Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) 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 meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. 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.
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. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. 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 COI guideline. 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, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 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 meets 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:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests User talk:174.57.42.161 Talk:A Time Called You Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency Talk:AgFirst Talk:AgriBank Talk:Bashir Al-Hashimi Talk:Rania Al-Mashat Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Water Works Talk:Anaxam Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:William Bolcom Talk:Brookfield Corporation Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Carbon Trust Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Slaid Cleaves Talk:CoBank Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:Danny Cohen (television executive) Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:DISA (company) Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Dogwoof Talk:Double Union Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:EF Education First Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Farm Credit Bank of Texas Talk:Farm Credit Council Talk:Farm Credit of New Mexico Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Randy Fine Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Michael Jones (entrepreneur) Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:King the Land Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist) Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano User talk:Lvhjr Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MP Materials Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Nintendo European Research & Development Talk:David Nirenberg Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Olivier Cornet Gallery Talk:OneHope Talk:Operating system Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pinger Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Programming language Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:QOR360 Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revel Transit Talk:Revolut Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist) Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Stephen Schlesinger Talk:Schott AG Talk:Milton Shedd Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Smiths Group Talk:SocialChorus Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SolidWorks Talk:SoundExchange Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tencent Talk:The Peninsula Hotels Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Topps Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Edward Trobaugh Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Up TV Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Thomas Albert Work Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zions Bancorporation

ResDiary

• ResDiary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in AFD
• Clairemurrayresdiary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User 'Clairemurrayresdiary' is maintaining page 'ResDiary', including removal of 'Advert' notice, with content that reads like advertising. The user, as indicated in the username, appears to be editing on behalf of the company.

• Mike Conyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) this article is for the owner of Resdiary also in AFD.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Laura Kightlinger

• Laura Kightlinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hugomandolin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Garrettsutton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 107.139.230.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RRIESQ/Archive blocked sockmaster, and socks:
• RRIESQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • CPESQS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • L&S-ESQS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • SCalEsq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 76.175.97.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) still editing in 2016, edits appear COI/promo
  • 38.104.78.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• There's a persistent long-term edit war (several years) over the birth date
  • Talk:Laura Kightlinger#DOB
  • Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_50#Laura_Kightlinger
  • The primary concern is if there's no WP:RS for the date, it should be removed as BLP policy violation - this seems to be the strong policy based, and ORTS based previous consensus.
    • But, it is clear that there's a minority view of WP:NOTCENSOR, WP:NOTPROMO, together with undisclosed->disclosed COI per talk and SPI / paid issue (per SPI).
    • The lack of an RS (and over that, the ORTS) should trump, but I'm not in a position to provide an RS and correct the date, but don't want to engage in NOTCENSOR either
    • Latest round of date flipping started by IP providing a date [1]
      • It's clear that there's ongoing undisclosed COI, and this is the example linked at the bottom of Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay)
        • In terms of non-RS, COI editors were previously relying on IMDB which said 1969, but now says 1964, so they've switched to another source. If they believed IMDB was RS before, why is it not now (not that matters for us, but somethings not right here).
• I've got it protected PC, suggest reaffirming consensus to remove date, and comment the article alerting editors to not insert a birth date without an RS. Widefox; talk 16:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • There was actually (for our purposes - Contemporary Authors) a reliable source listed if you look at the talk page. What the problem was that either the subject or someone with an official relationship with the subject was complaining through OTRS that it was incorrect, and either provided/didn't provide some contradictory evidence. As OTRS agents will not release or reveal the nature of their correspondence, its meaningless from a WP:V standpoint what is actually raised in an OTRS communication unless the subject is willing to make the information that is contradictory verifiable (either by self-publishing it, or getting a correction in a secondary source). As it stands, I would say the source used for the age was good enough absent any evidence to the contrary. (Lest anyone think I am one of the 'every detail of celebrities must be documented!' crowd, I have routinely supported and enacted removal of personal non-encyclopedic information on request by the subject where there is a credible reason to do so). An OTRS agent saying 'I have removed it because its wrong but I cant tell you why' should justifiably be rejected. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • User:Only in death Correct, but if you read the talk page further, Contemporary Authors was questioned as an RS for this type of info. So given that, my personal take on the situation is:
      • Long-term attempted subversion/BLP vio/edit war with poorly sourced date, and suppression of an arguably RS date, by undisclosed COI editors:
      • WP:DOB doesn't apply as 1. BLP isn't marginal-notability 2. the info is already published
      • Contemporary Authors (and non-RS sources such as IMDB) now agree on the date (and per arguments on the talk, the WP:OR is that the RSed date is internally consistent)
      • This seems like WP:CENSOR vs trivial-WP:RIGHT WRONGS . The undisclosed COI edits are WP:NOTPROMO -> Streisand effect. Widefox; talk 12:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Ping discussion participants (none of whom have a COI, no COI "subject of discussion" notice given) User:ErrantX User:SummerPhDv2.0 User talk:Danlaycock User:The Rambling Man. Widefox; talk 13:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Contemporary Authors was questioned as an RS, my interpretation of WP:V and WP:RS is that it meets our criteria. If they are unable to reach consensus on the talk page, a discussion at RSN would settle that. DOB is used to remove specifics for identity theft reasons, but not the age itself. While there is a lot of OR on the talkpage, we don't use OR itself to source information in an article, it does however lend credibility to the actual RS we have which indicates the age. Personally I have no problem with removing the age as an editorial decision - it certainly does have real and extensively documented consequences for women in entertainment to have their actual age known - but that should be decided as a result of a consensus discussion on the talk page, as listing the age, sourced appropriately, is not in itself against any of our policies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
      • The issue is COI editors actively over years inserting a seemingly false date. We should have no editorial pressure to either accept that, or WP:CENSOR, and it's not clear to me the influence of OTRS here. The image was also claimed as own work by one of the COIs, when not. I personally have no opinion on if it should be included, but as this is the example on a PAID essay, it looks like we can't even get that right. It seems clear that there's a substantial (possibly minority) view that the date should be included. If we censor based on subjects careers, what do we do about politicians etc? Widefox; talk 14:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I remember this issue; the source is wrong, based on information shared with OTRS, and the subject requested removal. Per the spirit of WP:BIO I don't see any problem with removing it. The information is not critically important and I am sure that in many years hence (e.g. when birth records from the relevant year is historically published) the correct information can be inserted without any problems. Persistent attempts to do something different to that is a pointless waste of everyone's time... --Errant ^(chat!) 10:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
          • "the source is wrong, based on information shared with OTRS" - that information needs to be verifiable. OTRS is not a reliable source. Unless the information shared with OTRS is either self-published somewhere, or published by a reliable source, a published reliable source is acceptable. Its also largely a problem of Wikipedia's own making. Most reputable biographies that we use as sources contain standard biographical information such as age, year of birth etc, so the argument 'its not encyclopedic' doesn't fly in most cases. The problem is when an actor's/actresses age is included in a little read professional biography its a bit harder to find than just googling them and the top entry being 'Born in XXXX'. The correct response for OTRS in this case is to advise the subject they would need to get the RS amended, or provide a clear verifiable contradiction somewhere so we can justify keeping it out. 'Its wrong but I cant tell you why' is not acceptable. Had OTRS done its job properly and advised the subject/her agents the correct way to make sure the information is either correct on Wikipedia, or in how to provide enough information that it can be kept out as a BLP contradiction, then the COI wouldn't have to keep coming back to try and get it removed. In short, give advice in line with our policies and we wouldn't be dealing with COI editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
            • I think you're caring about this too much, it's a minor matter that I am shocked people continue to care about. It is verifiable by asking an OTRS agent to log in an confirm the details, and in this case I absolutely *did* do my job properly as an OTRS agent. I recommending finding something more interesting to do. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
              • An OTRS agent is not a reliable source. The subject is a primary source. WP:V is policy. An OTRS ticket is not a verifiable reliable source. That you, and other OTRS agents do not understand this has come up repeatedly. You can remove BLP violations where identified, as can any editor, you can make requests on behalf of the subjects, you can advise the subject on how to get changes to their article. What you cannot do is edit an article on behalf of the subject to remove information that is backed by a reliable source and compliant with policy without providing a verifiable reliable source in order to justify it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
                • As an OTRS agent, I believe OID has hit the nail on the head.An OTRS agent is free to remove incorrectly sourced DOB, personal details et al on subject-request but iff he/she is removing something explicitly contradicted by an RS, that is a strict NO.The way out is to ask them to get the changes done in RS and make a request at t/p informing the situation to the editors.That whether the source used is a RS is albeit a diff. matter altogether.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
                  • OID has nailed the issue. It's either important enough for OTRS action or not. As is, it puts a chilling effect on the issue while COI editors persist, however minor the information is. Widefox; talk 12:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

AbridgedPause

• Vision Éternel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• AbridgedPause (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This username got reported at WP:UAA. I declined to instantly block because the account has been around for a while and the user has edited constructively, and also because the username doesn't necessarily imply shared use (nowadays a record label is often just one person). I think this COI article needs to be discussed here though. As one would expect with a COI article it reads a bit like a promotional bio and relies heavily on self-published sources which leaves me questioning the band's notability. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  08:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

HDS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to be the same person; their 2010 article on Vision Éternel was deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

So Vision Éternel is essentially an autobiography or self promotion. Tacky. ☆ Bri (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

There first edit was to make a redirect. There second edit was to make an entire article. Appears not to be their first account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

So, what shall we do about this? Does Vision Éternel meet WP:GNG? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure. I'm hoping AbridgedPause (talk · contribs) (who hasn't edited since before this post) will confirm for us that this account is only being used by one person and whether that is the same person as HDS (talk · contribs). I suggest taking the article to AfD if you think the band is non-notable. I suspect it probably does pass WP:BAND, but that the article needs to be trimmed down a lot. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  08:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Alberto Broggi & VisLab

• Alberto Broggi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• VisLab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Possible SPA/SPI issue (previously posted on Teahouse)

The pages Alberto Broggi & VisLab have clearly been created by a close contributor, however when examining the edit history it appears the articles have been built especially to look correct but are not.

Alberto Broggi has a long reference list, but all the sources are offline primary sources published by the subject, or sources that do not backup any information in the article.

Both articles have been edited by several accounts who only edited these articles, and a set of IP's, it is fairly obvious this is the same person creating an edit history artificially.

please check this out. Dysklyver 09:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like VisLab hasn't been substantially edited since 2013. Broggi just had a big cleanup (by the editor who filed). DGG can you do your academic magic and see if you think Alberto Broggi passes muster as WP:NACADEMIC? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Monarch Holidays

• Monarch Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Monarch Holidays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Monarch Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's definitely some COI editing at Monarch Holidays, but I imagine it to be some of the 100,000+ stranded passengers from the bankrupt Monarch Airlines sitting around in airports with nothing else to do - so please no lectures or blocking these folks. I don't know why I had Monarch Holidays on my watchlist, but I suspect it came about from something I noticed on this page or perhaps related to Cosmos Holidays a different, but formerly related company.

I can only suggest that folks keep an eye on these articles. There's no need for 3 articles on a small, now bankrupt company, so I'll likely redirect all the Monarch articles to Monarch Airlines. I do believe that there was likely some paid editing involved, so this might give somebody a topic to write up some of the effects of paid editing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Which raises an interesting question, do (all) disgruntled customers have a disability wrt Wikipedia COI editing? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think not, per WP:COINOTBIAS it would appear this is merely a POV bias, not a COI. However, as most these disgruntled customers will have NPOV issues, it could still be an issue. I can't seem to find a specific guideline to cover angry mobs of disgruntled customers, but there may be an essay on it somewhere. Dysklyver 00:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Nikki10038

• Marklen Kennedy (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

• Giorgia Mondani (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

• Richard Fertig (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

• Marklen Kennedy (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

• DenG (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

We have some fairly new accounts voting in the RfD of some of these. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas

• Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Austin-geo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:6000:E94A:AA00:6554:1E46:79C4:3305 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The purpose of these account appears to be to "puff up" the notability of Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas.

User:Austin-geo has made 228 total edits, nearly all to Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas. User:2605:6000:E94A:AA00:6554:1E46:79C4:3305 has made 21 edits, all to Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas.

With reference specifically to User:Austin-geo, their edits rely heavily on real estate sites as sources, and text added is often trivial in detail (eg. the price of toll roads), or promotional in tone (eg. the price of homes and number of neighborhood amenities). An attempt has also been made to show the boundaries of Northwest Hills as being much larger than they are.

Northwest Hills has no GNIS entry, and appears to be a small, affluent housing complex in northwest Austin, Texas. Google Maps specifically outlines the boundaries of Northwest Hills.

Attempts to trim excessive content, or remove content with only a slight connection to Northwest Hills, have been met with reverts, and hostile talk page comments and edit summaries.

Examples:

• Here, User:John from Idegon told Austin-geo to "limit demographic data to the census bureau". Here, User:Magnolia677 told Austin-geo "The US Census should be the primary source of demographic data, per WP:USCITIES; this has been agreed to by consensus; stop edit warring". This edit was reverted here with the edit summary "This WikiProject advice page is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community ... editors are advised to come to a consensus that works best for the city in question."
• Several edits were made to restructure the layout of the article, and remove trivial information about highway tolls, bus routes, and directory-style listings (by User:Mduvekot). These were all reverted by Austin-geo with one sweeping edit here (though Austin-geo did later remove the directory-style listing).
• At Talk:Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas#Transportation section as WP:NOTTRAVEL, Magnolia677 proposed that information about bus routes be trimmed. This was in response to Austin-geo reverting this edit, which trimmed excessive and trivial detail about bus routes. Austin-geo argued that their edits were within policy, and twice accused Magnolia677 of being WP:RECKLESS.
• At Talk:Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas#Independent, reliable sources, User:Mduvekot commented that many of Austin-geo's edits were sourced by real estate websites, and proposed that these edits "should either be rewritten and properly sourced or removed". Austin-geo responded "Please explain why. Don't just tell, show. And please don't cite a Wikipedia essay...". As well, Austin-geo responded here, stating that the removal of their edits was due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
• At Talk:Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas#Neutrality, User:Mduvekot suggested removing--as the official website--a neighborhood association. Austin-geo opposed this, and suggested the neighborhood association website instead be added to the infobox.
• Most troubling, this user appears to have cherry picked an unreliable source which identified the boundaries of this small neighborhood as being much larger than they are. Here the IP editor selected this real estate site to define the boundaries of Northwest Hills. Austin-geo confirmed here that they used this real estate website to locate the boundaries of Northwest Hills. Following that, Austin-geo began puffing up the article by adding a plethora of locations (schools, buildings, parks and so forth) located within those large and unreliably boundaries. A more accurate definition of Northwest Hills' boundaries is found using Google Maps, which shows the boundaries to be much smaller. As a result, many of the sites located outside the boundaries were deleted. This led Austin-geo to protest here, beginning "What the fuck just happened. Nice job deleting portions of the article without exercising some WP:COMMONSENSE". This is troubling, because Austin-geo in fact used Google Maps here, and was therefore well aware of Northwest Hills' much small boundaries.

Austin-geo stated here that they do not have a conflict of interest, writing "You could have just asked (and not posted that warning on my talkpage), or read the DYK nomination. You did not assume good faith. If I were affiliated to a real estate agent, I would have probably just used one agency, don't you think? If I were involved with the NWACA, I would have favored their opinions in the Austin Oaks PUD debate."

This account has the hallmarks of a single-purpose account attempting to puff up the notability of an affluent neighborhood by making it read like a real estate listing, and make it eligible for this DYK nomination. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Bullet 1 – John reverted my updates because I used a City-Data source to make claims about population. I'm perfectly fine with his revert, as I do agree government sources are probably better for population counts. You were WP:RECKLESS and I reverted your updates in the Demographics section, because you did not look for consensus in the article's talkpage. WP:USCITIES is not a Wikipedia policy and says consensus should be gathered on a case by case too.

• Bullet 2 – Restructure or delete? I only saw you delete chunks of the article without consensus or assuming good faith.

• Bullet 3 – You've yet to show me how edits were violating Wikipedia policy per WP:NOTTRAVEL. You can try again.

• Bullet 4 – Yup, explain what needs to be written and why. Per WP:RS, questionable sources (i.e. promotional ones) can be used with caution as long as the information cited is not contentious. It also reads: "Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available." Which means that the real estate sources, though not the "best" when compared to other reliable sources, are allowed if I'm careful. Per WP:PROMOTIONAL, "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." I've asked you to be specific to the instances where you think I was promotional. You've yet to meet the burden of proof.

• Bullet 5 – That's not what I was trying to say. I was responding directly to the "propose that the nwaca is not the subject of the article ...", because in no way was the NWACA intended to be the subject of the article. I made the mistake of adding the URL in the infobox, and you guys are now accusing me of promoting on behalf of a business. I told him/her to remove the URL if they thought it was the best move.

• Bullet 6 – I just found this new source from Austin Monthly that gives the same boundaries as the other source. Is this source better/enough?

If you are kind enough, please show me a list of GAs and FAs about city neighborhoods, that way I can get a better understanding of what you mean by "reads like a real estate listing". Again, you gotta show me what you like and don't like, not just tell me. I created this account because I'm interested in Northwest Hills, and I want to work on more Austin-related articles. My next article was probably going to be Pennybacker Bridge, since I really want to visit the site. But I wasn't even given the chance to do so because I was still working on NW Hills prior to its appearance on the main page. So unless you can prove I'm a single-purpose account that is only trying to puff NW Hills, then you have nothing on me. Like I mentioned in the article's talkpage, I'm open to have Wikipedia reach out to me directly and find out who I am. But I'm not disclosing it here. I'm in no way a single-purpose account. I want to write about Austin; I started with Northwest Hills because that's what I wanted/was most familiar with. Austin-geo (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Austin-geo has made 228 total edits, nearly all to Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas. User:2605:6000:E94A:AA00:6554:1E46:79C4:3305 has made 21 edits, all to Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas. - The IP address was me. Not sure if I had to disclose it, but I am now. I figured it was easier to write the article by creating an account (i.e. Watchlist, not having to put that passcode for every edit, better treatment (allegedly), access to email, etc.) Austin-geo (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Austin-geo: can be blocked for disruptive editing right now. He is a new SPA, spouting Wikipedia rules in a very aggressive way. Includes promotional sources into an article about a subject he is clearly promoting. He has all the hallmarks of an undisclosed paid editor. Somebody might want to check whether he is related to the Austin upe firm that has been banned. On top of it all he just sent me this inexplicable notice [2] Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Smallbones: You came off aggressively by accusing me of being a paid editor, and now you're threatening me with a block. You could have checked the article's talkpage and how I'm willing to disclose my profession to Wikipedia (not to you directly), and that I'm no paid editor. And yes, reach out to CheckUser if you want about that Austin firm. I'm not associated with them. The message I left on your talkpage was because you didn't assume good faith with me. Hopefully we can be civil now. Austin-geo (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks like others have noticed a possible paid editing bias in the way you are editing and you are not listening to the very good advice you've been given, e.g. don't use real estate adverts as if they are reliable sources.

As far as you placing a notice on my talk page welcoming me as a new editor and saying that I need to assume good faith: I've been editing on Wikipedia for 11 years. In that time I've seen many paid editors and you match the general pattern - biased edits, unreliable sources, new SPA attacking editors who question their edits, spouting Wikipedia rules almost at random, general disruptive editing. I've got a notice on the top of my talk page saying that paid editors should not edit on my talk page. I'm just tired of all attacks and all the BS they spout. You are not welcome to edit on my talk page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Smallbones: Your years of experience are a red herring. I've asked those editors to show me exactly where in WP:RS does it say I cannot use real estate sources, but none of them have been able to. They just say "it's not reliable, read WP:RS", but don't say which clause in specific. The page reads, "Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available." The page then reads, "Questionable sources (i.e. promotional) are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims", which I don't believe I ever did. WP:PROMOTIONAL reads, "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view". Please show me where I was violating these rules in the article's talkpage, but be specific. And as far as the "paid editing" goes, I have nothing to say but deny those claims. There's not much I can do now because you already made up your mind. I'm citing the policies because I believe I did everything right. Just as you, I want the best for this project and I'm excited of the possibility of being involved in more articles, though I'm worried about the hostile environment to "non-seasoned" editors. Address my points about the policies so we can move forward with this. Austin-geo (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's all please try to make sure this doesn't end in tears. I became interested in the article because it showed an unusual (compared to good or featured articles about neighbourhoods) bias toward a certain type of source (real estatate agents) that made it a good dataset to test a piece of software I'm writing for my own use to aid in new page patrol. I have no personal or commercial interest in the subject. I have very little no sympathy for undisclosed paid editors. But this topic is notable, and the article can be written neutrally, based on reliable, independent sources. Let's fix the article in the collegial spirit that the fourth pillar calls for. Austin-geo, you need to stop wikilawyering; you've only been here 9 days and have a lot to learn. Ask for clarification if something doesn't make sense, do not make accusations, and do not template the regulars. Everybody else, give a new editor a break, please. Here is the list of good or featured articles that I referred to earlier and that Austin-geo asked about: Point Loma, San Diego, Old Louisville, Washington Park, Chicago (community area), East End of London, Gulfton, Houston, University of Dayton Ghetto, Near South Side, Chicago, Magnificent Mile, San Marco (Jacksonville), Streeterville, Washington Park Court District, Washington Park Subdivision, Downtown Triangle (Jerusalem), River Oaks, Houston, Riverside and Avondale, Lakeshore East. I'm off to facilitate an edit-a-thon, so please don't send me any embarrassing notifications while I'm presenting in front of an audience. Have fun, Mduvekot (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for this. I'll take a look at the articles once I come back from a walk outside. In all kindness, if you help me address the points above regarding the real estate sources, I'll gladly appreciate it. Austin-geo (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Austin-geo seems to have misinterpreted the intent of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Vendor and e-commerce sources, or simply cherry picked the part they feel supports their edits. The website of a real estate office is an "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services". It is not like iTunes, where editors sometime source track listings. A real estate website is a primary source with no reliability for fact checking. It exists to puff up its listings with over-the-top euphemisms and biased descriptions. This has been addressed briefly at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 19#Real estate listings?. What's troubling is that Austin-geo actually had the poor judgement to add these biased websites to a Wikipedia article. This real estate website wrote: "Its copious floor-to-ceiling windows offer sweeping Hill Country country views that include the Pennybacker Bridge, and glass doors and cantilevered outdoor living areas create a seamless transition between inside and out." From that, Austin-geo wrote here: "Some of the houses on the top of the mountain have views towards Texas Hill Country that include Pennybacker Bridge." Did Austin-geo tone it down? Sure. Should they have used this (forgive me, I never swear) "bull**** source" in the first place? That's not for me to decide, but by the number of times Austin-geo has insulted others, telling them to use "common sense", Austin-geo seems to have failed the common sense test as well. I would otherwise say, "meh, just a new editor trying to do their best", but Austin-geo isn't. This editor knows Wikipedia policy in depth, is skilled at editing, and plays rope-a-dope with great skill while they insult others. I completely agree with the well-respected User:Smallbones: Austin-geo has "all the hallmarks of an undisclosed paid editor". Magnolia677 (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sigh… yes, they do share some of the behaviors of paid editors and sockpuppets. In my experience, most paid editors have better manners, because they have very little incentive to antagonize other editors until they get caught. Mduvekot (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Thank you for explaining this to me. Now that we have decided that real estate sources are "primary" in nature, I'll take that as a guideline moving forward. I kept asking from the start to explain what clause within WP:RS I was violating, but it took us about a day to come to that conclusion. I didn't appreciate the mass deletions without at least a message in the article's talkpage before. You saw I was editing the article recently. It could have taken you a few seconds to ping me in the talkpage and let me know that real estate sources were problematic for a number of reasons. Instead, you deleted my work and expected me to do all the homework. If you all want to block me for suspected paid editing, go for it. I'm open to have Wikipedia administrators or CheckUsers reach out to me so I can provide them with documentation on my profession and show them I'm not involved in paid editing. If I get blocked, I'll be back as soon as it is over (if it ever is) to get involved with Austin articles. I have access to the University of Texas at Austin library and can use a lot of sources there to improve Austin-related articles (as I did with some of the books in the Bibliography section). The FA and GAs linked above are a good guideline for me to use too, so thanks Mduvekot for posting. Moving forward, I will no longer use real estate sources. I also expect for editors to reach out in the article's talkpage before doing massive changes/deletions to an article, especially if the editor in question was active recently. I hope we can all exercise good faith moving forward (and simply just being civil/respect about other peoples' contributions). Best regards, Austin-geo (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment--I have drastically edited the article and has removed a chunk of data along with numerous un-reliable/non-needed sources.Austingeo, please remember that we are not a travel guide and as mentioned above, real-estate sources are definitely not reliable.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Sherry Shahan

• Sherry Shahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nicolitta1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed this user create the above linked article- while the author may be notable enough to merit one, the creator did not initially include any independent RS. Upon examining their user talk page, I saw that they had previously been requested to declare what seems to be a paid editing relationship and/or COI but has yet to do so. Other posters to the article like Blythwood seem to have seen evidence of this relationship(though I'm not sure exactly where). I've added an additional request for them to declare a paid relationship, but they do not seem to be acknowledging their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Just for information, that was posted on a now-deleted talk page. Blythwood (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - the COI on this and multiple other articles created by Nicolitta1 looks pretty obvious to me. Deb (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The user has made a formal declaration of their remuneration on their user page. The talk pages of their contributed articles also have {{connected contributor (paid)}} in them. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Kelvinsage1

• Kelvinsage1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tarila Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Segun Gele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olaleye Oluwasegun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ubi Franklin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are several indicators in these article of undisclosed paid editig - namely the inclusion of unsourced dates of birth and PR photographs that are claimed as their own work. See also c:User_talk:Kelvinsage1. SmartSE (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Saty,bakshi

• Saty,bakshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Inserting references to own papers in various articles (history shows this is the editor's main activity). —PaleoNeonate – 00:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

They have now been well warned. If they continue a block will be warranted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Ricardo Baca

• Ricardo Baca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not happy to have to bring this up here; it's an article I created for the WP:420 collab. Because I am the creator I'm not going to join in any direct editing at this time due to strong desire not to WP:OWN this. However there's a lot of weird editing lately that introduced a) inline ELs and b) a photo of the subject by a new user c) 'updated career info'; all of which are frequently tipoffs. More eyes-on are welcome. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored an earlier version of the article to eliminate all the newly introduced unsourced content. I invite others to take a look. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

After AB's cleanup, new addition today of a section "Awards & Appearances" and other stuff like his pets' names. Like I said before, hallmarks of trouble. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I reverted again. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Konrad Mizzi

• Konrad Mizzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please observe that the article of Konrad Mizzi is edited by people connected to the subject, by unregistered editors and an editor with a misleading name. I believe the article should be deleted entirely or keep a stub. Most of the article is a political propaganda and future ambitions, original research, and not neutral. Several cited information was removed by the unregistered editors.Continentaleurope (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Seth Godin

• Seth Godin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Davykamanzi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seth Godin is biography about a marketer. The article has a long history of SPA-editing, and past discussions have brought up suspicions of COI violations. The article relies heavily on promotional, usually primary, sources.

Davykamanzi has disclosed he's working for Godin [3].

Davykamanzi contacted me on my talk page, User_talk:Ronz#Seth_Godin, after he reworked his editing to the article, addressing my edit summary COI - promotion - please make smaller edits and work from independent sources [4] when I reverted his first major edit to the article. I've reverted much of his subsequent edits [5] [6] as further WP:SOAP problems that rely on poor sources.

As I said on my talk page, I think Davykamanzi should be working from edit requests given his FCOI and desire to use promotional, primary sources in his editing even after these problems are brought up. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: There are no more edits I wish to make on the article as it appears a compromise has been reached in terms of my edits to the article. I'll leave any subsequent edits up to other editors without a COI. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 19:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I believe you need to doing your FCOI editing through edit requests. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: Yes, I understand that, but I'm making it clear that I won't be doing any more editing to the article. If I want to make any more edits I will float them through edit requests on the talk page as you have said. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 05:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that you follow COI very closely from here on for all articles. I'm not clear that you are agreeing with your repeated focus on this one article. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Truedson Demitz‎

Articles:

• Jacob Truedson Demitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - now at AFD here
• Wild Side Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Note that Demitz is linked here and in many of the articles below, via redirect @ Lars Jacob (his stage name).
• AlexCab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Birgit Ridderstedt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Throne of a Thousand Years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mattias Klum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stefan Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Yaiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Steve Vigil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alexandra Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Graham Tainton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anders Eljas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Involved Users (Active):

• SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Involved Users (Inactive):

• EmilEik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EmilEikS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fiandonca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• YeahManSwed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SoCoColl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been editing a large number of articles that are linked to the above person. I have asked a number of times to make a disclosure of his COI which he refuses to do. On commons he refers to this individual's interests and company by saying "we" [7] He has added dozens of references to this person and his family and interests over 9 years by adding photos links and taking over the editing of another user that carries the name of a person closely linked to Demitz User:EmilEikS Emil Eikner. EmilEiks asked to be blocked and a few months later SergeWoodzing popped up to take over his editing. This editor has been blocked indefinitely on Swedish WP for COI editing on these subjects here. There has been speculation on the Swedish WP as to the real identity of this user but as per WP:OUTING I have not repeated these allegations I have however asked him several times to disclose his COI here and here and here amongst other. He replied "pass" here with an edit summary of "go away please". So I think that I have no choice but to open a case here.

Here are a very small selection of his COI edits [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]where he has inserted or wedged photos that he has uploaded to commons with references to Demitz or another of his group and with a spammy text on the photo that says:

Assistant for CabarEng. - This image comes from the Southerly Clubs of Stockholm, Sweden, a non-profit society which owns image publication rights to the archives of Lars Jacob Prod, Mimical Productions, F.U.S.I.A., Swenglistic Underground (formerly CabarEng), Ristesson Ent and FamSAC. Southerly Clubs donated this picture to the Public Domain. Deputy Chairman Emil Eikner for the Board of Directors, Hallowe'en 2008. This work is freeand may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page. Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2010092510008875. If you have questions about the archived correspondence, please use the OTRS noticeboard. Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2010092510008875

The Swedish article for Demitz was deleted a number of times as not being notable. [18] he has also been adding spam to German wikipedia and got into a heated discussion here because he wanted to add of photo of Demitz to illustrate the article on the town called Demitz and was told by different users including an administrator that just because he has the same name as a town that doesn't make the photo relevant especially as Demitz does not have a page on German WP.

I have opened a ticket on the commons adminstrator's notticeboard to try and understand how commons can be used to host so much promotional material but I'm not getting much of a reply. commons AN Domdeparis (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I have mostly just looked at the Demitz article, which is now at AFD, but this looks like a clear-cut case of COI editing to me. The ridiculous level of puffery, use of snapshots of the subject in various locations & over many years as "sources" [19][20], and SergeWoodzing's rather prickly response to criticism and questions on the talk page are all a dead giveaway. I'm skeptical that any of these people/subjects is notable about the notability of some of these people/subjects, this looks like a WP:WALLEDGARDEN that has escaped notice for years. Sources need to be scrutinized carefully, they are very good at making things look well referenced when they're not (see my !vote at the Demitz AFD for some examples). Fyddlestix (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, this is ancient history now but worth noting that EmilEiks was accused of using socks in 2009. There are also a ton of old drama-board posts that may shed some light on this: [21][22][23][24][25][26] Seems like this person has caused quite a lot of disruption over the years. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There are instances of the person Jacob Truedson Demitz trying to influence Wikipedia content through SergeWoodzing. After SergeWoodzing's edits on the subjects of Count of Wisborg and Prince Bernadotte were disputed for being WP:OR, there appeared a self-published paper, written by Jacob Truedson Demitz, which supported SergeWoodzing's edits and even went so far as quoting (!) the user's own comments on the Swedish article's talk page ([27] [28] [29] and so forth). Only after WP:RSN got involved, SergeWoodzing refrained from using the paper as a source. This was an important part of the user's ban from swWP. /Elzo 90 (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Here a definite accusation is made that there are "instances" of one person "trying to influence Wikipedia" through another person (me) because I (incorrectly) thought I could quote that person's work. There is no evidence whatsoever, anywhere, that any such attempts to influence Wikipedia ever have taken place. On the contrary, I have removed fluff and other unnecessary items from all these articles on many occasions.

Here my conceding defeat (an usual thing on WP and unheard of at svWP) looks like the reason being given as "an important part of the user's ban from swWP" - I rarely if ever use the word ridiculous, but that is. The two articles Count of Wisborg and Prince Bernadotte, however, are good examples which we've worked on, argued a bit about but finally greatly improved. I invite anyone to have a look at their talk pages and histories, and I challenge anyone to come up with any other result having been accomplished than that. They are good examples of lots of bluffing, errors and misconceptions being cleared up, not perpetuated. Hard feelings and grudges over these things (plus corrected Swenglish) seem to have have been perpetuated by some. That's sad. Because the results are quite good. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You are not presenting all the facts, you conceded defeat on the 27th of September only after you had been warned here on the 25th of September for edit warring on this page in a boomerang ANI report that you yourself opened against 4 editors who were not in agreement with your self-published sources. Despite being warned by admin not to continue adding self-published sources and for overusing primary sources you continued to argue the point for 2 more days before "conceding defeat". A week of pointless arguments, a WP:BOOMERANG admin noticeboard and 2 editors including an admin that you sought help from telling you that you were wrong is what was needed for you to stop. This is the very definition of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. --Domdeparis (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The facts can be different depending on how we look at them. I argued that point until I was proven wrong according to the way it's done on Wikipedia, and then I admitted I'd been wrong and conceded defeat. It was important to me to learn from that error by following through as far as possible, without being sarcastic or untruthful or trying to trash anyone personally, and I did - follow through and learn. People were fair. If you want to call that disruptive you have the right to your opinion.

Perhaps claiming that 3000 images are all about cabarets (I replied below), when that is far from the obvious truth, is also disruptive. Perhaps claiming that a user's contributions year after year all have been about cabarets, when that too is far from true, is disruptive. Perhaps nominating 25 images for deletion at Commons without knowing much about Commons is disruptive. Perhaps this extensive complaint which you say you were "forced" to, and the threats to English Wikipedia you're warning everybody about and have implied in some of your comments here, is disruptive. Perhaps being overly deletionist, exclusionist, elitist, suspicious, accusatory, heroic is disruptive. Perhaps refusing to fairly evaluate obviously reliable sources is disruptive. Perhaps flushing a user of over 8 years down the toilet (your devastating comments below) rather than helping them correct whatever mistakes they've made, is disruptive. Perhaps flying in en masse from other language projects just to rehash 1-2-3-4-5-6-years' old arguments, from which we could have evolved, is disruptive. If none of the above, I don't know what's disruptive anymore, but I am always willing to learn, to correct my mistakes and to concede defeat when proven wrong. You? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: as an admin on svwp I was by a coincident dragen into this by Elzo last year, so you see my name in the links. I looked into the mentioned paper source and helped make it not be used. This and the Demitz problem and that it had been stated that SW had been editing from the same computer as Demitz made SW be blocked. We have seen the same problems on enwp, but because I am not editing as much as he does, and he has suport by other blocked editors from svwp it has been hard to make you notice it. He still has suport from exil Swedes, as you can see on the deletion discussion. .. which makes it hard for us to make you react without thinking we are the troublemakers. Hopefully you now can look into this matter and also the nobility matter in a neutral point of view and also see that my and other swedish users worries are not arguing but serious. I do not know the suporters, but it could be worth checken if they are relaterade to him too. (Sock puppets). Adville (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment (don't know how to divide this up in paragraphs) I have not refused to discuss this constructively, neither in the past nor now, neither at Commons nor on any other Wikimedia project. I have declined to continue to reply over and over to a non-administrator user who I feel since one disagreement has been intentionally hounding me lately, whose ever mushrooming investigation (at least in methoid) feels more like dogged persecutuion, like a self-appointed criminal detective stalking a huge crook, than like anything balanced and constructive.

  I've been here for many years and have learned a lot. The only time I remember having been seriously accused of COI before on English Wikipedia (and even then by Swedes whom I've had to comment on here) I was deemed OK. If I've unintentionally taken that as license and liberty to conrtibute things which the Community here cannot find constructive, I am truly sorry. The replacement of 2 images and some text by me yesterday was done in a spirit of cooperation.

  Always, I would much rather help in fixing whatever problems I may have caused than argue about them. In cases where I've opposed someone else's action I've always (always) given up, if proven wrong by guidelines or consensus, and tried to do so gracefully. There are no rules that we must always agree, but we must always try to be (1) fair and (2) civil.

  Two of my images being removed by another user today cause me no heartache. On the contrary, all of us should appreciate help in cleaning some of our edits up. I have never contributed anything, though, without feeling it was relevant to an article, whether or not I know someone in an image or know someone who knows someone, and so on.

  Though I feel minimal confidence anymore, based on behavior I perceive, that my e-mailing scans of newspaper articles to this nominator will end up with their being treated faily and constructively, I will now do so anyway in good faith.

  There is evidence here and here, however, that as of today there is collaboration between my new antagonist (as I perceive it) here at EnWP (and Commons), and one of my most lengthily vehement opponents at svWP. Things like that scare me, and about as much as the many attempted outings at svWP last year (not much in the way of ethics rules over there) and the attempted outings & horrifying personal attacks by an IP made here yesterday but removed relatively fast.

  Anything that isn't done, right now, to try to distract me from my rather urgent research would be very much appreciated, me being an old man now, with worsening eyesight and a bit of brain damage. I spent considerable time researching at the National Library of Sweden again today to get better information and try to prop up the Jacob Truedson Demitz article by clarifying and translating reliable sources under it for evaluation in that deletion process.

  I've read WP:COI several times carefully, earlier and recently, and have always tried to edit in a way where my good faith would be evident even though I know some of these people and they know and have worked with a lot of famous people: many Swedes, a Frenchman and a Dane and a Norwegian and a German or two, a few Englishmen, and a number of Americans. I am always interested in constructive criticism and have made hundreds of edits to correct mine and those of others, whether or not there have been COI concerns raised or other problems. I've done lots of reference research, once I finally got the hang of formatting citations well enough (I thought). It has been my honest (honest) belief that it is allowed to add information about people one knows, as long as it is well sourced and relevant and benefits the project. That's why I've added it, and for no other reason ever.

  I've also specialized a bit in fixing a lot of confusing Swenglish in English articles (which has rubbed a few Swedes the wrong way, as complained about severely at their own project), and in reverting obvious mischief. My watchlist here is huge, and at Commons considerable. I try to get through them daily.

  The example of Mattias Klum as part of this accusation is quite odd, since it is not mine and there I have repeatedly criticized the fact that it's been mostly edited under several user names which have included the Klum name, and at first was also almost exclusively self-referenced. The articles on Alexandra Charles and Yaiya were not created by anyone I know, and my contributions to them have not been major.

  I would now like to be given a few days of relative peace to go on putting together that reference improvement in time, before defending myself additionally here, as probably will be needed. If y'all want me to go away, I'll be sad to do so, because I've felt kid of at home here, but at least I'll have a lot of permanent contributions here to be proud if, most of whch have no connection whatsoever to anyone I know. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

You guys are killing me with walls of text. Please keep replies to a minimum. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes it is well known that I have used a computer registered to Demitz and at times also used by him. It's used by several people that know him through his organization the Southerly Clubs, but he does not control its use and it is not located at his address. As far as I know, there are computers registered to him at several locations. I have only used one of them.

The participation of antagonitic Swedish editors here (of whom some admittedly are politicians) I assume could be judged against the infrequency of their appearances at English Wikipedia and by what they do comment on and edit on the rare occasions when they're here. Those antagonistic users all (all) belong to a cabal which operates together to ensure their control of that project, and it is in their interest to try to demean people, here and there, who've objected. None of them are very interested in entertainment, especially not drag queens and such. I have no doubt they'd all like to see some of these articles deleted and would celebrate it if I got blocked here too.

I have no objection to these articles being checked for reliable sources and notability. On the contrary, I would love to help improve them, which is my normal attitude. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Bri - I'm not enjoying this either. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I've e-mailed the complaint filing user here that I can send scanned refs to h, as requested, but have had no reply.

Swedish Wikipedia is active now with what there is not called canvassing (with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way) and there are very few rules at all, the ones they have being used arbitrarily by the elite. Here is one example asking another user to comment again and "utveckla den lite" [expound a bit] on his delete, but that user "tvekar inför att ta mig an SW och hans marionettgäng" [is hesitant to deal with SW and his gang of sock puppets], which I have none so that accusation would be a personal attack here, but not there. Also here's another about their old complaint on our use of the same computer where they're now informing each other that I'm "uppe för diskussion" [up for discussion] at English Wikipedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

OMG! I have worked for gay rights all my life and I for one enjoy drag shows at Pride festivals and such. Stop this, SergeWoodzing. This has nothing to do with drags and gays. It is about your strong COI. Dnm (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for showing that I told the user to explain his vote for the enwp, but you forgot to write that I said "observe this is written after he voted so it is not a call for more voters" just to avoid your accusations like this. I am also happy you write his concerns about your way of discussion. The question dnm wrote was not to make others come here but about diffs so he could show (not neccesary after you said it is true.) I am not in a gang against you. I only see the same as others do. Adville (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Serge, briefly as I can: I find your claim that The articles on Alexandra Charles and Yaiya were not created by anyone I know somewhat disingenuous given that the Charles article, at least, was created by EmilEik, who was apparently the same person as EmilEikS, and the reason we're in this mess right now is because you were adding images of one Emil Eikner (often pictured with Demitz, or with Yaiya) into all kinds of different articles [30][31][32]. While they edited at different times, these accounts also seem to have similar interests (even in Mae West, whom Demitz is apparently a big fan of). The inclusion of Klum here shouldn't be a mystery to you, given that you've yourself written that they have the same grandfather. You can't possibly expect us to believe that this is all a coincidence. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You are right about Charles and I apologize sincerely (Very tired now, should be in bed, and that's a valid excuse at my age and in this situation). Didn't check "older 500" and knew that her article at svWP was not by anyone I know. Apparently (before my time with all this) we provided the first photo for her Swedish article (that's what we began by doing quite a bit of in 2008 and why Demitz wanted to free up all his image archives), so that also confused me now.

There are at least 10-20 more people who have well sourced articles on several language projects and are related to people I know. If the history of one article such as Klum clearly shows that I have improved it very impartially, by removing fluff & unsourced things, plus reminded them about COI, it makes me feel bad to see it here. I think I added the and linked names of his parents after his father recently died and they (not I) had made an article about him at SvWP. That's about it. Providing info about the grandfather was in god faith. I honestly didn't think that was an unusual thing to do.

As to your constructive edit summary now, please see my comment above about reading and trying my best to abide by COI. It's easier to find that part of my comment now that I know how to make §s. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I've skimmed this discussion, Jacob Truedson Demitz, and the AfD. From what I see, the content concerns are valid and the WP:IDHT from SergeWoodzing regarding WP:V,WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT problems should be enough for a block or ban. --Ronz (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That is a severely fluffy article. I don't understand why someone would fill a wall of text and then say "oh yeah I share a computer with this guy"--I mean seriously, no one like that should be writing on that person. However, I can say, and this is of some relevance, that my CU tool reveals no evidence of foul play, and it seems to me that, given the admission of the computer and other aspects of this discussion, the use of CU was more than warranted here. Serge, please try using <p> to create paragraph breaks. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you - I've always wondered how to do that, but seldom feel I need to write that long a piece. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify I am not saying that over the 8 years you have been here you have not just been trying to promote this person and his interests. I am not saying that the article on klum should go. You have done some non COI work...but...over this period you have systematically pushed to improve the presence of Demitz his cabaret and friends all over wikiprojects. On commons you have uploaded nearly 3000 images I believe all with links to Demitz's cabaret. You very clearly very close to Demitz and his cabaret. You have access to photos from his childhood his computer you edit pages on him his mother grandfather and cousin. But you refuse to say exactly what your relationship is.

I think that you are honest and do not wish to lie so are in an impossible position and cannot disclose correctly. If we wanted to clean up the COI work it would take years to do seeing the extent. None of what you have added is essential or unique. All the photos I have seen are additional photos that can be removed without damaging the articles. There are a large number of other editors that work on the non COI pages you have edited. As such I believe that your presence and edits are far from being necessary and mostly contrary to policy so I suggest an indefinite block and Nuking all your edits. I don't know if this is possible or not. Domdeparis (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

As noted here (it's the 3rd or 4th time I'm providing you with that link) I have access to the well organized files of the Southerly Clubs (including subcategory Ristesson), as do a few more people, and they mainly contain images on entertainment, genealogical and historical topics, images created and organized by that organization. The nearly 3000 images on Commons to a very large extent are not with any links to cabarets, nor are a large number of those images that have been added from there, through the Southerly Clubs donations, to a few hundred Wikipedia articles. I repeat, I have acted in good faith as well ss I can to add only material that I honestly have thought was relevant, whether or not (often not) it pertains to people I know or people they know. I've made mistakes, some serious, and have been glad to have help in correcting them. I've done no major damage of any kind, as I think a fair evaluation of my work here over time will find. While you're asking me to trust you one moment, you're making very serious but erroneous accusations like this (incorrect assessment of 3000 readily available images), again and again, and then suggesting that I be cast into the gutter, and all my work even on articles of history and the like, even my many vandalism reversals, even my many corrections of unintelligible Swenglish, be destroyed. That's supposed to be constructive? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I shouldn't worry too much about that there a few editors here on English Wikipedia capable of correcting grammar and spelling and cleaning up vandalism. Domdeparis (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

More than a year ago, I asked SergeWoodzing at SVWP to either present his relation to JTD or state explicitly that he would not do so (om du inte vill besvara frågan skulle jag uppskatta att du åtminstone säger i klartext att du inte tänker besvara den). He dodged the question for several days and neither answered it nor declared that we wouldn't. I believe the general conclusion was that it was impossible for hom to come up with no specific answer to my question that would neither show very many of his promotional edits in articles and aggressive posts in talk pages in a retroactive bad light nor be an outright lie. - Tournesol (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to add here in the end that SW says we from svwp is haunting him all the time. He wants us to leva him aloe and so on. If you look in the diffs in this discussion you'll see that last year SW got a warning after using a suspect source that med Elzo dnm and user:Le Lapin vert were erasing. We also have had the same concerns as the enwp editors coming neutral into the discussion or trying to find oit if he is coin as Tournesol here above.means we are not trying to mock with him but we have serious concerns about the neutrality with his editings. Adville (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Retiring from editing COI articles

I am on friendly terms with Jacob Truedson Demitz in real life. The friendly terms are personal, not financial, but constitute a conflict of interest in this regard. I decline to publish my private circumstances on Wikipedia, but will no longer edit any article about him directly. I might put suggestions for improvement, especially to sources, on the talk pages of articles where a conflict of interest on my part is involved. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this means the case can be closed now. Anybody have a problem with that? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure the issue can be closed yet. It is also somewhat strange that you ask if someone has a problem with closing 19:25, when you closed the discussion one hour later. How would had the time to answer the question? I think it is going to fast. Dnm (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You must be volunteering to take this thing over because I'm done with it, amd the spillover on my talkpage too. Have fun! ☆ Bri (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, user:Dnm. The concerns I have here are the same as user:Domdeparis: All the linking in a promotional way and his way of Always feeling hunter by user. First he calls for neutral opinion and when that user is against and starta to discuss his wrong edit he does like [User_talk:SergeWoodzing here]. This makes it very hard to start rinsing the promo and that is also why a lot of Swedish user were affraid of him. This is the big problem now.Adville (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

From what I can gather once he has admitted COI there is nothing more to do here if we want to stop him spamming them we have to open a discussion with the admins who are the only ones able to warn and apply sanctions. What we can do is start cleaning up after him and if he obstructs then get the admins involved. Maybe there are some reading this discussion who would be willing to advise us how to move forward. Domdeparis (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: Sure, SW has admitted COI but tanken to account the way SW writes, reacts and so on i think the rabbit hole goes deeper. I Think the realationship is much closer. But maybe admins are the way to move forward.

@Bri: Sorry, but I must do nothing of the sort. Dnm (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget to assume good faith (hard as that may be) and no WP:OUTING. Ithink "personal friendly terms" is all we will get and to be honest this is enough to insist that he add nothing more to WP that is linked to this person, be it text or photos. With this admission we can start cleaning up the mess and if he disrupts us he is in clear violation of his promise to stop COI editing. We will have to be vigilant as before this profile was created there was another that did the COI editing so it is possible that a puppet might appear (sock or meat). Domdeparis (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Once again unavoidably on the defensive, because the usual cabal of enWP-infrequent and biased Swedish editors are ganging up here again, disrespectful (as I see it) of the advice of neutral editors who do a lot of good work on enWP and know the ropes, my rather sad comments are these:

Before I left Swedish Wikipedia last year I made these comprehensive lists in good faith, to help them decide whether or not I actually had done any substantial harm there. Almost none (almost none) of all that on those lists has been reverted or addressed at all.

There you have the main reason I have not been able to find good faith in the attitude of these elite editors there, and why it has only been rational (to me) to assume the opposite: that their actions there, which spill over here from time to time as they habitually stalk me (as I perceive it), are based on personal animosities.

The sarcasm and skadeglädje (a form of gloating joy - word is common in Swedish but does not exist in English) that's going on now in discussions on the talk pages of some of these svWP users, because I'm in trouble here, is a good example of why several of us who've complained about problems at that project are gone.

I have commented recently, in several other discussions about me on enWP, on the infleunce, as i see it, of the Law of Jante on problems such as these, on the very unpleasant reactions I've had from some (only some) Swedes when I've cleaned up their unintelligible Swenglish here (which one usually must know both langiages well to be abe to do) and on the lack at svWP of most guidelines here which help us resolve conflicts and deter us from attacking each other. Seems strange to feel compelled to put those opinions of ours (i.e. several ex-users of svWP) on page after page of discussions. I wish I did not feel duly compelled. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to correct you Serge but you didn't "leave" Swedish WP you were indefinitely blocked for notably making COI edits concerning your personal friend (your definition not mine) Demitz. Domdeparis (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't say I left, it says several of us are gone, and it explains why. Plesse don't change what people have actually stated just to suit your own agenda, over and over and over again. As long as you keep misquoting me and giving more or less obviously false accusations (like 3000 photos mainly about cabarets) you're forcing me to defend mycelf against them It's very tiring, and I'm sure not just for me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I would be very interested to know if documents were ever sent, and if Dom or Bishonen saw anything that might shake up the AFD underway on the Demitz article (as of now, it seems to be leaning delete). If Serge has agreed not to edit where he has a COI, and abides by that that is good enough for me, and I don't see the need to seek any further admin action - but there is still lots of cleanup to be done, and for that reason I do not think we should rush a close of this section. Personally I'm at least considering nominating some of the other articles linked above for deletion, especially AlexCab, Wild Side Story, and Birgit Ridderstedt. Would love it if others (especially the Swedish-speaking editors) could take a look and see if they agree that notability is suspect there. I have a feeling that Throne of a Thousand Years might just squeak through an AFD but other opinions are welcome there. If its kept, it may need a depuff. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Fyddlestix. Yes, I got them, and have commented fairly elaborately at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Truedson Demitz, some hours after you posted this query here. Please check it out, I'd be very interested to see what you think of my commentary on the article sourcing. I pinged you in my AfD post, but I've had some pings not work the last few days; apparently there's something about recent ping concerns at the Village Pump. Anyway, I found most of the sources useless, but there were a few reasonable ones. I agree wholeheartedly that the Demitz article will need more depuffing if it's kept. I guess I can only hope this ping works... Bishonen | talk 14:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC).

Thank you for asking! Yes they've been sent and I'm working on a suggestion (very short article) for that talk page based on input received in the e-mails. I sent the scans to several people who've contacted me about them. In the case of Domdeparis I asked - first - if he had Swedish friends in Paris who could help, and he replied that he did. This does not jive very well with that assurance, which I feel tricked me into sending them to him at all, and this reply from an obviously very biased user really isn't going to help us much, neither the people sympathetic to me and my past work, nor my adversaries, nor neutral and fair (thus valuable) users here.

Except for the book article (which has been AFD'd before here) the other article subjects you're considering are also on svWP (and 2 on frWP, one on esWP) and have been scrutinized rather carefully there, plus worked on constructvely by a host of users I do not know. Just fyi. The Wild Side Story article here, as it looks today, was totally remodelled and much shortened not long ago (which it sorely needed) and that new version was modelled on the one approved, after some discussion about a few details, on deWP.

A lot of good faith work has been done by a lot of people, even ones who have opposed me here for the last few days, and again, though I've come to realize that I've made a few big COI mistakes, harm to WP has not been my intention ever, nor has the effect of the main body of my work here been any such damage. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Does this post of you really say that you do not want them who doubt your sourcing to have the sources? I do not get it. I know I was one of the users who found out and revealed your last source that was home made. It was proven by enwp that I was correct. Are you affraid that I Will FoU d out the same things here? Yes also to my bias I have an agenda: to write neutral accordibg to Good sources. My Children skall have a great encyclopedia. That is my agenda. That is ett I am concerned... And egen möte concerned when you write you sånt to censor your sources so Those who have fond out you did wrong before skall not ser the sources. Worrying. Adville (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Loel Guinness

Good Morning, I receive a message of conflict of interest, regarding a change on the page of Loel Guinness, we have proceed to do that because Mr. Loel Guinness is not a notable personality and he would like to be anonymous.

• Loel Guinness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• GuinnessOffice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Parathaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.218.23.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 85.218.23.165 (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Can we assume that you are the same editor, under some different identities, who has been removing the same paragraph from this article? If so, the COI noticeboard isn't really the best place to start, as having such an agenda is broadly against WP's policies. Your case would be better made under WP:BLP.

There are two issues here: Is the subject notable for an article at all? Is the coverage on one issue, proportionate and adequately sourced? See sources below. I agree that any subject of such an article would not want it visible, but WP doesn't censor on request when content is already out into the public domain.

• http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1999-02-11/news/9902100790_1_polo-magazine-palm-beach-aids
• http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/guinness-suit-dropped-charges-remain-tap-article-1.719818

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I can find nothing else referring to this person Mimi Lambert whether it be in connexion with Guinness, Lacoste, AIDS or anything else apart from this source [33] where it claims she is telling friends she is OK. These 3 sources (including the Daily Mail) do not look like WP:RS to me and without other sources I would tempted to say that this section doesn't have its place on the page. Domdeparis (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've posted on the user in question's new talk page about their username again; they don't seem to be Mr. Guinness but have changed their username to his. They will need to change it again. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I've also found this book which mentions the affair but doesn't seem anymore reliable. [34] Domdeparis (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Jared Paul

• Draft:Jared Paul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• chloesnyder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is an SPA undisclosed paid editor working in a PR firm. They have ignored the warning I added on their talk page and are continuing to edit promotionally, with a determination to see their draft accepted into main space. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I took a shot at fixing the article. I found a couple of decent refs but ultimately he is not really notable. As such that article will never be accepted, so does the SPA matter?96.127.242.251 (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Reference spamming

It looks like someone is spamming links to an article they published, "Survey data on Vietnamese propensity to attend periodic general health examinations". These two IPs are doing nothing but force-fitting this one reference into every article they can:

• 123.24.191.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 14.231.178.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

That's so random it's bonkers! I'm not an admin but I can roll back edits. I'll roll back any that are not in a section about health or medicine in Asia. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It's probably at a scale where it would be accepted at ANI or AIV ☆ Bri (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed all but one of their additions of the refspam and given both IPs an Only Warning so they can be given the bum's rush next time they pop up. I also did a quick search to see if those article names turned up elsewhere and I don't think that they do. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Chinese language sockfarm

• Toi Lam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dragon Guard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Dragon Guard Eas Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • DRAGON GUARD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:DRAGON GUARD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Zhanglijun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Zhang Lijun (business person) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Zhang Lijun(entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Zhang Lijun(enterpriser) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Zhang Lijun(disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Zhang Lijun（CEO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Draft:Zhang Lijun (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Fujian SBS Zipper Science & Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sunny Li (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Justin Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Americanized name) repeatedly recreated, originally by Mokezhilao sockfarm
  • Sun Yuchen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (same person)
  • Yuchen Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Justin Sun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ren Yifan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ;master
  • 我滴那个神 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Vixvovessor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mokezhilao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Mozhike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 42.230.75.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

A new sockfarm Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ren Yifan which might be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mokezhilao and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/123Aristotle. Seems to be naive yet extra persistent. Details in a moment... ☆ Bri (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The zipper article was AfD'd here; closed as no consensus. The only keep vote was by one of the not-yet-known socks. I just renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fujian SBS Zipper Science & Technology (2nd nomination). ☆ Bri (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Brent Faiyaz

• Brent Faiyaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Davykamanzi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Davykamanzi is a paid editor that does disclose, but tends to write overly promotional, poorly sourced BLP content. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Seth_Godin above. Apparently Davykamanzi has decided to not follow COI very closely despite the previous discussion. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: I don't see how any of the content in the article is "overly promotional". This and the Godin article (in which case I could see why it was said) are the only times I've been called out for writing "overly promotional" content on the several paid projects I've done. The info is encyclopaedic content on the subject's career that you would find on any other musician's article. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

That's the problem and why we're here: You didn't recognize it with Seth Godin and you don't recognize it now. Rather than addressing it previously, you chose to move one. Now we're here. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: Then please enlighten me cause I genuinely don't see what "overly promotional" content there is to dispute in the article. Every line of info presented on there is fact. I don't mean to use the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument here but I've written that article the same way I've written other musician articles (non-paid and paid; e.g. Isleym and Fred Warmsley, both non-paid); documenting major occurrences in the subject's career such as new releases, performances on national TV or accolades and citing those with reputable, verifiable sources. Other than getting paid, I don't see how this case is any different. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 03:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

If you can't support your articles, you shouldn't be creating them. The reason that you should be working from edit requests is that someone needs to review your work.

Do you recognize what happened at Seth Godin? Can you explain why most of your editing was undone there, even after I left it to discuss it here? --Ronz (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: I can certainly justify their existence as they pass WP:GNG. Articles published directly still get reviewed which is why some end up getting tagged or (speedy-)deleted, so unless I'm recreating a previously deleted article or editing a "volatile" (for lack of a better word) article I don't see the need to go through reviewers first. If the article's good to go, then good; if it has any issues that merit its deletion, then I accept that as well and move on. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but why didn't you answer my questions, or address them in any manner?

My concerns here are that you're not following COI, BLP, NOT, NPOV, etc. When faced with these concerns you try to move on best you can without addressing the problems.

You created Brent Faiyaz to promote the new album. You didn't follow the behavioral and content policies brought up here for the Seth Godin article. Now you're edit-warring at Brent Faiyaz. --Ronz (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: I believe I've done my best to follow WP:BLP because I provided reliable sources to the information I included in the article on his personal life (namely his DOB and his moving from Baltimore to Los Angeles). I noticed that you deleted his DOB then restored it upon realising that the sources I gave actually indicate his DOB. As for WP:NPOV, I still think I kept the tone of the article as neutral as possible and didn't make any blatantly or "overly promotional" claims (which is something you have still yet to point out to me as I asked earlier). In my opinion, writing that an artist released a new album on Month DD, YYYY isn't WP:SOAP because it's something that editors write on every article about a musician as part of documenting the subject's career as a musical artist. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 06:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You did your best to promote the musician, using a series of announcements and briefs from sources that at best have little prominence.

Repeatedly writing that a subject did X on Month DD, YYYY with such sources is UNDUE and SOAP, and a BLP vio as a result. (You even had a CRYSTAL violation there writing what you did before the release date). You've padded the article as your clients wanted. It's typical promotional editing from someone that is putting their biases above Wikipedia's policies, exactly what COI is supposed to prevent, but then you're not following COI beyond declaring you have it. While I appreciate the declarations, they aren't the end of your responsibilities but rather the beginning. --Ronz (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Since there seems to be some confusion (eg your comment about his DOB), these edits were just me quickly examining the sources and associated content. Don't read anything into them other than what I've written in the edit summaries. My subsequent trimming of the article are based upon that quick review. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Fanklandore socks

• Falklandore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Josebrayo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Newzemang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Nulab Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) G5 speedy requested & at AfD
• Leesa Sleep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Amra Beganovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) G5 speedy

There's no SPI for this but the last two users are already blocked and the first is an obvious DUCK. SmartSE (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Amazingly fast learner. Started editing at 18:52 and by 19:00 had created this. Of course I am being facetious; plainly Falklandore is not a new editor. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Josebrayo (talk) has probably been paid by Leesa Sleep, as he edited Leesa to include the name of Leesa Sleep, which has a history of employing paid editors.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Tatelyle/Ralphellis

• Ralphellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (master)
  • Tatelyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ralph Ellis (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (at AfD)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Ralphellis has uncovered ten years of socking. He has a fondness for an author named Ralph Ellis who publishes unusual religious theories. I might be wrong but this edit, still standing, is concerning [35]. Is it the person adding references to his own work? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Westbrook University is not recognized but is issuing certificate s and doctorates to everybody who pays money

• Westbrook University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gerryharrington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 49.207.232.141 (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. They appear to have been using Wikipedia to advertise. Have clarified the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Special guy from Antarctica socks

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Special_guy_from_Antarctica.

Articles affected:

• Sphere Fluidics Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pleo (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Innovus Pharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are obviously not new accounts either, so we may decide G5 applies. SmartSE (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, unless we can tie them to previously blocked accounts, we can't just G5. AFD would probably be a better route. GAB^gab 15:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

CanadianSpecialForcesRF

This user name is an apparent COI: CanadianSpecialForcesRF. I put a template on his talkpage, but since I am not an admin, I can't block him. I hope I did everything right?--Biografer (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Biografer: it's best to report username issues at WP:UAA, where admins more familiar with username issues patrol. The user responded in an edit summary, I'm not sure I agree with their explanation though. I'll follow up. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Amr Shady

• Amr Shady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Erin93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Commanderofthescript

A small sockfarm promoting topics related to Egyptian businessperson Amr Shady was discovered recently, and several articles that they created have been deleted (such as MegaKheir, ميجاخير, ميجا_خير - all MegaKheir in different languages), and significant editing at TA Telecom, Shady's company. After a recreation of Amr Shady was deleted on 10 October, Erin93 recreated the article on 14 October with much of the same content, particularly some of the same meaningless peacock compound phrases you'd expect to appear in promotional copy. This suggests they are either part of the same paid editing operation, or an independent user hired separately by whatever entity is trying to push these articles onto Wikipedia. However, as far as I can tell this is the user's only interaction with this subject. The user has been warned about apparent COI edits before but has denied any conflict or paid editing, including most recently with their article Woz U. Thanks for taking a look. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

That user is obviously not telling the truth e.g. !voting here to keep another UPE article. I will block them accordingly. They're also WP:PROXYING so the Shady article can be G5d. SmartSE (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Nowcasting (economics)

• Nowcasting (economics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jasper McMahon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's a WSJ article that should likely explain this in detail Fed Economists’ Stakes in Forecasting Firm Spur an Internal Probe (but I don't have a WSJ subscription) and an available article Wikipedia Keeps A Record Of Your Edits — These People Don’t Seem To Know That - Why do Federal Reserve employees who make economic forecasts own a company selling private economic forecasts? and a mention in passing at Bloomberg [36]

There is a Fed employee named Jasper McMahon, there's not much activity at Nowcasting (economics). I do have to say that IMHO the Fed has to be the squeakiest clean part of our government. If they start playing around with our money - sooner or later our money could become worthless. There have been edits by IPs in NY (where McMahon is likely located) and in NC (where there are no Fed operations that I know of). Some extra eyes on this, beyond what the article itself might suggest, would be appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

CORRECTION. Jasper McMahon is the CEO of Now-Casting Inc. and has apparently spammed the company website into the article, as well as a link to a TED talk on the subject that he gave. The Federal Reserve employee is Domenico Giannone, who doesn't seem to be an editor here (I'll check some more). The Wall Street Journal article (or a version of it) is available at Fox News. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Still can't find anything new here. The worst is: Fed employee Domenico Giannone, who owns 30% of Now-casting Inc. blogs on the Fed site about the concept of nowcasting, linking to the Wikipedia article on nowcasting, which was edited and spammed by his partner Jasper McMahon. Since the last McMahon edit was 4 years ago, I don't see anything we can do, but I understand why the Fed has an internal investigation. Unless somebody else knows something else about this, I'll drop it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a fantastic case though, maybe the first time I've seen COI manipulation of a Wikipedia article being the direct subject of a lawsuit. May be an inflection point of a) WP's influence being significant to society in the real world and b) people in the real world caring enough to do something about it and c) at least one person thinks they can explain a and b to a judge. Above The Law has more about this [37]. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible paid editing ring

• Slowmite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tabbsi25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Russojames (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chilewiles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Joelargus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These accounts are editing from behind a variety of proxies and are behaviorally identical. This looks like paid editing to me. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Israel business promotion

• Zvi Harry Hurwitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zohar Zisapel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Safe Drive Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Slowmite/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ("Mansour Karam is an American entrepreneur who is the founder and CEO of Apstra...")
• Slowmite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hoping that the major contributor to the articles above can explain what's going on here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk) (Talk)

Yes, I can.

1. Zvi Harry Hurwitz is not a business. He was an Israeli diplomat, journalist and political operative. The insinuation that I was paid for it is ludicrous. The man is dead. I knew him and once worked with him some 35 years ago and rote the article for altruistic reasons alone.

2. Zohar Zisapel, together with his brother Yehuda, founded Israel's first home-grown hi-tech start-up group. Both brothers have served as chairmen of the country's electronics industry association. As the article notes, he is often called the "Bill Gates of Israel" in the media. The industry he created now employs something like 10% of the Israeli workforce. Perhaps calling him the "Bill Gates of Israel" is an understatement. I wrote the article together with a friend who is also a Wikipedia contributor, and both of us know the Zisapels (so do thousands of other Israelis who have been involved in the hi-tech sector and in the various charities they support, but we received no payment. In fact, Zohar was unaware we wrote the article and may even be unaware that it exists -- we've never spoken to him about it.

3. I wrote the article on Safe Drive Systems after it's Israeli competitor, Mobileye, was purchased by Intel for $15 billion. Mobileye, apart from having its own article, is mentioned in the Intel and Intel Mobile Communications articles (and maybe more). Because I know people who work in both Mobileye and Safe Drive Systems, I also know that it is inherently unfair to host an article about one and not to have one about the other, since because collision detection technology is not unique to Mobileye. That would be akin to having an article about the iPhone without one for Android. Zozoulia (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)