This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy. Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes:
  • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
  • Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline. If revealing private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can seek the advice of functionaries or the arbitration committee by email.
  • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
  • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, MiszaBot II will automatically archive the thread when it is older than seven days.
  • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:


Search the COI noticeboard archives
Help answer requested edits
Category:Requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:

Request for help at Roth Capital Partners

Hello. First off, I disclose that I have been paid by Roth Capital Partners to edit on the firm's behalf. I also disclose that I have edited on behalf of Roth from unregistered accounts before registering this account at the encouragement of several editors. I was the editor who initiated this COIN thread and also authored all the edits on that thread coming from unregistered accounts.

In my effort to improve Roth Capital Partners, which had been turned into an attack page by an editor with an undisclosed COI to further the interests of Emmanuel Lemelson, I composed a lengthy edit request and posted it, in its most recent version, at Talk:Roth Capital Partners#Restoring NPOV (#3). User:Spintendo graciously reviewed my request, but was reluctant to implement it unilaterally before "a more thorough consensus" was established from other editors. He then urged me to post again to this noticeboard in the hopes of attracting editors to look over the edit request and help "achieve balance for the article."

I think you will find that the edit request is reasonable and balanced, and takes care to respect WP:NPOV and especially WP:WEIGHT.

Thank you in advance for your assistance. Quknpnfl (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that many (not all) of the changes requested were reasonable, but part of the issue was as Quknpnfl mentioned, this 3rd editor Cypresscross who added the "Page Six" type material to begin with, which has made the article appear somewhat like Page Six from the New York Post (written according to their style of salaciousness, with details of strippers etc.) I had removed what was insufficiently paraphrased already and the editor rewrote it correctly and put it back, which closed the avenues open to me to do anything more about it. Which is why I suggested moving the request here to take advantage of the greater reservoir of experience available than they would get from just requesting additional changes from me. Thank you  spintendo  13:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
If I could also add that this is not a behavioral issue, its much more of a content issue, which means we might have the wrong forum in the end - but both of the other editors I mentioned here have been civil. Just wanted to add that.  spintendo  14:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The COI editor had mentioned that he raised the issue at COIN before but I hadn't realized how well it was covered just one month ago until I read the archives just now. Those make it clear that it should be handled through another forum since no COI issues are being raised here again, only content issues, so @Quknpnfl: my apologies for asking that you bring it here. I would now suggest that you request a Third Opinion (3O) or use the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN), or the reliable sources noticeboard to ask regarding the New York Post. If you like, I can start one of those steps for you since I mistakenly had you waste time by posting here. Please let me know how you'd like to proceed either here or my talk page or the Roth talk page. Thank you.  spintendo  18:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
In my view, the real problem editor is Cypresscross (talk · contribs · count), details at Talk:Ligand Pharmaceuticals#Editor with undisclosed COI.  —SMALLJIM  20:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Just to follow up here, there have been some major improvements to the page recently, a big thanks goes out to Smalljim for their help and their time spent on this, the article is in a much better state now. Unless @Quknpnfl: disapproves I think this thread can be closed. Thank you again everyone.  Spintendo  05:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Rdunwoody6

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

Strizivojna

Strizivojna (see archive 126) may have reappeared with one or more new accounts. Looks like paid editing for biographies. SPI is underway. More details when available. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I have moved (quarantined) both Draft:Halin de Repentigny and Draft:Stacii Jae Johnson to the draftspace, where another editor can salvage them via AfC or delete them via G5, the latter option depending on the outcome of the SPI. Thanks as always Bri.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The SPI results left me stumped. Maybe Berean Hunter can explain. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Bri, I think the confusion stems from the one non-stale account which was tagged as Strizivojna based on behavior but subsequently was found to be Ws95684. It appears that some meatpuppets are operating from the same area.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Socking continues - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmunir.pakBri (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

City University of Hong Kong

Continuous undisclosed COI edit of the article of the uni, by ip from the uni and seem static to some department or academic office of the school. Matthew_hk tc 04:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

horrible, i have nominated it for speedy under COPYVIO and PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Given the censorship of removing hkfp as cite on the uni falsify data that send to QS ranking (which was widely reported by other media in HK). I believe the IP can't work in NPOV and out of the acceptability of just making routine edits such as name change and department change. Moreover, those edits certainly qualify to use edit request (if have source) and be accepted. Matthew_hk tc 03:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • speedy tag was stripped. I cleaned it up. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Prestige Group and other paid editing


The first user is closely associated with the Prestige Group. Most of his contributions are related to the Prestige Group - The Forum Vijaya, The Forum (shopping mall), Prestige Golfshire, Prestige Shantiniketan, List of Residential Developments by Prestige Group among others. But apart from his obvious WP:COI writing, what is more jarring is that he gets a lot of help from one article accounts - who are most probably linked to the marketing company Social Beat. The Forum Sujana, another of their project was created by Jvchawla and he is a known sockpuppet associated with Social Beat - Jvchawla also contributed to COI editing on Forum Fiza Mall, The Forum (shopping mall). The same is also supported by the home page of Social Beat - [www.socialbeat.in] which counts Forum among its leading clients, besides TVS and others who also got a lot of articles from Jvchawla (Himalayan Highs, TVS One Make Championship among others). V1985ch has an uncannily similar name as Jvchawla (Sockpuppet?). He is also closely associated with the Murugappa Group which explains his edits on related pages - including the creation of M. M. Murugappan, edits on Murugappa family by Meghana Chandani, attempts to cleanup Murugappa Group among others. Overall a paid editing syndicate that needs to be swept out. Jupitus Smart 14:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jupitus Smart: Without violating WP:OUTING, can you tell us how Social Beat is related to the sockfarm? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bri:, that is going to be hard. [www.socialbeat.in] shows a collection of their important clients on the homepage and most of the users above have edited on topics associated with the said brands. [www.socialbeat.in] is also informative in joining the dots. Jupitus Smart 15:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I get the connection. At least two of the SPI acccounts named are connected to the company, reasonably inferred from from quasi divulged info like this. Thanks for pointing it out; I've listed at WP:PAIDLIST for future reference and analysis. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

UPEs - Sockpuppet investigations/BrookeCook

Looks like a bunch of UPEs working for the same company. Cleanup needed. Further investigation might be useful. Ronz (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  • SmartSE (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • This sock farm knows what a WP article should look like. I've nominated these for speedy. We will see what remains after the first pass. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Well ok then! I guess there is nothing left to do on those. Kudos to the admins wielding the mops. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

How was the list above made? I ask, because Jason Stone isn't listed. I'll look for others.

What caught my attention (SennaNiks (talk · contribs) and JadeRice (talk · contribs)) were the poor or promotional references and the promotional content. It looks like they are actually avoiding creating articles.--Ronz (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Cass Warner was moved from article space. --Ronz (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ronz! Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

That's all I could find. Good job with the initial list! --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ronz: I've written a script here which should list all users, draft, userspace and mainspace creations from an SPI. I did edit it the output though... I will check later on whether that's what caused the issue or if there's something else. I do plan on making it so that everyone can use it, but haven't figured that out yet. SmartSE (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
That's what I was hoping. Very nice. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Difficult to tell now as I wrote it to only look for live articles. I did go through the output deleting things quite quickly so that's probably most likely. SmartSE (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ronz, Smartse, and Jytdog: [1]. This is still an experimental tool - it can take categories of users only. MER-C 19:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  • The usernames chosen by the sockfarm look familiar. If I can remember who does that, I'll post here again. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Undone (TV series)

PMetcalf has continued to edit the article for the upcoming television series Undone while also claiming in their edit summaries to be a staff member for the series. They continue to misuse a prameter in Infobox television on the page, citing sources that do not properly confirm said edit. When confronted with this issue, they repeatedly insist that the error be let go as they have first-hand knowledge of the situation due to their working on the series. The have been informed repeatedly about the issue with their edits and they have been informed of their Conflict of Interest. Despite this, they continue to edit the page. BoogerD (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Michael W. Ferro Jr.

Paid SPA editor came in added 8k of promotional text to article. scope_creep (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Chase Finlay and Mark P. Finlay

Mpfaia ([2] [3]) and 96.56.64.162 ([4]) are attempting to censor reliably sourced information regarding a pending lawsuit from the Chase Finlay article. After a failed AfD nomination, they're repeatedly removing the content from the article.

According to the current revision of the Mark P. Finlay article, Mark is Chase's father. Mark established "Mark P. Finlay Architects, AIA", which corresponds to the initials of the username Mpfaia. Both Mpfaia ([5] [6]) and 96.56.64.162 ([7] [8]) have made promotional edits to this article as well. — Newslinger talk 08:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The widely reported law suit is clearly appropriate content and does not carry undue weight because he is known as being a dancer and what he is accused of happened in the sphere of his professional environment and because of that he was obliged to resign from the ballet company. No reason to allow a COI editor remove that information themselves. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Suspicious new articles

15 September - 6 October

A little more than usual, because I forgot to run the script last week. MER-C 14:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

How can I help? Do you go through the list on your own or do you want a hand trawling through it? Dom from Paris (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I've started checking each one as well. scope_creep (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Both. Usually I find a few socks in these dumps, so keep your eyes peeled for ACPERM evaders. MER-C 20:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Marathi-film-industry-paid-editing

Greetings,

Let me take some space to greet you to the activities of Shrinivaskulkarni1388.

Pending a long dramatic chain of on-wiki events, that finally manifested across two t/p threads (my t/p and Tito's t/p; each of the threads contain links to several previous threads about him and a reading might be required, in order to understand how far he had exploited our assuming good faith of his activities) and a sockpuppetry investigation, the editor was found to be running a massive under-cover-UPE ring and writing piss-poor-biographies on Marathi film-stars and marathi films, in a bid to promote them.

To keep things short, the person himself is a third-grade Marathi director, whose identity with the on-wiki avatar of the same name has been verified by Titodutta at the above-linked t/p.

That, coupled with undeniable off-wiki evidence (that has since been mailed to Doc James) cleanly establishes the UPE-activities of the sock-farm.

I've unilaterally draftified all of his creations (except movies) citing violation of WP:UPE.

Also, there are behavioral overlaps with another UPE sock-farm, that worked in the exact narrow topic-area. and with BhushanSRT of yet another UPE-farm.

And, now it seems that there are meat-puppets on the rise, with questionable motives and trying to main-space Srinivas's drafts.

Thus, I propose for a full-blown nuking of all the piss-poor drafts (most of which are actually, non-notable) to set a strong precedent against the usage of Wikipedia for nefarious purposes.WBGconverse 17:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Nuked. Some were attractive young women, so expect pushback per WP:HOTTIE. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Investorhk

Intentionally use minor edit tag for his non-minor edit, add promotional tone material which only supported by external primary source. It seem an undisclosed paid editing account. Matthew_hk tc 09:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

This diff, which contains the sentence "Each year, Link allocate up to 0.25% of our net property income of our last financial year to fund charitable projects", shouts PAID, and careless with it. I can't find the sentence online, but it's surely copied from some of the company's self-praise somewhere. Let's see if they respond to your COI notice, and if they continue to edit. We can always hope your notices turn out to be enough to discourage them. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC).
Bishonen, for what it's worth the unmarked quote is copied from the company's annual report to the The Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong, p. 18. In fact, this whole edit by Investorhk is copied from that source. Voceditenore (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Since Sino Group had no relation to Link REIT , either it was a good faith edit but copyvio/ promotional tone, or external PR firm using Investor-hk as username.
Even as good faith edit, normal people won't consider "social responsibility" as the essential part of an encyclopedia entry . While his zh-wiki edit on the Link , were even more rebuttal to the negativity towards the company by the general public. Matthew_hk tc 14:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

E. G. Glover is clearly an autobiography

This editor has also created Relative Term Press, A Twist in Time and Times not Traveled. The later two are books written by Glover and published by Relative Term Press. On the talk page of the deleted press article he wrote "This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because I am the owner and know that it in fact does exist."[9] The E. G. Glover article says that Glover founded the Relative Term Press. The COI seems obvious, and although warned about COI and creating autobiographies he's made no attempt to comply with WP:PAID or WP:COI. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Relative term press - wow that's a funky wiki-link. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
But seriously, somebody should go in and delete that. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Article was deleted as WP:G7 after the author requested it on the talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Academic spamming the long arm of Lankenau Institute for Medical Research

editors
articles

I cleaned up most of this. Just listing here for future reference.Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the manner in which they have been cleaned up was not altogether appropriate , removing the elements that show notability and leaving a bare directory entry--or even listing the articles for speedy deletion. The organization is famous, and almost all of the individuals are notable or highly notable. The writing was indeed somewhat promotional , but nowhere near the worst of what we see here. I do not think it appropriate to treat promotional editing for a subject which is actually capable of a decent article, with one that is borderline. Both need fixing, but it should be handled differently.
For barely notable subjects accompanied with clear promotionalism, I usually suggest deletion, particularly for work by an undeclared coi editor, and very strongly so if it looks like an undeclared outside paid editor.
For ordinarily notable subjects, I cut fairly drastically. If the cuts are reverted, I usually move for deletion as incapable of fixing by normal editing.
For very notable subjects, I cut selectively, and I also try to add appropriate material that the coi editor doesn't realize is important. What I remove first is terms of praise, overuse of the name, and excessive ELs ; then entire sections of unencyclopedic detail , personal anecdotes, and minor awards; and then background about the importance of the problem which is better handled by linking. For biomedical subjects, as here, I also remove hopes for medical use which have not yet resulted in actual approved products. (pretty much everybody in the field hopes to cure cancer ). I leave in material about what the persons main work, and include the 3 or 4 most cited or otherwise import papers. The papers document the field of work--this is normally implied, but if challenged, can be given explicitly.
some of the material marked as scrubbed above needs to be restored, which I shall do, though of course selectively. Scrubbing something too hard can destroy it.
much of the earlier work on these was done by uncleared coi editors; the current work is being done by a declared coi, and the person doing that needs to be guided constructively.
a final alternative if the editing is too destructive is to rewrite from scratch. I find that much more troublesome than fixing, but when an article is unfairly attacked, as equally in the opposite situation of being hopelessly contaminated, it is sometimes the best recourse. I find it very unfortunate that I almost never have time to do it.
WP is inundated with promotional writing, and we need to retain a sense of proportion. We all want to eliminate bad articles; my technique is to remove the worst and move on, in order to get to all of them, not focus on any one situation.

In particular, we need to remember that an article about a truly notable subject will inevitably have some degree of promotional effect. Removing everything that is conceivably promotional means removing everything that shows importance. Our drive to enforce NOT ADVOCACY shouldn't lead us into the trap of violating NOT DIRECTORY. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

User:DGG We need to remember that if WP becomes a vehicle for PR this project is doomed. A piece of promotional shit cannot be "destroyed" - these pages were promotional shit from day they were created by these paid editors and more shit was larded on over time. The editing by these PR people consistently "cited" primary sources and made sweeping claims about their importance. Disgusting. If somebody wants to do the work to make actual encyclopedia articles about these people and organizations that comply with the content policies and guidelines that would be great. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Young Pianist

Notice has been on almost a week, with no disclosure. scope_creep (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

D'Evelyn Junior/Senior High School

An SPA is turning this into article suited for the school newspaper: promotional language, (unsourced) achievements of school teams, extensive listings of extracullicular activities, etc. I have tried to reason with this person, but to no avail. Due to he level of dedication, I strongly suspect there is a CoI and possibly a paid editor. I'd appreciate some extra eyes, since I'm at 3RR and my wits end. Kleuske (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I am NOT a paid person, nor am I employed by D'Evelyn. I am new and doing my best. This page was grossly out of date. The areas that have been updated were already present. All I did was continue the information. I will go in and try to delete anything such as you described above, but the page was developed long ago, as was the layout and areas. I already stated that I am doing my best to source all achievements, but with how out of date it was it is taking time. Add to that the learning curve and I am doing my very best. Please be patient and not so judgmental. I am really trying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locococomama (talkcontribs) 18:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I am going to WP:AGF and take Locococomama at their word that they're just a newbie who didn't understand what they were doing. In that spirit, and the spirit of WP:BITE I left them a message explaining that they had long since broken WP:3RR and could be taken to WP:3RR/N if the problematic behaviour continues. They're at revert 5. If it gets to 6, I'd suggest that forum will probably be the most expedient method of preventing further edit warring. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

So, how on earth am I to get the updates done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locococomama (talkcontribs) 19:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Locococomama: If someone has objected to them, you go to Talk:D'Evelyn Junior/Senior High School and you discuss the matter with the editor who objects to your edits. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; if someone objects to what you're doing, the first thing to do is stop doing it, find out what their objection is, and attempt to address it. And you listen carefully to more experienced editors when they tell you there's a problem, rather than attempting to steamroll things by reverting repeatedly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you @seraphimblade. Now I know where to go. The issue is that the areas I updated are not even listed there. Apparently those who did not like my edits did not put them in talk to be discussed. Wow is this a painful process. I can imagine many start as editors and quickly give up. Not one of my changes were discussed there and I have tried and tried and those taking out my edits are not collaborating, but only taking my edits out. Locococomama (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Locococomama please describe any connection you have with D'Evelyn Junior/Senior High School. Conflict of interest is a much broader thing, than being employed directly by D'Eveyln. Please disclose any connection. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I am a parent in the community, which is why I am aware of it being incorrect. I was doing some research on the school and started reading the Wiki page and saw how much wrong info was on it and decided to help the system and update it all. My kids do not even play athletics there and the majority of the corrections are on sports. I am only trying to get the page up to date. There is no benefit to me either way, except to have correct information on the site, I gain nothing whether it is right or wrong. The demographics being correct clearly have no advantage to anyone and I did source it. The external links are either 14 years (see the 2004 AC report, they are annual) behind or don't work. The scores that were listed were also out of date and I tried to update them too. If it would help, I can take one section at a time and do it that way. I thought that is what I was doing, but when they undid it, all sections were undone, regardless of sources or information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Locococomama (talkcontribs) 21:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for replying.
Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and so on, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. Threading/indenting also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit. That is how we know who said what to whom and when.
Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).
I know this is unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again for explaining your "interest" in the page. It is kind of hard to learn what we actually do here. People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. Sometimes that passion is from some financial interest, which is what this board is for, and sometimes it is from the kind of "interest" you have - you have a child in the school, know about it, and care enough that you want the Wikipedia article to be accurate.
That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also makes people impatient and unwilling to take the time to learn how we do stuff. The original poster said that you were adding promotional content, unsourced content, etc.. and that you have edit warred to try to retain it.... and that is what people who have this sort of passion do, all the time. It is a very human thing.
Your contributions could be super-valuable, but you are going to keep being frustrated (and frustrating other people) as long as you remain in a big hurry and don't listen to what other folks are saying, and try to learn what we do here, and how we do it.
Everybody here is generally happy to help teach about what we do and how we do it, but you have to let folks help you. Will you please do that? Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Markipedia 1

This user works for the Washington Post, and has disclosed his affiliation. However, his contributions all consist of adding citations to his employer's web site, and range from unnecessary (supporting material that is already well sourced) to questionable (not supporting the material, as in this one [10]). He claims his edits do not violate COI guidelines, because he is not changing the text of the article, only adding citations. But I would ask that he stop doing this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I think my opening questions would be 1) Is adding the source necessary? 2) Does it verify the claim cited? Normally question 3) would be "is it generally considered a reliable source" but I think we can take it as a given that the WP is. So I don't really see we need immediate action. If the user was adding some blog or an alt-right troll site, I'd feel differently, but they aren't. If the source doesn't support the claim, revert it. If they are shotgunning references all over the place that fail verification, we can block anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Taking at look at his few most recent edits, no, they fail #1. They are not necessary. They are for material that already has a citation, either where it is, or they've added a reference in the intro for material that is sourced in the body of the article. As such, this looks like a form of WP:REFSPAM, even if from a better source than usual. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I think basically it would be nice to see if we can point him in the right direction and get him to tackle, say, unsourced BLP violations, rather than just bringing out the banhammer. At least just for the minute. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this. Their behavior may be WP:REFSPAM, but I don't think we need to ban just on those grounds, but rather try to teach them how to input their references in more needed places? –Daybeers (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I am not calling for any banhammer. I don't know who is. If they continue refspamming, then we should do, yes. But not yet. Of course not yet.Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This was definitely WP:REFSPAM. After their first few edits, every edit was adding a ref to something at washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis, quite often in lead and even as the first ref; never with any content. I have cleaned up all of them that were not already reverted. I left them a spam warning. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I checked a few of them that popped up on my watchlist as they were being deleted (why are they being deleted during a new ongoing discussion? Jytdog, please consider reverting any other removals you have made, thanks) and found the ones I checked not only very relevant but, in the case of the 1968 Democratic Convention protest page, essential to answer many of the cite-needed tags on the page. After checking a few of these Washington Post additions, and if the trend I'm seeing holds up, instead of calling this spam it seems we should be thanking the editor for adding pertinent and important citations to the encyclopedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I will not revert the removal of spam. It is blatant spam. A few of them may have added value but I would guess that near 90% of them were just slapping the ref in, as high in the article as it would go. I would guess the person had a list of pieces to add and just searched WP for places to put them. (If you actually go through all their contribs like I just did, you will see them sticking the same ref in several articles that had a "hook", before moving on to the next piece and then doing the same with it). Several of them were reverted immediately as the spamming that they were. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I can only report that I checked a few of them, and each one was pertinent to the sentence or paragraph it was referencing. What I meant is that you maybe should have waited to remove the references until after the result of this discussion, and I'll suggest that other editors check a few to see if they hold up as good edits. I haven't checked the article referenced (but now removed) on the Roe v. Wade page, and that may be a good place for someone to start. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
So do the work before you start arguing. By encouraging this person you are very likely contributing to them continuing their behavior, and if they do, I will open an ANI requesting they be indeffed, and I am pretty confident they will be. This was very unwise and not helpful to that person, especially given that you have not thoroughly reviewed what that person has been doing. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I believe that Markipedia's purpose here is to promote WaPo, not to add knowledge to the encyclopedia. He may rationalize that he is helping, and I won't dispute that some of his additions probably do add information, but that is merely an incidental result. If he is truly here to improve the enyclopedia, his efforts would extend to something other than, or in addition to, the de facto promotion of his employer, which is not an acceptable activity on this site. If he continues to engage in this single promotional activity, a ban on adding citations to his employer could be an appropriate remedy. Short of such a ban, is he willing to contribute in any other way? DonFB (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this. –Daybeers (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Rakesh Khanna

The editor, who has stated on my talk page that they are working for Orient Electric, is submitting a draft on the chair of Orient Electric, but has not made the required disclosures. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Fred Baier

The current page for Fred Baier is flagged with the following:

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


"This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. Please remove or replace such wording and instead of making proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance."

I have been asked by the subject to prepare, without fee, a replacement page. My proposed text is as below. Fred Baier has not made any changes to this, although I have passed it by him for confirmation of accuracy.

Please advise whether, and if so how, this violates Wikipedia standards regarding objectivity.

Fred Baier

Born in 1949 in Hull, Fred Baier FRDA FRSC is a designer and maker of furniture. He was educated at Bootham School in York and subsequently at the Birmingham School of Art and The Royal College of Art. Establishing his first studio in Birmingham in 1975 with the aid of a Major Award from the Crafts Advisory Committee (which later became the Crafts Council), he is now acknowledged as an important and influential figure in contemporary furniture making.

Throughout his career Baier has consistently challenged the supposed distinction between Art (‘beautiful’ but useless) and Craft (in which form follows function and is only then capable of ‘beauty’) . His ‘manifesto’ of 1973 declared instead that ‘Form swallows function’; forty-one years later the same phrase provided the title of a keynote conference lecture . From this emerged such works as his sycamore wedge chair of 1981, described as “A work of perverse genius … Baier’s striking chair is unattractive, but visually very satisfying … he had thought of everything. A chair of real character with mystical beauty in the quality of the finish and construction … Baier is one of the few artist craftsmen to realise the potential of the métier.”

Baier was an early exponent of Computer Assisted Design. Working with Paul McManus in the 1980s, he was instrumental in the development of Vamp, a pioneering 3D CAD programme that used mathematical principles to develop a hitherto unexplored geometric approach to furniture, for example the Prism Chair now in the collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum and Tetrahedron/Toroid Table in the Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge. Writing at a time when the new possibilities of CAD were still being investigated, Paul Dorner suggested that “his furniture is among the first to show us what ‘computer style looks like’… What Baier does is what Henry Moore did on the seashore. Moore walked on the seashore and found objects he could later twist into sculpture. Baier uses the computer to turn up three-dimensional forms from the seashore of mathematics. Baier can pick them up or throw them back, but those he selects are used as the basis for furniture designs.”

However, having lived through the evolution of CAD from niche interest to everyday tool, Baier is now clear about both its value and limitations. “Remember that, for all their scope, computer programmes are no more than encodings of the previous generations’ experience ... keep using that pencil – it’s the shortest route from your brain to an image.”

He has worked as a consultant to the Design Council; ABK architects; Terry Farrell Architects and Mister Luna B.V. furniture Italy. He has taught at the RCA and has furniture in numerous public and private collections, including Tripod (purchased by the Contempory Art Society and donated to Tyne and Wear museums) and commissions for the Crafts Council collection; Hackney Museum and the House of Lords. In 1989 he moved to his current studio in Pewsey, Wiltshire, where he lives with his partner the artist Lucy Strachan. They have two daughters, Billie and Becky.

Qualifications & Fellowships Dip AD (Birmingham College of Art), MA (Royal College of Art) Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, Royal College of Art, Northern Arts

Exhibited at Australia: Melbourne, Adelaide Austria: Saltzburg, Vienna Germany: Munich Holland: Amsterdam, Rotterdam Italy: Milan Japan: Tokyo, Kyoto Spain: Barcelona USA: Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Denver, East Hampton, Miami, New York City, Palm Springs, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Providence, Richmond, Rochester, Washington

Selected clients & commissions 10CC (K Godley & L Crème) - Barclay Finance - Beacon Heritage Centre Whitehaven - Benshemesh SA & UK - Best Products Richmond VA USA - Bell Public House Ramsbury - Birmingham Museums & Art Gallery - Blackburn London - Bradley Hong Kong - Carnegie MoA Pittsburgh Pa USA - Chiltern Sculpture Trail - Coles Restaurant Marlborough - Collier Campbell London - Contemporary Art Society - Crafts Council London - Dear UK - Ifield College Crawley Sussex - Cyfarthfa Castle Museum - Elson NY & UK - Goddard London - Grainer DC USA - Guys & St Thomas’ Trust London - Hawkes UK - Hackney Museum - House of Lords - Isle of Wight Council - Izzy Myaki Japan - Kesler Lincolns Inn - Kurtz Oxford - Leeds City Museum - Lewis Collection Richmond MoA Va USA - Liberty and Co UK - Lotherton Hall Yorks - The Mill Post Production Soho UK - Mister Luna BV Bologna Italy - Sir Nicholas Goodison - Northern Southern and South East Arts - Packman Lucas Structural Engineers - Page Lacquer PLC - Polygon Inv London - Parnham Trust - Practical Styling - Pyramid Post Production Cardiff - Raymond McGrath (30s) House Chertsey - Roxy Music - Rubicon Systems Software House - Shipley Art Gallery Tyne & Wear - Slough Borough Council - Steam Museum of GWR Swindon - St. Mary’s Hospital IOW - Templeton College Oxford - US Ambassador to Denmark - Victoria & Albert Museum London - West Sussex County Council

Publications Fred Baier, The Right Angle 2011, Craft Study Centre & Ruthin Craft Centre ISBN 978 0 9554374 9 6 Vision & Reality, Contemporary Practice for Furniture Makers 2001 Tyne & Wear Museums / Northern Arts ISBN 0 9059747 5 1 Fred Baier, Furniture in Studio 1990 Bellew / CC ISBN 0 9477924 6 5 A Leading Edge, Design in Furniture by Fred Baier 1977/82 Prescote / Warwick Arts Trust

Published reference Age of Experience catalogue, touring exhibition, UK, Curated Mary La Trobe Bateman, 2007 Furniture world styles from classical to contemporary, Judith Miller, Doreen Kindersley, 2005 ISBN 1405306548 The Art of Furniture, Birmingham City Museum and Artifex, 2004 Collect, the new art fair for contemporary objects, catalogue, Crafts Council and Arts Review, 2004 Miller’s Collecting in the 70’s, Katherine Higgins, 2001, Octopus Publishing, ISBN 0753707683 Vision, 50 years of British creativity, a celebration of art, architecture and design, 1999 Thames and Hudson ISBN 0500281661 Crafts in Britain in the Twentieth Century, Tanya Harrod, 1999, Yale University Press ISBN 0300077807 The South East Crafts Collection, Hove Museum and Art Gallery, 1995, Beacon Press ISBN0951597426 Conservation by Design, ed. Scott Landis, Rhode Island School of Design 1993 ISBN 0963859307 Twentieth Century Ornament, Jonathan M.Woodham 1990 ISBN 028980020 The Cambridge Guide to the Arts in Britain, 9: Since the Second World War. ed Boris Ford, 1988, Cambridge Press ISBN 0521327652 The Woodwork Book John Makepeace, Macmillan 1980 ISBN-13: 978 0330261753 Fine Woodworking, Design Book Four 1987, The Taunton Press ISBN 0918804833 New British Design, ed. John Thakara, 1986, Thames and Hudson ISBN 0500274460 Going for Baroque, Midland Group, Nottingham 1985 Maker Designers Today 1984, Camden Arts Centre.

 A full and clearly-argued discussion of this key dichotomy can be found in The Principles of Art, R.G. Collingwood. New York, 

Galaxy Books/Oxford University Press, 1958.

 All Makers Now: Falmouth University 10-11 July 2014.
 Review of Exhibition of chairs by 10 makers for Southern Arts Regional Arts Association, 1981.
 Furniture Today, Its Design & Craft: Peter Dorner, 1995
 Quoted in a review of Vision and Reality – Contemporary Practice for Furniture Makers by Margot Coatts: Crafts magazine May/June 2001 ISSN 0306-610X.  

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MWJDWiki (talkcontribs) 12:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

User:MWJDWiki we don't work on content at this board. This is a board where we deal with editor behavior. So -- would you please disclose any relationship you have with Fred Baier, or companies that sell his work? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I looked at their contribs and I see that here MWJDWiki wrote that they edited at the request of the subject. I've opened a new thread at their talk page.Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Ogilvy (agency)

I've started a discussion at Talk:Ogilvy (agency) about edit requests by representatives of Beutler relating to that article, and particularly about my concerns relating to native or deceptive advertising; it may have some relevance to other articles where representatives of that "digital agency specializing in visual design, social media, inbound marketing, and Wikipedia" have been active, and perhaps elsewhere too. Comment welcome! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Concerning blog post

I stumbled across this troublesome blog post [11]. While I have seen other sites that talk about exploiting Wikipedia for SEO, I found this one particularly troubling because of the description of the author, someone named Michael Wood: "He is an expert Wikipedia editor and has helped hundreds of businesses and people post their articles to the site where they have otherwise failed."

That lead me to this page on his business's website, legalmorning.com, which really set off the alarm bells ([www.legalmorning.com]). Look at his self-described qualifications:

I can find no user with a paid editing disclosure connected this company. This makes me very concerned that this individual is (or was) engaged in undisclosed paid editing, and is either:

  1. An experienced Wikipedia user, perhaps known and trusted by the community, or
  2. A fraud who is grossly misrepresenting his Wikipedia experience, ripping off people left and right.

I'm not suggesting a WP:WITCHHUNT but if anyone has any ideas or tools at their disposal to find solid proof of WP:PAID violations, I'm all ears. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Searching further, I found this article: [www.ft.com]. Apparently he did got blocked some years ago, and (at the time of the story's writing) openly admitted to undisclosed paid editing. I wonder if anyone can find some history on one of the noticeboards (this one, ANI, etc)? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, looks like this has ties to the very high-profile Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Morning277. I guess there's probably not much more to say about it, but it's concerning that this person still openly flaunts his talents at evading Wikipedia's policies. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Marie Guerlain ‎

Highly promotional article to sell high-end pots and pans, including where to buy them in Harrods. I've left a notice. scope_creep (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Multi lingual paid editing

Jason_Jay_Smart

Evidence includes image from press package [www.jasonjsmart.com]

Plus 6 more languages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Started an SPI [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Politobzor here]. They might just be coworkers rather than socks though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Afuganantik

pages
editor

I asked this person about paid editing; they have denied any paid editing.

They believe that Draft:Chris J. Young is "neutral".

I don't find this person's denial credible. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Elaine Chao

There are a number of SPAs on the Elaine Chao page, which have only edited Chao's page or that of a Chao relative. The content that these SPAs are edit-warring into the article is all in-the-weeds content on "major policy initiatives", which is for the most part sourced to the US Department of Transportation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked WitchHazels, JRWatkins83 and SavonMains based on strong behavioral evidence (all three accounts created at the same time and edits concurrently in the same manner/same content). Whether or not they are related to Megrei and Digglerdoo (oldest account; two accounts created a day apart with overlapping edits) probably would require SPI. Alex Shih (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Nobel (company)

I recently got an offwiki solicitation for consultation from the Nobel (company) about contributing to both the company page and a biography related page. There may be more activity related to the company in the near term -- I rejected the request and pointed them to the WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to make sure that they are asking for the right kinds of activity. I wanted to flag this for folks, so that the page gets watched. Sadads (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

speedy-nominated Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

StreetScooter

I am going to propose an edit to the page StreetScooter which is on behalf of a client. We wish to add information on how Milk & More are the largest user of StreetScooters in the UK. We believe there is a genuine public interest in this - as the milkman has long been recognised as a British icon, and associated with electric vehicles. --David Gough (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC) [en.wikipedia.org]

@David Gough: You've done everything right. You made a proper paid editing disclosure on your userpage, and proposed changes on the article talk page. So, kudos to you for that - it's great to work with editors like you.
You don't need to post anything on this noticeboard. This is for problems and there's been no wrongdoing here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Rachel O'Riordan

I added date of birth info to this BLP on 7 September using {{birth based on age as of date |yy|yyyy|mm|dd}} template. This was later reverted several times, mostly by IP editors. Sadpastie has stated on the article talkpage that "She is however my sister and it’s not accurate", and "I know it to be inaccurate which is why I am being persistent. I am the author of the original article and the subject would prefer it to be removed entirely rather than to be inaccurate", after I encouraged them to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Sadpastie has not done any of the reverting. It is reasonable to suppose that the users noted above are not four different editors. I cannot revert again just yet without breaching WP:3RR. Sadpastie is now asking for a speedy deletion! Edwardx (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Edwardx

Hey Edwardx - I am asking for speedy deletion because the information is not accurate and the subject of the page would prefer not to be featured in a page at all than it to be inaccurate. As I haave said. The article is incorrect - her birthday is 16/01/1974. I know this because, as mentioned already, she is my sister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RankXgirl (talkcontribs) 18:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Edwardx - I understand fully that you are working within the parameters and guidelines of Wikipedia, (which I'm afraid are beyond my comprehension and understanding) but please appreciate that I'm just looking out for someone who finds the constant edits of information which she and I know not be true, both upsetting and needlessly bullying. I understand that this is not your intention - but this is the reality. As soon as I am able to find a citeable source for her actual age I will post it.

EDIT: I don't even know if this is the correct way to respond - apologies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RankXgirl (talkcontribs) 19:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • RankXgirl, you appear to be admitting that you are also editing as Sadpastie, which would be in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines on sock puppetry, which states, "The general rule is one editor, one account". You have been editing since 2006, so some "comprehension and understanding" of the rules ought to be expected by now. Edwardx (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • So it looks like we have a couple issues here. First off, there definitely appears to be some socking going on here between RankXGirl, Sadpastie, and 2.24.125.127. I'm rather inclined to block all three for blatantly obvious socking to revert war and avoid scrutiny. Second, those editors should understand that Wikipedia articles are not controlled by their subjects, nor do their subjects (or their representatives) have any kind of veto power. Suggestions are always welcome, of course, but edit warring, attempts at ownership, and very much sock puppetry, are not and are grounds for a block for disruption. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Edwardx Talk to me Ok, I had forgotten the password for the RankXgirl account and it wasn't linked to an email so I couldn't reset it. Wasn't aware of that rule, but thank you - duly noted. The other 'accounts' to which you refer I can't comment on, if I edited when I wasn't logged in that may be why. The terms to which you refer are all quite alien to me I'm afraid - I certainly had no intention of 'pupperty' and despite having had an account since 2006 you will probably notice that I am not an experienced user. I am not trying to exert any 'veto power', I was just trying to explain why I reverted the edits by sharing some personal insight. All this has been done with the most sincere and genuine intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RankXgirl (talkcontribs) 20:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I have now made appropriate disclosures on the pages you reference. Does this squabbling get removed at any point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RankXgirl (talkcontribs) 02:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the disclosures, but you still need to add them to Talk:Richard Dormer and Talk:The Oxford Companion to Irish Literature. This discussion will be archived in due course, typically 30 days after there have been no comments. Do you have any response to your stated birthdate for Rachel O'Riordan and the apparent inconsistency with Companies House? Later today, I will be re-adding the {{birth based on age as of date |38|2010|02|09}} template based on the Irish Times article from 9 February 2010 which states, "O'Riordan was born in Cork 38 years ago", unless you or someone else can come up with a reasonable policy-based objection. Edwardx (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Edwardx I will add the disclosures to those pages - I thought I had. Thank you for the direction. I have no objection to the amendment and won’t change unless I am able to find a suitable and citable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RankXgirl (talkcontribs) 09:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

RankXGirl, if the cited source did indeed get some information about her wrong, the best thing she could do is to contact the source and ask them to issue a correction. Reputable news sources will correct stories if they demonstrably got factual information wrong. And of course we would take any such corrections into account while writing the article, and that would also fix any inaccuracy at its root. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User Edmunddantes

Spamming of images created by "Nancy Wong" with no apparent understanding of MOS:IMAGES or COI, often including the text "Photo by Nancy Wong" in the image caption.

I'm not going to identify "Nancy Wong" further, as I've not come across any disclosure of further details. However, this is very likely a professional photographer. I certainly believe so.

I'd like to assume that she is offering images from her work for use in Wikipedia, unless I'm overlooking something that obviously links her to photography services.

Still, I'm rather baffled by the two responses that I've received on my talk page in response to the COI notice I left:

  • Can you be more specific? I am not employed.[12]
  • Thank you for your interest in my snapshots: I do not have any external relationship with anyone.--Edmunddantes[13]

I've not attempted to identify all ip's, rather just listing ones I've come across while trying to figure out what's going on.

I've done some cleanup while I've looked, removing "Photo by Nancy Wong" as well as images that don't clearly improve the article.

I'd like her to learn MOS:IMAGES thoroughly. I'm not sure if she always needs to use edit requests to add her images. I wouldn't mind if she added images directly to articles in cases where there are no images at all in an article, and she has a clearly appropriate one to add. --Ronz (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Another response on my talk page that's more of the same as far as COI and MOS:IMAGES are concerned: --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Ronz: I am an amateur who shoots one roll of film every five years for my own pleasure. I am very flattered that you believe I am a professional photographer. I offer no photography services and I do not accept photo assignments nor do I do work for hire. I am happy you think my work is good. I hope it is a valuable resource for Wikipedia as some of the people I have taken snapshots of on a public street location are now dead: i.e. no more new photos can be taken of these people: Joe Rosenthal, Jim Jones. Thank you again for your interest in my decades-old snapshots! --Edmunddantes [14]
Since you are reading what's here and responding, some direct questions for you:
You have a clear conflict of interest. Do you disagree? Do you understand why your additions of your own photographs can be a problem?
Have you read MOS:IMAGES? --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, they've already self identified and verified their identity with OTRS. The images themselves aren't overtly promotional. What is the problem here other than not getting the hang of MOS:IMAGES yet? Adding images you've taken yourself to articles isn't inherently problematic. In fact, it's encouraged. GMGtalk 19:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The images are being spammed.
This has been going on for five years.
Adding content you yourself have created is a problem. I realize we give a huge amount of leeway for images due to the difficulties of getting them, but this creates NOT problems, especially when there's a COI fueling the bias to add content without judgement for what is and is not encyclopedic. --Ronz (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Adding image you have taken yourself is not problematic. I couldn't tell you how many of my ~3k uploads are images I've taken myself, but I don't and shouldn't have any qualms about adding them to articles where appropriate. The user also has <100 edits all this year, and <300 over four years, so we're not exactly being overwhelmed.
Moreover, images like this one are fan-freaking-tastic, and could be a contender for WP:FP, not unlike the last FP I nominated, which happens to have been taken by a professional photographer and donated to WP.
Sounds a lot like we need to thank the user and help them if there are issues around the edges, not bludgeon them with a COI bat. GMGtalk 20:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
If you want to count edits, please be accurate by attempting to find all the ip's and including their edits. Otherwise it's useless noise.
No one is bludgeoning anyone. Please retract the statement, then we can move on if you want me to clarify further why I brought this here. --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Well I spent about 10 or 15 minutes clicking through their contributions, and I'm still not totally sure why you're reporting them to COIN instead of giving them a barnstar. So yes, from where I sit it still looks a great deal like unnecessary heavy handedness toward a user uploading images that are at times of such high quality and irreplaceability I'm shocked they're not copyright violations. GMGtalk 21:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
All I'm doing is looking for help with this editor.
I'm not seeing any reason for a block, but until she clearly understands MOS:IMAGES, the spamming of images needs to stop. The additions of "Photo by Nancy Wong" needs to stop. I'm happy to remove the ones that remain.
Since you bring up copyright: Either she's the same Nancy Wong that worked professionally to take some of the photos, or we have a huge problem. I'm assuming she's the same person and that she retained the copyright to her work when she was involved in endeavors such as her work with Wayne Wang. --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 Done Next time try talking to the user before you file a noticeboard report. Most of the inappropriate attribution in captions seems to be fairly old, and I see no evidence they are currently doing so. So long as they are not, kindly don't revert on topic high quality image additions. GMGtalk 21:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I linked and quoted from my attempts at discussing the matter.
00:59, 16 December 2017 --Ronz (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
19:12, 28 December 2017

───────────────────────── I had a look at the photos some of which are excellent and others not so. I then asked myself if this were somone plugging their business by sticking professional photos on then there should be some way of identifying them a link to a web page or at least the city they work in but there is nothing at all, either here or on commons. For me either they are not a pro or they are totally inept at marketing and either way it doesn't seem to be a problem. Publishing your own photos is not only ok but actively encouraged as per MOS:HOTLINK and the different tutorials on commons such as Commons:How to take pictures for Wikimedia Commons. --Dom from Paris (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Or someone using/sharing this account and/or the ips for her. It's strange, which is why I came here for help.
No one is arguing that we don't want the photos available at WikiCommons. Many are excellent. --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
So it's more of a sockpuppet problem than a COI problem? If that's the case then you need to open a WP:SPI instead I think. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
There's been some edit-warring via the ips [15], but it all looks like editing from a very casual editor trying to create a legacy for herself within Wikipedia.
Since no one shares my concerns, I'm going to wrap this up.
I'm going to review the editing in detail, cleanup anything inappropriate, and note any further ips and unusual editing.
I hope Edmunddantes will make a statement about her professional photography (eg the work for Wayne Wang), and that she will take some time to learn MOS:IMAGES. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
If the best we've got is a short lived edit war from four years ago, then yes, I'd say we're pretty well done here. GMGtalk 16:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Just very quickly I would agree with you that some of the photos have clearly been published professionally and I have found off and on-wiki proof that she had photos published for newspapers such as this File:SFCHRONICLE TEARSHEET.jpg. I would be very curious to know why she would lie about being a professional photographer especially as she doesn't seem to be advertising her work and seeing the dates of some of these photos (1970s) she may well be retired already. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Apkril

Apkril (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Raising concerns about Apkril (talk), namely that they may be WP:NOTHERE and an undisclosed paid editor. Recently I reviewed an article they created, SWIGGY, and found that the article name was in all-caps as Swiggy has been salted after being created and deleted multiple times. Looking into Apkril's history, they also created Draft:Practo, and Practo has also been salted due to spammy articles being created. Apkril was asked [16] about possible undisclosed paid editing in June by Jytdog, but continued editing without giving a response. I have asked them a second time about editing with a COI/for pay, but in the meantime would support moving all of Apkril's creations (five are articles about companies, one is about a government project) to the draftspace, at least until some sort of response is made. Would anyone else support such an action?--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Their pages should be draftified. Additionally, in my view this person should be blocked until they respond about their very WP:APPARENTCOI editing. Jytdog (talk)
I second it. I think the filing editor is trying to extract the micheal. Field Notes is particularly atrocious. Zizoo is a clear COI as wouldn't pass NCORP in a New York minute. scope_creep (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 Done--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Zhaojicong

An account which only edited the article, at first use promotional tone level 2 title "Outstanding Achievements", without adding reliable source as citation . Those content were cleaned up, COI message sent, but he reverted the content back with edit summary "objective facts of BSR company, which you can easily get on the official website. achevement [sic] can be searched on the web site" Matthew_hk tc 10:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Etangm7 and Pools by Nature

A number of edits have been made to Natural pool by both the IP and the user. They have consistently added information about the company Pools by Nature, and the text added is somewhere between glowing prose and spam. The IP appeared to declare a conflict of interest when, after information on Pools by Nature was removed, they said "if you take us out you will have to eliminate others."[17] Etangm7 has referred to the product as "our system"[18] Between the edits and these claims, I have serious enough concerns that there is a conflict of interest that I've raised the matter here. Could I get a few more eyes here to look at the prose and help provide guidance to the new editor(s)? —C.Fred (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

What a mess. I wouldn't be surprised if all the WP:SPA editors that have worked on the article have a COI.
I think there's more than enough evidence that they're here to promote their company, Pools by Nature. --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
That was one polluted page. Oh the irony. I cleaned up all the crap, and then redirected what was left to Garden pond. This was offensive all around, from the "natural" name for something constructed, to all the industrial waste dumped into WP by representatives of companies selling this groovy natural stuff. Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I am looking for an admin to indef Etangm7 and the IP 174.85.60.56. They have resolutely refused to disclose and continue to want to chat about content, all while flipping us all the bird with regard to PAID. Basta. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not tying to offend anyone, As asked I acnolaged, please let me know it was done right and where best to have the talk.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etangm7 (talkcontribs) 03:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Etangm7 (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Kierangaring

Kierangaring (talk · contribs)

Wannabe rapper stage name North Shy who fails criteria for musicians and ensembles using Wikipedia for self promotion. His autobiography which has twice been speedy deleted clearly stated he "is currently unsigned and releases all music independently" as has his autobiography for his real name (thrice). Also he is a minor. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Three red accounts on Patrick Morrisey

Three accounts (Edwardlathropiii, Valentinalattanasio, Almartin2602) who all made minor edits to a bunch of pages in July 2018 have in the last week made virtually the same edit on the Patrick Morrissey page. They were once reverted by the admin 'Neutrality' and twice by me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sun Country Airlines

Et al.

This article is plagued with likely paid editorial contributions from IP hoppers, which makes it nearly impossible to attempt to engage in discussion regarding the issue. I don't see this being successful at RFPP because it's not a vandalism issue, but I'm having a hard time seeing what other measures could be useful. Any thoughts? Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)