat, whose article is up for deletion. Akash has been warned twice on his talk page about WP:COI here and here but he appears to have taken no notice whatsoever, extensively editing Dinesh Soi since the warnings (I have just a few moments ago reverted all of them under WP:COI). Strongly recommend a warning from an admin and if that fails a block is recommended. 1.125.48.81 ( talk) 11:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be writing WP articles for IDEA Public Schools Other edits also look paid for. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Recreated here as the copyright issue at Byron Good was deleted.
Discussion here [11]
Thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion underway concerning guidance for editors on removal of template messages, and specifically whether they should be removed by COI and paid editors. See [12] Coretheapple ( talk) 15:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi all, first time doing one of these. I believe this page's article has a significant COI; specifically WP:COISELF and WP:EXTERNALREL. I'm not sure who to email with external evidence as I obviously can't post some of it here owing to WP:OUTING, but nonetheless there's some on the article history. An edit by this user on an Old revision of Ashley Reed was commented with ″If you try to remove the bit about Reed being a delegate to Womens Conference- are you really expecting a source to exist? I was the returning officer. Trust me it happened, she won, end of.″ This user is the creator and significant editor of the page — this comment displays a relationship between the two and its use in justifying an edit. I believe it stands as evidence to this user writing the article with a clear COI, and thus the extent to which it adheres to NPOV is also questionable — plus, of course, external evidence which I'd like to email. Thanks all — like I say, first time process, and I'm not entirely sure on what I'm doing, so more than welcome on feedback etc.
Maragil ( talk) 13:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
These users, most with an obvious username connection to TechnologyOne, are all single-purpose accounts adding promotional content to the article about the company. Many of their edits have been reverted by established users over the years and warnings have been given, but the pattern is persistent dating back to at least 2009. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 14:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art4em/Archive
User:Wwwwhatupprrr has recently created an article Julia Friedman which was nominated for deletion and with a messy AfD. I noticed that Wwwwhatupprrr had created the article and had edit warred to remove the COI tag. I tried to open a discussion on their talk page. Somehow I was met with "uncivil comments". You can read the exchange and see that the editor denied all connections. However, there a lot of inconsistencies in the editor's approach which makes me suspect that the editor is actually linked to PCP Press or Lawrence Williams (The Estate of LG Williams) and that it is the publisher who is trying to create this Wikipedia article. Here are some evidence which I would like others to examine.
It appears that the JAVA's website has been reconstructed, which is why I did not find it in the first place. So, I have yet to find another digital version at the time of writing.
I want the community to have a look and determine if the evidence is reasonable. I strongly suspect this is a sockpuppet of User:Art4em and what we have is a case of WP:PROMO. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 04:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
User used the talk page of the Women in the art history field article to promote an issue of Coagula, also similar promo material added to the article on Eric Minh Swenson, one of the subjects being covered in the issue. Coagula is a magazine that is called out in the Julia Freedman article as one that endorsed the subject. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 05:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi! I work for a communications firm that represents Applied Materials, and I've been working with Altamel on some edit requests to the Applied Materials article, here. (Please refer to my most recent reply, dated 4 May, for the latest in the discussion.) In particular, I've proposed a couple short paragraphs (fully sourced) to flesh out a gap in the article's "History" section, and I've also provided secondary sources for much of the information already in the article (which is flagged as relying too much on primary sources). Altamel asked me to seek a second opinion on these latest requests, which is why I'm here. If anyone can glance over what I've proposed and provide feedback, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you! Mary Gaulke ( talk) 01:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been an active contributor to this article between 2008 and 2012. But I have done contract work with this person in 2009 and 2010. After then, I was became disassociated with the subject for personal reasons. I haven't been sure about my "connected contributor" status and cited WP:IAR as a reason not to disclose, as I have edited the article according to policy. Today, I decided to tag myself as a connected contributor. Does this count as COI? -- wL< speak· check> 23:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Starting in April 2016, IP-editor User:64.60.211.2 has a clear pattern of SPA editing in theater-related articles, focussing on tangential namedropping for Darryl Maximilian Robinson and the Excaliber Shakespeare Company in as many Wikipedia articles as possible (see Special:Contributions/64.60.211.2). Both topics appear to be non-notable (by Wikipedia's standards). Despite notices and warnings from several editors (see User talk:64.60.211.2) the editor continues to add this content. To be clear, the content is not outright promotional, but overly detailed puffery with completely undue WP:WEIGHT in most of the affected articles. As the editor has ignored talkpage message so far, I'd appreciate another uninvolved look into the user's editing pattern. GermanJoe ( talk) 16:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Have been doing a fair bit of follow up of the copy and paste bots flagged concerns. [13]
What becomes quickly obvious is a large portion of copyright issues come from "paid editors"
For example I blocked this person User:Authorincharge as they had repeatedly added copyrighted material. They claim that they have permission to do so as the person's editor.
How should this sort of situation be handled? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
These users wish to return to editing. What restrictions should be placed on them? A few I would consider essential:
Thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Kioj156 is insistent on adding particular rankings to the lead para, to the point where Banedon (with a much more diverse edit history) has opened a WP:DRN case based on it. literally all of Kioj156's edits have been to articles that pertain in some way to St. Andrew's university, so i suspect undisclosed COI. SubcommandanteLOL ( talk) 06:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It has come to my attention that there is an off-wiki campaign (prob SEO related, via Peopleperhour) to promote DigitGaps on ENWP and delete articles relating to several named competitors. One probable related account appears to have replied by clumsily blanking the articles. The other has started PRODding. Brianhe ( talk) 01:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
It seems that editors are adding promotion to this article, such as User:NJgirl07005. More eyes would be appreciated. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vbctv created this article, sourced entirely from the company site. It has all of three employees. The company used to be called VBC TV. Seems pretty clear to me. MSJapan ( talk) 01:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A user (first edit) deleted content about criminal history of fraudulent sale of franchises, diff the article is on my watchlist from an AfD I voted on.
Here was my logic for keeping:
* Keep the company is notable because it doesn't seem to be dying a natural death, even after the owner was arrested for check fraud and the assets (without the liabilities) were purchased from Java Jo's where that former owner served time for tax evasion charges. [17] The Cuppy's website is still active and they appear to still be attempting to sell franchises. My first impression is that this may be a pyramid scheme and that the article should (more prominently) detail more of the company's sordid past. This is information which, if it proves to be RS, should be easily attainable to anyone considering doing business with the firm. The knife cuts both ways, Wikipedia articles can have the effect of keeping corporations honest, deleting this article may be a favor to a possibly less than reputable firm. [18]
I would have just reverted, but I'm not really feeling the community spirit right now. 009o9 Disclosure (Talk) 19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blatant WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour going on here. The editor Ankitkmwt has admitted a COI and it attempting to use the page for promotion. They had copied stuff from the movie's website which I had tagged for revdel but my tags were removed multiple times and the editor refuses to understand. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 17:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll watch the page. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
A single purpose account dedicated to promoting Ben Rider and his films.. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
BIG W DDS ( talk · contribs) has recently made several edits to Big W, at least some of which are (in my opinion) blatantly promotional. Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd welcome a bit of external input and comment on this bio. (Sorry, don't usually use this board.) It's a new article about a Harvard academic - created first by an account with the name of the department she heads (which got blocked and invited to change name), then an account with the name of an administrator there, and now from an IP after that account got a COI notice. All these edits (presumably the same editor) have been totally promotional and none of the accounts have done any kind of response to warnings or done anything like disclosure. (Text like that she "has been a leading scholar and activist at the at the intersection of health, human rights and development for over 20 years. She has been a pioneer in the development of the right to health" etc.)
I've tried to explain the problems politely on the user account talk pages (the academic does seem notable), toned down the promotional language in the article (much of it would be true for any high-level academic) and add in external sources, but they just reverted everything without discussion. I'm not that much of an expert on COI problems, so I'd prefer it if someone else took a look since I don't want to seem too like I won't get off their back, but it does seem like ownership behaviour. Blythwood ( talk) 16:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
In this edit, the user blatantly admits: "I was co-founder and First Production Director". User has also attempted to use their own personal website as a source. Electric Burst( Electron firings)( Zaps) 23:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
(moved from User:KatrinaMcCaffery & User:Kittymccaffery, above)
On further investigation, I discovered this second account ( Kittymccaffery ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) which lead to Kevin Healey (autism activist), (as recently discovered) he asked her to raise his profile which led to this Tumblr page and RMcD's and then when I nominated it for AfD, this led to him getting angry because of it, a number of abuse I received by him and his social media friends as well as they abusing Wikipedia, also as a result of me placing this nomination to WP:DSD, he found an open space for his soapbox and encouraged his followers to troll me. ( You can see the rest of the harassment I received by him and his friends.) Since the AfD, he now treats his Wikipedia page like if it's his social media page ( OWN) he feels entitled to. After all this, I still question the notability as none of these source say how is he notable, all they say is that he is "leading activist" because that's what he proclaims himself. Talking of editor retention Wikipedia likes to talk about, I say to them good luck with that because this has hastened my "retirement plan" further soon as hopefully week. They don't simply know how to protect their editors from this type of harassment and I simply lost faith in Wikipedia totally. I just don't know what is the next step? TBH, Donnie Park ( talk) 20:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:JonathanGodwin created a page for National Center for Victims of Crime in March 2016. This is the user's first and only Wikipedia edit in the last four years. Article only has primary sources cited, absolutely no secondary sources. Article reads like an advertisement. Possible financial conflict of interest. Questionable notability for the organization. ~ Quacks Like a Duck ( talk) 21:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking over the edit history of this user, it seems like their only interest is Suman and his productions. Both articles listed above are rather spammy, I think, and the references are flimsy (most are stuff published by Suman himself). I am not too familiar with what is needed for a journalist to be considered notable, but Suman does not seem to meet WP:JOURNALIST. However, before doing anything, I'd rather have some other opinions of some of the regulars here. Randykitty ( talk) 16:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I recently reverted the edits of this user on the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) article, because the source he cited comes from his own works. I'm not sure if the sources fit the reliable sources policy, but since he is the author of the source and because this is a controversial article, I wanted to make sure that I'm going through the correct channels first. He isn't a representative (upper level administration) of INC but the author of a book which is critical of it, so I would like to ask if this is COI, and how he approach the article. -- wL< speak· check> 19:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
As I can tell from the conversation between the user and @ SwisterTwister:, this isn't a COI problem, my apologies. But this became a complex issue that may need the attention of the original research noticeboard or invocation of Ignore all rules.
According to the talk page of KatrinaMcCaffery ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), these appeared to be her clients according to her client list and one of those she created because she claims to admire. Donnie Park ( talk) 18:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The article TheLiberal.ie was created on 27 October 2015 by Keepfightingeveryday, their only ever edit. I have serious concerns that all of the above are single-purpose accounts with an obvious conflict of interes, namely an agenda of promoting TheLiberal.ie and presenting it in the best possible light:
On the face of it, there definitely seems to be COI at play:
Ultimately I think it's fairly obvious we're dealing with a series of sockpuppet account with a serious COI. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
NB: Article has now been deleted; the SPI is ongoing. Would still like a resolution to the COI of issue. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Probably a new account - COI editing - above user is author of a French language book he/she is trying to insert as a reference into the College and university rankings article (diff here: [21]). It appears they have changed text in this article to reflect book content as the source - which I will roll back shortly (diff here: [22]). They have also edited the other two listed articles in such a way as to somehow add the College and university rankings article into the text or as a part of a reference. I have been rolling back their edits in these other articles. I will have to double check to see if I got all of it. I wonder if this person is doing the same to the French and Swiss Wikipedia since French and Swiss seem to be their focus at the moment, as can be seen by their edits. Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
If an editor operates a website devoted exclusively to advocating for a particular person, does that editor have a conflict of interest with respect to editing that person's WP article? 32.218.46.78 ( talk) 18:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems that the August Burns Red's management don't like the reliable sources that state the band is "Christian" band. The band has attempted to distance themselves from the moniker, but RSes disagree. With that said, the user's comment while making the revert, "As a label representative speaking on behalf of the band", seems to be that the account was created for one purpose: to push a specific PoV. I usually like insiders editing, but I can't stand censorship. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
COI. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 00:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This appears to be a single use account that was created to promote Matthewswood Productions, its films, and employees. A notice about COI, promotion, and username policies was placed on their talk page after the first page ( EMO the Musical) was created, and they have continued to create pages without notice. JamesG5 ( talk) 05:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Dictionarylady has a conflict of interest regarding this article (see discussion at User talk:Cordless Larry#re: Jayne Joso and the edit summary here), which is an unsourced BLP but too old to qualify for proposed deletion on those grounds alone. I could do with some help working out what to do with the article content. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
This article seems to be heavily edited by the above three SPAs, and Nnahum was given a COI template back in 2012, with no apparent further action. The last username, who is an active user, should definitely be blocked for promo, and the other two are stale by now, but I will bet there's some sockpuppetry going on. MSJapan ( talk) 06:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
85.118.69.49 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adding references to S. Georgiev to multiple articles, including fringe references. Also abusing multiple accounts: 85.118.68.17 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Aabatangle makes edits to the Untangle page, in some cases removing critical comments and performing ongoing unsourced updates to the page.
No response to my talk page comment, I believe this user is being a naughty boy and should be censured appropriately. Deku-shrub ( talk) 19:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)