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:

Plot Spoiler

  • Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  • Larson O'Brien US boutique law firm (at AfD)
  • PuppySpot Doggy daycare (at AfD)
    • Greg Liberman CEO of Puppy Spot
  • Jeff Burum Cali real estate
  • Charles Glasser US attorney
  • Erica Dhawan speaker/biz consultant
  • WMPH Vacations cruises
  • Javelin (agency) PR agency (at AfD)
  • Rare Carat online diamonds (at AfD)
  • Kano (company) DIY computers
  • Matan Gavish Krav Maga owner (PROD)
  • Budsies stuffed animal maker (at AfD)
    • Alex Furmansky CEO of Budsies (redirected)
  • Mark Scarsi patent attorney (PROD)
  • CommonBond financial products
  • CenTrak hospital software
  • Digital Luxury Group marketing firm
  • Sparkology dating website

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

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

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

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

Some more which look suspicious:

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

Ori Feibush

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

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


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

Undisclosed paid editing concerns

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

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

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

Abu Sayeed (film director)

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Eddy Vodka

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

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


Godzilladude123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user began editing back in 2011, but made promotional edits to the vodka article e.g. [1] [2] [3] and !voted keep. They then created Coinigy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - about a company of dubious notability, that is involved in cryptocurrencies. Their earlier edits seem mostly ok, to me and I am not convinced either way at the moment, but I would like some more opinions on their recent edits, which are of course, the ones that are pertinent now. SmartSE (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

SmartSE, on the edits to the vodka article, I'd be inclined to give that a pass. Many editors, including me, sometimes stumble on an article that might be saved and attempt to do so, even though it is quite outside our normal area of editing. Coinigy is rather more problematic. In its current state it is very promotional in tone and needs a good whacking with the red pen. It also seems to have sprung virtually fully formed with multiple perfectly formatted PR-type references in the editor's sandbox [4] and after a few tweaks was then pasted in its entirety into article space. That and the dubious notability of this start-up usually ring "paid editing" alarm bells. But again this appears to be a one-off for this editor. There have been many editors who have combined normal editing with paid jobs after they have been editing for quite a while, but it's hard to judge on the basis of this one article. Incidentally, the failure to find a connection between the SPAs posting "keep" votes at the Deep Eddy Vodka Afd doesn't surprise me. We have had cases where various unrelated people were specifically recruited on paid editing sites to vote "Keep" in AfDs. Thus they wouldn't be found via an SPI. Voceditenore (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Other articles

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

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

I think the following can be safely G5'd. Jose R Costa, Jon Wanzek, Nancy Appleton, William Brooks, Randall Miller, Round Hill Music (if this was ce'd there would be nothing left), Tommy Alastra and Vito Bruno (most of the coverage is running for office). The rest are partially notable, or no consensus at Afd. I don't know about this one: Sandeep Tandon. scope_creep (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


Undisclosed paid editing concerns. This user has previously admitted to paid editing , but I see no disclosures on any articles created, or on their talk page (which has a long list of deletions and copyright issues). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Draftification-All articles mass-draftified.Clear-cut-UPE in direct violation of our TOU.Shall he choose to not respond to the concerns of UPE, a block will be probably needful.~ Winged BladesGodric 13:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Off-wiki evidence also strongly suggest that this is clear-cut UPE.~ Winged BladesGodric 16:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Continued editing after this without any response to multiple messages. I am indeffing. SmartSE (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


COI acknowledged more or less. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Your editing about this cryptocurrency has been unambiguously promotional and that you cannot see that just shows important the COI guideline is, and how important it is that you follow it with regard to this topic in the future. In the future please disclose that you hold it and mine it, and that you promote it in the real world, and please do not edit directly about it in the future. Likewise with any other cryptocurrencies in which you are involved. If you keep abusing your editing privileges to promote this cryptocurrency or others you will very likely end up indefinitely blocked. I have no more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Your point of view about what my point of view is about my editing hardly seems relevant, since I have recused myself. In other words, I don't intend to do further edits. In other words, I accept that if someone thinks my edits are promotional/POV, then I accept this. It would be silly of me not to. Sometimes it takes another's words to bring wisdom. I trust you will take the time to reflect on the other issues raised and address those. Nick Hill (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Galileo Galilei

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

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

I can't see any recent edits that fit your description, and it is hard to see how anyone could have a COI with regards to an article subject who has been dead for almost 500 years. SmartSE (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Nobin Paul

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

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


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

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


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

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

Brain Balance

This user is 100% a promotional WP:SPA and have not responded to the paid editing notice on their talk page Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Kevin Adell

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

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


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


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

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

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

Last haul of spam before the end of ACTRIAL

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

Looks like bullying

Please explain how this comment from Kudpung follows Wikipedia guidelines on COI editing. "IMO every attempt possible should be made to delete Bbarmadillo's paid articles. This will force him to refund his clients' money and be a lesson for anyone else contemplating using Wikipedia for profit". To me this looks like double-standards and bullying. Wikipedia has an approved policy that I fully comply, declaring me edits. This comment clearly says "Hang them all"! -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not bullying. You are 'complying' with a loophole in our current policies to make money out of a project that is otherwise built and maintained by volunteers. If loopholes can be found to have the articles deleted, they will be. Paid editing is not 'approved' - it's barely tolerated at all, that's why the COIN department exists; the broader community quite obviously does not approve of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Kudpung why do you call published policy a "loophole"? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
and your generally poor quality editing, paid or otherwise requires great time and effort to be improved by volunteer editors. Theroadislong (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Theroadislong amazed to hear that. I worked on 4 articles of yours and somehow managed to improve them. Hmmm.... -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Theroadislong also I never asked you to improve my articles. If massive deletions could pass for "improvements". -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Bbarmadillo, when Wikipedia was founded, paid exploitation of it was not anticipated on such a scale. As the project grows organically, so have new rules to be established that will close the gaps. By the way, have you read WP:BOGOF? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Kudpung yes, I've read this. I've provided my doze of comments to the current COI practices. To sum up, by doing what you are doing (being super-creepy to paid editors) you are just making the problem worse as more of them would be saying "To hell with these quasi-rules, I never declare paid edits again". So you will just have much more Indian, Pakistani and all other kind of single-purpose accounts apparently "improving" Wikipedia. Punishing paid editors who follow the rules is an easy task because, hey, all their edits are declared! -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Kudpung also "not approving the standards" and going after one particular user contributions are two different things. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
"you will just have much more Indian, Pakistani and all other kind.." I wasn't expecting jingoism today, but here it is. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Bbarmadillo, we've heard all these arguments before. Most paid editing is underground anyway - until some users are forced to come clean. No one is 'punishing' anyone, except perhaps from depriving them from making a fast buck out of our voluntary work. No one is going after one particular user - we investigate them all. That's what COIN is all about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Kudpung this is not what you've said above. What you've said looked like Wikihounding. Hence this topic. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Some of our best editors fighting against the overrunning of Wikipedia with spam are South Asian. We do get a lot of spam from South Asia, but some of the most active regular participants on this board are South Asian. I’d encourage you not to make comments that could be taken to imply that editors from one of the largest English-speaking regions of the world are somehow less desirable. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Admittedly a lot of spam and vanity comes from outisde Europe, North America, and other Western demographics, but it's due to a cultural dichotomy and a failure to understand the difference between Wikipedia and company listing sites. In my experience, the most blatant and sophisticated exploitation of the encyclopedia to make money by selling Wikipedia articles comes not from Asia (where I happen to live and work for many years). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
On a meta-level, is UPE geographically localized? I think not! And I will agree with K's above comment.~ Winged BladesGodric 03:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
We have not yet banned paid editing. Until then, we have to judge paid editors by the notability of the topics they accept commissions for, the quality of the edits and their willingness to declare and follow the COI rules in general. I haven't surveyed this editor's articles in detail yet, but most though not all seem to be justified by notability. However, I and other editors have noted that many of them seem to need substantial improvements. I have been making some change for the ones I think sufficiently important especially if they seem to have been volunteer, not paid editing, but I would have expected by now that it would not still be necessary--there is a limit to the patience of volunteers for doing work that other people are being paid for. The editor does follow the current rules, and getting people to declare is after all the purpose of those rules. My priority for editors like this is to see if the editor can learn to write proper non-promotional articles that do not need significant further work. Declared paid editors must expect their work to be examined, and the practical way to do this is editor-by-editor. Concentrating on one editor at a time is not an indication of animus. I would hope paid editors see this as other editors do, as the opportunity for them to improve their quality of work. The purpose should not be to drive out paid editors altogether, but to stop those who persist in submitting unsatisfactory work or who try to avoid the COI requirements. Realistically, this can be expected to remove the lower quality paid editors. Based on what I have seen over the years, if we can do this, there is reason to hope that there will not be many left and the new recruits to the business will be easily spotted. If this succeeds, the community may well not see a need to ban paid editing altogether. If we cannot effectively stop bad paid editing, then even those who philosophically want to permit it may have to conclude it permitting any paid editing is inconsistent with a quality encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
While I readily agree that disclosed paid editors do (and should) come under scrutiny, I must admit that threatening to have everything someone has written deleted so that they have to pay back their clients as a lesson is not conducive to a friendly and workable environment. No matter how we may feel about paid editing, if someone is acting in good faith within policy we need to treat them with civility. I can't see how threats such as what started this can be seen as anything other than harassment. - Bilby (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the comment by Kudpung was not helpful, but I don't think it necessarily amounts to bullying. The fact is, people will continue to be paid to edit regardless of whether it is permitted or not. Treating paid editors who disclose in this way is not at all likely to encourage others to disclose, when, as we all know there are plenty of ways to get away with UPE. It's unfortunate that the community tends to treat disclosed paid editors in this way (see also CorporateM) but Bbarmadillo has to accept that paid editing is only tolerated and that by playing by the rules, they draw attention to their edits. The solution from their position is to ensure that they only create articles on subjects that are clearly notable and that articles do not contain anything which could be construed as promotional. SmartSE (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually i think the comment by Kudpung does amount to bullying, and is certainly a violation of WP:AGF. Any deletions had better be very well justified, in light of such comments. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The comment by Kudpung is not good. The OP should keep in mind that paid editing is tolerated (barely) and not loved, and like it or not you are going to catch some sharp elbows from time to time because you are exploiting the value the community has created to make money for yourself. (see here). Some people take being exploited personally and lash out. That should not happen but it will.
But you should know that posting complaints like this is going to make everyone look at you and your paid work yet more (opening a thread means that you get looked at too, and people need to look and see if your paid edits should be deleted - hey maybe Kudpung had looked and was correct). The last editor who went down this "aggrieved paid editor" path got themselves indefinitely blocked.
It is really just best for you to remain professional (you are doing this for work, after all), take the lumps as they come and not make drama over them, and make sure your paid edits are super high quality and of course, disclosed and put through prior review. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The best response to claims of bullying and harassment - even on Wikipedia - should not be to say "take the lumps" and "if you complain, you risk getting blocked". That's bordering on bullying in its own right. - Bilby (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes you made that response to me before, when I said a similar thing about the editor who was acting all aggrieved like Bbarmadillo... who continued on down that bad path and get himself indefinitely blocked. I'm telling you, having a thin skin and being a paid editor do not go well together, and paid editors who get aggrieved do not last long. It really is best for them to keep their eye on the mission of WP and their own mission to get paid; it is very very hard to do both... heck volunteer editors who get all aggrieved also end up doing self-destructive things. Everybody needs to be resilient; paid editors more than most. That's all I am saying. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware that I pointed out that before. And I'm also aware that you still failed to get it now. You do not respond to bullying by saying that people should learn to accept it, and you don't respond to complaints of harassment by raising the possibility of being blocked for complaining. Especially when it was you who initiated the block discussion for the previous editor. - Bilby (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The AN I filed had overwhelming consensus to indef as you well know. And I didn't respond to this before, but I have never said "if you complain you risk getting blocked." You are actively twisting what I am saying. This is our typical interaction lately and I will not be replying to you further. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
You wrote "The last editor who went down this 'aggrieved paid editor' path got themselves indefinitely blocked". I'm not sure how to read that other than "if you complain too much, you risk getting blocked". If you agree that the person has a valid concern, which you did, what you wrote was inappropriate. That said, the last editor wasn't blocked for complaining, as you may recall - it was for serious problems with misuse of OTRS and ongoing issues with their paid editing. - Bilby (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Which does not say "they risk punishment if they complain". If you cannot make a distinction between "loss of focus and an approach to the community that leads to self-destructive behavior that leads to a block" from "complain and you will be blocked", you are either incompetent or actively twisting my words. I am getting very close to requesting an IBAN as I am getting tired of your consistent twisting of what I write. Please just refrain from talking about me or talking to me, and I will do the same. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I can't see how that is twisting what you wrote at all. You wrote:
"But you should know that posting complaints like this is going to make everyone look at you and your paid work yet more ... The last editor who went down this "aggrieved paid editor" path got themselves indefinitely blocked."
Maybe there is some other way of reading this other than making complaints risks a block, but I can't see it. However, we clearly aren't going to make any progress discussing this. - Bilby (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
You have your own special standards regarding paid editing, Bilby. The point Jytdog is making is that the vast majority of the volunteers don't like the encyclopedia they build and maintain for free being blatantly exploited by 'career' paid editors. Exploitation of this kind even when complying with our barely tolerated current rules, is not good faith work and never can be. Those paid editors are inevitably going to come under extreme scrutiny and the community is perfectly at liberty to voice their disaproval of it. How they do it is another matter, but a comment I made on my own talk page might not have been phrased as nicely as it should have been; the inference was nevertheless clear, but it can hardly be construed in that context as bullying. I suggest you give it a rest - not because I feel personally affected by it, but persistently perpetuating this thread is not the best way to go, it's not what COIN is for. If you have anything to say to me or Jyt, say it on our talk pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
My comment in this case to Jytdog was not about paid editing, but about the correct response to claims of harassment and bullying. You should never both say that the treatment was bad, and at the same time tell someone that they risk punishment if they complain and that they should learn to take it. That is an inappropriate response, and borders on perpetuating the harassment.
Paid edits should be scrutinized. But that's not the same as saying that you should live with harassment and not complain. - Bilby (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
No one is saying that "they risk punishment if they complain". Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

COI/ SPI on People v. Turner

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

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

I am Mike Daubert. You have all accused me of a COI. Just look at the source data I've tried to add: []. I will no longer help here. Any responses will go to spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdaub (talkcontribs) 17:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

UPE concerns

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

William Beaumont Army Medical Center

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The editor is assumed to have no conflict-of-interest, as to the domain of US Military articles, broadly construed.Still, Thesofine is advised to avoid unintentional creeping of POV etc. into his writings.Best,~ Winged BladesGodric 12:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Thesofine Response

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

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

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

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

- I have no COI to disclose

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

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

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

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

Thesofine Response to Follow-up Questions

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

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

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

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Queens of Hearts Couture Cakes

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

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

Possibly malicious UPE

Articles dealt with. Rentier (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I came across this user while investigating the Kickingback77/DongLee sockfarm. The UKAT article looks misleading and promotional, and the article may be a part of the operation described by The Times, aiming to "exploit" vulnerable persons [6] Rentier (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Something of interest

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

Saint Louis Science Center

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

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

Just odd

business people/entrepreneurs
singers, musicians, artists, celebrities
athlete or sport

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

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

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

Previous COIN discussions about the Naveen Jain article:
I noticed Lidiia right away because of her first edit to Naveen Jain. I've been trying to work with her (most recently trying to get her to focus on a much simpler BLP, Brian Dyson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), and also started a discussion at User_talk:Kuru#users_Lidiia_Kondratieva_and_Lyupant.
It looks like Lidiia is working with a number of similar editors, or she's getting editing assignments from someone who's also giving them to a number of similar editors.
Lidiia, while you don't have to answer this, I'd appreciate it if you would answer: Is someone giving you at least some of your Wikipedia editing assignments, are you finding them completely on your own without any outside direction, or perhaps there's some other explanation? --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • it is getting worse, per this. and the creation of InfoSpace growth and downfall -- Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I just took out a big chunk of Moon Express that appeared to be OR attempting to providing legal foundation for the company's extraterrestrial operations. Naveen Jain is a principal. Coincidence? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
It appears there is undisclosed paid editing going on at Moon Express. I have no idea if any of it is related to Lidiia's editing though. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wewritewikis4u looking for help

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

Further accounts

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

Typical UPE stuff created by these accounts listed above. What's with all the surgery spam lately? Do people actually try to qualify their surgeons through Wikipedia?? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I think a Wikipedia article may be included when you buy yourself a place as a "Top Doctor"[7]
But we get a lot of spammy articles about physicians. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
where I see the surgeons primarily is for those doing plastic and cosmetic surgery, where patients pay privately, and attracting patients is to a considerable extent a matter of publicity. And I have seen them listing their WP articles on the websites, among the other testimonials. I've deleted many as G11/A7, but there are always more. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Clare Rojas

Peggyhoneywell (talk · contribs) began editing on February 28 by copying and pasting from [] (which has since been redacted). I sent them a copyright warning but they have again posted a copy-and-paste from this website [8] today. The reason I believe this to be a COI is that Rojas' stage name is Peggyhoneywell (as listed on her article). Their only edits are to this page and they have not responded to the three warnings I left on their talk page, even the more personalised one I left. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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


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

Or more likely a sock with this being their first edit.[9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, it was an oversight on my part. I put notice of the articles in question on my User Page but forgot to place the notice on the Talk Page of the articles. I have now rectified the matter.Gibmul (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Ana Dias (photographer)

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

Hi Randykitty. Actually, he's been editing on the Portuguese Wikipedia on and off since 2011 [10], although that doesn't necessarily exclude a COI. Ana Dias seems notable enough to me, despite the citation overkill. However, it needs editing to remove the considerable peacockery. Voceditenore (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I saw the 22 (!) pt edits. The pt article is equally well-formatted. It's remarkable to get this done in one single edit and the English is quite good, too. I definitely get a whiff of possible paid editing here. --Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • PS: and did you note that while the photo in the infobox is a thumb in the pt version, this editor knew apparently that we don't do that here? I find that a telling detail. Even many long-time contributors often don't get this rigth... --Randykitty (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
From what i'm seeing, its likely more of a case of COI editing than paid editing. From a google search, their is an individual by the name of Gonçalo Jorge that produces much of Ana Dias's work. This seems to indicate a connection between this producer and the editor in question. I will add a COI tag and inform the editor--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Politics sockfarm


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

Draft:Bobby Kalotee

The aggressiveness with which the author is canvassing to get an article approved is more typical of paid editors than of volunteer editors, although he may simply have one bee in his ear. The author is currently a single-purpose account.Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Can somebody please tell Satish that Kalotee is not notable by a mile and that he is wasting both his and our's editorial-resources.~ Winged BladesGodric 06:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Pete Hawkes

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

I've put six-month protection on it - autoconfirmed only. Deb (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding own papers

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


They are working to edit war them into place here.[11]

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

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


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

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

Shinichi Mochizuki

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

As I understand it (and although I am a mathematician, this is just lay knowledge), Fesenko is one of the few (the only?) non-Japanese mathematicians to have asserted publicly that he understands IUT theory and (?) the purported proof of the abc conjecture by Mochizuki. (That article also has been protected, but not indefinitely; there has definitely been some of the same editing activity there.) The sock-puppet edits on Fesenko's article are similar to those on Mochizuki (addition of the word "fundamental", etc.) -- they are not trying to tear him down. --JBL (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
same here (mathematician outside of their expertise area) and I want to add that the issue is that the offending revisions (by the SPA mentioned in the SPI) of these pages do not portray the prevalent consensus that Mochizuki's proof is not accepted (nor refuted) by the number theory community in its majority. This has been dealt with at Shinichi Mochizuki, I am currently revising abc conjecture (done) and Inter-universal Teichmüller theory (in progress). jraimbau (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


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

Academic promotion from Cornell Food and Brand Lab

I have gone through and cleaned all this up, with the exception of a few AfDs. Just wanted to record this. This is one of the most clear examples of academic spamming I have encountered. Tons of promotional content and bad sourcing, including no sources, SPS, press releases, churnalism, primary sources (self-citing of course), and popular media hyping primary sources, about work from this lab, which is about health. This has been going on since 2006 or so; the most recent edits are from Jan 2018. Last year it was shown that the lab had a) p hacked their data and b) framed studies, article titles, and abstracts so they would be media circus ready, and c) had great success getting lots of media hype. They had 6 papers retracted and 14 corrections issued - see retraction watch database and this buzzfeed piece. WP was clearly part of their PR strategy.


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

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


Possible COI editing and Undisclosed paid editing

Possible conflict of interest editing and very likely undisclosed paid editing. For more information please look at those articles here and here. The user himself has quoted the second one in a malicious attempt to accuse me of paid editing here, yet not saying a word about the first one. Possibly because the first article reveals his connections with the owners of "Economedia" publishing group and "Capital" weekly Teodore Zahov and Ivo Prokopiev. The user himself calls Ivo Prokopiev "arch rival" of Delyan Peevski here, thus admitting that he should not contribute to any articles related to Prokopiev, Zahov or Peevski. Yet he not only does so, he also blocks any attempt for erasing unsourced information and adding objective facts to those articles/

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

You don't have much credibility here either, given that you've created at least one sockpuppet account (Gorgelee78, now blocked). Quickfingers is a well-established editor who edits a wide variety of subjects. I'd say this entry was created in bad faith. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not affiliated with Econmedia and their people. These articles prove nothing and are written in gossipy and defamatory manner from a single point of view. Also they put Wikipedia in bad light for the wrong reasons. All of the information about me presented there is false. One of them mentioned that I'm supposedly connecting from Spectrum Net. I never had that ISP in my area. Shows how accurate they are. By the way I didn't mentioned the first article because It wasn't published by the time I wrote in Oshwah's talk page. I have nothing to hide. Quickfingers (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@Quickfingers: Just so we're all clear here, when you said "information about me" do you mean about Delyan Peevski? In other words, you are Delyan Peevski? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Paolo Casali, again

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

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

Open Book Publishers

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

I requested block per WP:NOTHERE at WP:AN/I. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Alessandro Mocellin, Academia de ła Bona Creansa and MacroStandard

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

Cleaned up links. I do believe this is the first time we've had a COI reported over a letter of the alphabet. Bri.public (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)