Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (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-wp@wikipedia.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
    Talk:A&P
    Talk:James F. Allen (businessman)
    Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Timothy Archambault
    Talk:Avia Solutions Group
    Talk:BearingPoint
    Talk:BeiGene
    Talk:Bell Bank
    Talk:Boku, Inc.
    Talk:William Bolcom
    Talk:Doug Bremner
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Martin Casado
    Talk:Cboe Global Markets
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Cheyne Capital Management
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:City of Whittlesea
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Cyberattack
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment
    Talk:Edmund de Waal
    Talk:Derby della Lanterna
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Discovery Land Company
    Talk:Michael Douglas
    Talk:Edelman (firm)
    Talk:EMarketer
    Talk:End-user license agreement
    Talk:Engine No. 1
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:Foster and Partners
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Steven Furtick
    Talk:Global Strategy Group
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Graph database
    Talk:Green Line (TRAX)
    Talk:Evan G. Greenberg
    Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:Richard Harland
    Talk:Eric Hippeau
    Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
    Talk:HOK (firm)
    Talk:Hong Kong Free Press
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Industrious
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:Barry Irwin
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service
    Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:Labaton Keller Sucharow
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Alison Lawton
    Talk:Dion Lee
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Lemelson Foundation
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Anthony Marinelli
    Talk:Mascot Books
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:Milwaukee Electric Tool
    Talk:Monero
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Norwest Venture Partners
    Talk:Omaha Steaks
    Talk:Operating system
    Talk:Orphan Train
    Talk:Orphanage
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Lubos Pastor
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Plinabulin
    Talk:Programming language
    Talk:PureTalk
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:QIAGEN
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Marc Rowan
    Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Jay Ruderman
    Talk:Security AppScan
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Software
    Talk:Software license
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:Subway (restaurant)
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Titmouse, Inc.
    Talk:Tricentis
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Bradley Tusk
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Dan Wagner
    Talk:Wasserman (company)
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator
    Talk:Maya Wiley
    Talk:Andy Wright (music producer)
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Zearn
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Alice Zorn

    Singapore Management University

    User had been adamant over a few days to restore advertisements in Singapore Management University page. Additionally user has removed the advertisement tag without solving the outstanding issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rongyao (talk • contribs) 11:38, February 28, 2019 (UTC)

    Akash.ka01

    I stumbled accross the page Ashima Sharma while conducting NPP and when I first saw it, it was an overly promotional mess (but unlikley to be deleted under G11 IMO). I cut down more than 10K bytes of just blogs reporting on celebrities wearing her designs, a clear name dropping scenario, and just pure unsourced fluff. Upon further investigation, many of Akash.ka01's articles have been deleted via either AFD or PROD and they have been repeatedly asked to disclose any paid editing (see Draft talk:Sonal Monteiro).

    Where Swt.sarika0123 comes into play is that they made one edit (to create Ashima Sharma and then Akash.ka01 came by and moved it to mainspace. Seems a bit odd there. A major problem here is that a lot of this content was copied directly from her blog which has a very well state copyright policy. This needs to be removed from revision history immediately.

    As SamHolt6 has been suspicious this as well, I will see if they have anything to add. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with this assessment. This looks a clear case of paid editing to me. Coderzombie (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    checkuser verifies socking. both blocked. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I have opened up Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akash.ka01 becuae I think I stumbled upon another sock. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Five spam pages

    In re: AGS Transact Technologies, LKP Securities, IndiaFirst Life Insurance Company, IndiaFirst Life Insurance Company Ltd, and Aanjaneya Lifecare Limited, all listed below with La page links for each and userlinks for the single-purpose accounts which edited them. Almost all of them have been inactive for years. One, Lordkickass, edited all five, and several were involved in WP:SPIs (there may be more than I saw).

    The only registered editor I could identify as currently active is User:Siddharthmukund, so I'll post a {{coin-notice}} on his talk page. If any of the other editors are not blocked and still active, I missed that, so may whoever spots them please notify them directly or note it here where I'll see it and can do so.

    Perhaps 122.15.122.2, who posted User talk:Oshwah#Kindly Unblock AGS Transact Technologies Account and thus can be considered active, should be notified, I don't know. Of the five pages, the first came to my attention via User talk:AGS Transact Technologies, after which a trail of overlapping edits led down this rabbit hole.







    If any of these five articles have robust encyclopedic value, I don't see it. They all look like business listings on a site devoted to hosting such business listings, and while I was tempted at first to be be bold and delete them all per {{db-g11}}, I decided to take this more conservative route. The pages have been around for years, and right now this minute I am burned out on them and the users who dropped them on us. – Athaenara ✉ 02:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    HI Athaenera, I did edit the IndiaFirst Life Insurance page. I am an editor based in India and I do edit any India related pages. I have not edited any of the other pages mentioned in the notice. My reasons for IndiaFirst page was that was a new insurance company using a different business model in India. The company is still around and has been growing. It has also been part of the consolidation and evolution of India's financial sector. I do not have any personal interest / relation in the company.
    Siddharthmukund (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Siddharthmukund, thanks for commenting here.
    Certain things in the page histories of these articles stand out.
    For example: "Lordkickass" edited all of them, "Dbhathena" edited three, "Paulseemon" edited two, "Shilpi.mishra95" and "Mishra shilpi" are very likely the same person, more than half of them did promotional editing five or more years ago and haven't been seen since, and so on.
    You got a {{coin-notice}} because you are a rarity in this crowd (so to speak), in that you're an actual and active encyclopedia editor, not a spammer who hit us hard a few times and disappeared. – Athaenara ✉ 08:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Athaenara: did you notice Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Akshay_Aswani? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr.sahota. You might want to open a SPI here on the recent incarnations and see if there are more lines to this story (wow, 9 years worth of spamming). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Yes, see up there ↑ where I mentioned there had been WP:SPIs and I didn't think I'd seen them all. – Athaenara ✉ 17:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chinmaya.328. – Athaenara ✉ 22:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Also by the same SPAs:

    Yep, you guessed it, more spam. MER-C 11:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    And India Transact Services Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). – Athaenara ✉ 22:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Athaenara & Beetstra, I have a little more understanding of the issue at hand here now. Is anything required from my end or how can i help in this issue?? Siddharthmukund (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hexcel

    Repeating my call for help from September 2018. This article has attracted lots of problematic editing. Just recently, this edit by SPA Rocktober2018 has introduced a whole batch of churnalism sources, for instance. Typical addition: compare paint.org 'press' item to near-identical press release about some activity with another business.

    A former COIN regular found Rocktober2018's claim of no COI "not credible". Another SPA made a remarkably similar reply. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    too old for checkuser DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Your next box of spam has arrived

    Batch ending 24 March

    Enjoy. MER-C 18:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Batch ending 4 April

    Looks like a pretty bad bunch this time around. Have fun. MER-C 19:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Mitchell (writer)

    Early in January 2016, the user admitted to a COI. However since that time he has continued to edit and update the article - without being restrained. Now there has been an admission by the subject of the article on his blog here, saying "Next, people repeatedly vandalized and defaced my Wikipedia page. Because of this [redacted], who maintains my page, inquired with Wikipedia for giving my page their highest level of protection possible which they did." This is now to the level of a violation of WP:OWN and the user concerned must be banned from editing the page. The user has most recently nominated the page for a good article continuing his lack of NPOV which I have previously complained about elsewhere on WP. I ask that action be taken. I have redacted the user's name which was used in the link but this can't be avoided on this occasion when looking at said link off Wiki. The fact that the user has already admitted to COI should prevent any "outing" concerns. 2001:8003:5901:B400:70A6:8574:2244:C4D3 (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering the many attempts that you have made to delete the article, it is reasonable, 2001:8003:5901:B400:70A6:8574:2244:C4D3, that I ask if you have yourself any kind of Conflict of Interest. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: No. I have no relationship with him that comes under COI. (I hate my IP moving but I have to put up with it) 2001:8003:5901:B400:D149:79D4:9C09:FA93 (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: They have no online connection but the IP address is strongly opposed to his views on autism, so he always attacks Mitchell. Not sure how I can prove it, other than the fact that all the IPs are coming from the same region of Australia. This includes the IPs in Talk:Jonathan_Mitchell_(writer)#Conflict_of_Interest. Ylevental (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue is with your lack of NPOV and this page is just an example on the back of your COI. 2001:8003:5901:B400:20D3:BB84:40A:303E (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ylevental you offered to add a declaration of your COI on your user page in this discussion and yet you haven't done that and continue to edit the article. The fact the article subject has apparently referred to you as the person who is maintaining their Wikipedia page is really troubling. Is this person paying you to do this? --valereee (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I declared it back in 2016, when I didn't know him as well. I got to know him much better since then, and I guess I should have not directly edited the article as much. But no, I promise he is not paying me to edit the article. Ylevental (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ylevental, thank you, and for disclosing on the article talk page. If you'll make edit requests on the article talk page instead of editing directly, I'll keep it on my watch list. --valereee (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Valereee, Okay, I just made some edit requests on the talk page. Ylevental (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    OPI Products

    An IP editor attempted to clean promotion out of the article and Madisonlucchino restored it displaying ownership.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    We need to hear more about this "important assignment".
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The important assignment that you have mentioned is the OPI products Wikipedia page that I worked tirelessly on to edit for a grade a class of mine. Basically I am a senior in high school taking a college English class (ENC 1102) through St. Johns River State College and for this class I have to frequently write essays. My latest essay was a Wikipedia editing assignment. For the essay (which weighs 40% of my grade) I had to do two things. One was I had to edit/ contribute at least 250 words on any Wikipedia article. Then for the second part of the assignment I had to write a 500-1000 word memo that explains what was wrong with the article and what exactly I did. The memo portion was to be turned in to my teacher to be graded. For this assignment I decided to edit OPI Products as I noticed there was information to be added. You see this was due on March 25, 2019 and to receive some credit my edits have to be online/ live when my teacher goes to check to see if I actually completed the assignment. I am working tremendously hard on this as I strive to end my high school grades and start my college grades on a high note. Pretty much this whole misunderstanding is over my English assignment. I again have no conflict of interest with the company in any way. I just added factual information as I saw necessary to that specific article. All of this is to hopefully obtain an exceptional grade in my dual enrollment English class. If you need any further proof that this is just an educational assignment I am more than willing to receive another rubric from my teacher tomorrow and upload it if that is even possible. I hope this predicament ends smoothly and I am sorry that I have caused all this trouble.Madisonlucchino (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I can WP:AGF and take that explanation at face value, but it doesn't make the content encyclopedic. The edits are, at heart, promotional, and sourced from the company's website. The same thing occurred with the edits at Carmex, which I also reverted [1]. Please explain to your teacher that though you've made some effort toward fulfilling your assignment, we can't accept what are essentially public relations blurbs on behalf of company's products. What I suspect, Berean Hunter, is that we are living at a time when a lot of people can not discern between factual scholarship and cheap advertising copy. That's grist for a broader and deeper discussion on how our culture got where it is. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, I explained the problem here [2], with no apparent effect. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the purposes of your assignment Madisonlucchino, you may show your instructor this version of the Carmex article and this version of the OPI Products article. Those are the permanent links to your revisions and you should make note of that to the instructor. They still have access even if it is not the current versions of the articles. There is never a guarantee that your version of any article will remain as is.
    • With this edit, you linked to nothing more than a photographic-driven online catalog. This does not qualify as a reliable source and is lacking in prose so it looks promotional in nature. The point raised above about factual scholarship versus advertising copy is accurate. When you find reliable sources, you have a better chance of writing neutrally on a subject and with balance. For example, I would expect to see references such as this article from the Chicago Tribune related to OPI Products. You would never get OPI Products to reveal that which is why trying to use them for sourcing is problematic.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Chgicago tribune is one of those awful american sites that refuse to serve Europe. Dickheads. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Mendelsohn, Emma; Hagopian, Audrey; Hoffman, Kate; Butt, Craig M.; Lorenzo, Amelia; Congleton, Johanna; Webster, Thomas F.; Stapleton, Heather M. (2016-01-01). "Nail polish as a source of exposure to triphenyl phosphate". Environment International. 86: 45–51. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2015.10.005. PMC 4662901. PMID 26485058.
    2. ^ Tribune, Chicago. "Triphenyl phosphate, found in 'eco-friendly' nail polish, spurs worries". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved 2016-04-09.

    Sorry, Roxy the dog. That ping won't work if I forget to sign my post. :)
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks BH. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Technetium (99mTc) sestamibi

    Appears to be a COI with removal of content with a subject that is the same as this user. An IP has also made a similar edit in the meantime. Beevil (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    He is now edit warring removing sourced information. Suggest this is rather urgent now. 2001:8003:5901:B400:D149:79D4:9C09:FA93 (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the names, it appears he has also operated the accounts Dr. RM Fleming, MD, JD and Fleming1956 in the past. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on this statement at his talk page, he is also editing logged out as 172.90.197.240. He's now at 5 reverts in 24 hours, 6 if you count the IP. Voceditenore (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: RM Fleming, MD has been blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring by Randykitty. I have reverted the article to the previous version before the mass deletions. It will continue to need eyes, preferably from someone with knowledge of this area (I'm not one of them). Voceditenore (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that there are some BLP issues involved in one sentence, although that does not justify the editor removing almost half the article. The sentence was FHRWW was developed by Dr. Richard M. Fleming (a convicted felon debarred in 2018 by the FDA; see also Retraction Watch for more background) and associates. The first assertion is referenced to a highly reliable source (Federal Register) [3]. The source for Retraction Watch is unsuitable for a BLP assertion. I have amended the sentence to simply FHRWW was developed by Dr. Richard M. Fleming (a convicted felon debarred in 2018 by the FDA) and associates. and kept the FR source. But the whole assertion may actually be irrelevant/inappropriate for the article. Voceditenore (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Although I also suspect that his background is irrelevant to the article, I wanted to provide some context since Dr. Fleming had edited the sestamibi article to include material from his "published research" in journals that have been identified by others as "predatory" or low quality; as such it may not be unbiased information or helpful to non-experts reading the article. As I acknowledged previously, I have no expertise in this field, but although Dr. Fleming may have expertise, the text that he added to the article appears to be part of his complaints against the FDA debarment (see docket at Federal Register link) and as part of his attempts to promote the licensing of his patented process. That was the reason I added the link to the debarment information. I will be making no further edits to the article. ThatsRegrettable (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ThatsRegrettable, I can understand your motivation, although I think the complete removal of that personalised information has been wise. However, the article has a much bigger problem. It is completely contaminated by Fleming's attempts to promote himself on Wikipedia and by implication his medical imaging companies and patents. The three named accounts + 2 IPs which are clearly him (and probably more) have been spamming the article with his research since at least 2009 [4]. See also other pages created by one of his earlier accounts (Fleming1956 (talk · contribs)) which were designed to promote himself and his patents: Richard M. Fleming, Fleming Harrington Redistribution Wash-in Washout, Inflammation and Coronary Artery Disease, Breast Enhanced Scintigraphy Test. I'm not sure he or his work should even be mentioned in the article, especially considering the dubious publisher of the only remaining reference left in the article and another recent work by him with an even more dubious publisher. I intend to take the issue to Talk:Technetium (99mTc) sestamibi later today and will also ask for advice from WikiProject Pharmacology. Like you, I do not have background on that area, but the history of that article and the references are concerning. Voceditenore (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update All three of the named accounts above have been added to a COI notice at Talk:Technetium (99mTc) sestamibi. I have removed material from the article which is either unsourced but added by Fleming and related to his claims and patents and/or sourced to this book chapter by Fleming which is incompatible with Wikipedia:MEDRS. This diff shows the removed material. RM Fleming, MD has now been indef blocked for making legal threats in addition to his previous edit-warring block. If he attempts to edit by one of his socks, I'll bring an SPI. This case seems pretty much resolved, but I suggest several editors here put this article on watch as well as other known targets of this editor: Standardized uptake value and Scintimammography. Voceditenore (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Abhijeet Safai-- advocacy & COI

    Abhijeet Safai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Post by WBG

    A glorious past

    • I first came across this editor, about a year and a half back, when I dispatched several of his articles to AfD; with some help from DGG. I observed that many of his topics centered around fringe medical topics (and noble ideas) by practitioners from a particular state of India and the practitioners, themselves. They also cover other quasi-notable figures from the same state.
    • 52.3% of his creations have been deleted.
    • Many of the nominations have arrived at a consensus that the articles do not only fail to pass our notability guidelines but also can be only written by someone who has a definite COI around the subject-topics. (Vide the discussions over this AfD, this AfD, this AfD et al)
    • Some have been G-11ed for being blatant spam and some have been G4ed for being recreations of a previously deleted article.
    • Safai has claimed to be un-involved in paid-editing and asserted that he was basically unaware of our COI guidelines for 5 long years ( despite being subscribed to The Signpost, which has published hordes of articles around that particular locus).
    • Safai seemed to have taken a sabbatical from article-editing, soon afterwards and I did not bother to keep any track of him.

    Now

    • I was a bit taken aback by the trio of his ultra-defensive editorial maneuvers over the same article and choose to dig deep. The findings are recorded as:-
    • I wrote the above findings and asked him about why he shall not be sanctioned for blatant advocacy and breach of COI policies, of which he were explicitly made aware, about a year back.
    • He removed the message saying that it was not the proper place for discussion; which I deem as asking for escalation.
    • I also note other connections between him and another recently edited subject (post the supposed awareness of our COI policies) but can't link to the same, without breaching our outing policies.

    Summary

    It's evidently clear that he is over here to further his goals of advocacy and choose to exploit our volunteer-resources for the same. He may not be paid to do all thiese stuff but clearly, paid COI is not the only despicable issue for our project. The total lack of collaborative spirit and a repeated failure to understand basic guidelines compounds stuff, further.

    Accordingly, I seek for some sanction that will prevent his repeated flagrant breaches of WP:COI and WP:ADVOCACY. ∯WBGconverse 15:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply by Abhijeet Safai

    Comments by uninvolved editors

    For those interested

    There is a discussion about the Huff-Po article and paid editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#HuffPost article on WP COI editing. Another was started at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Whitewashing? after-the-fact but now points to the AN discussion. Atsme Talk 📧 12:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The noticeboard discussion also contains proposals related to paid editing in general. See "Suggestions and proposals related to paid editing" and "Prohibition on all paid editing" for details. — Newslinger talk 02:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Church Army and Mark Russell (evangelist)

    New editors, probably Mark Russell and someone who claims to be editing on his behalf as well as an IP editing are attempting to whitewash these articles. shoy (reactions) 20:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Schmidt's

    Both articles cover the same topic. Both are promotional in tone and edited solely by single-purpose accounts, including one with a username connection, Unileveredits (Schmidt's is a Unilever brand). Peacock (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, COIN, I would like your opinion on these four users, who I suspect are linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PAIDLIST#Wikipediawriters.com (which has changed their name to HireWikiWriters). Some of the editors in question are User:RichardMills65, User:CesareAngelotti and User:Bernie44 (already blocked for being a paid editor and violating NPOV, but I think he's connected to it and it would be useful to have it as an example of what that group's editors are like).

    What sparked my suspicion was that when I was browsing articles, I checked CesareAngeletti's article creations and the first batch seem similar to what User:FoCuSandLeArN, connected to that website and banned for being a paid editor, created when he wasn't creating paid-for articles. Additionally, FoCuSandLeArN and CesareAngeletti have the same edit summary for creating an article in general, namely "created article". It's the same with Bernie44 as well. I also noticed that when RichardMills65 created an article on a music producer, within a month FoCuSandLeArN added an infobox to it, in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Dolphin_(music_producer)&diff=629968625&oldid=629641876 and that RichardMills65's articles generally looked like PR pieces.

    CesareAngeletti and RichardMills65 haven't edited since 2016, but I suspect there are more sockpuppets out there. I think that User:Branpedia could be a sock of Bernie44. Same edit summaries when creating articles, he's obviously an UPE, and they've both edited the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewy_(company) article, a somewhat obscure online retailer of petfood. Thanks for reading this. 92.21.156.125 (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wang Zheng (pilot)

    Not quite sure what to do with this. Seems there is a long standing edit war on this page with several SPAs/IPs adding (unsourced) allegations and these two users reverting. Apparently Wang Zheng (aka Julie Wang) is the flight instructor over at Zulutimepilot (see for example their facebook page).

    A quick google search shows that Wang Zheng was suing someone and that's not either mentioned in the article.

    Props to Kigenkigen for an epic edit summary here Hydromania (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Zulutimepilot should have been blocked a long time ago for WP:CORPNAME (https://zulutimepilot.com/). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPN#Wang Zheng (pilot) and WP:AN#Possible NLT at BLPN are both connected to discussion. It does appear that CTF99 (the editor formerly known as Zulutimepilot) has a strong connection to Wang that likely extends to a WP:FCOI. CTF99 states he is James Fretcher, an attorney for Wang, at BLPN and various articles about Wang in reliable sources describe Fretcher as a manager for China General Aviation (a sponsor of Wang and a co-plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by Wang), Wang's attorney, Wang's husband, and also as being connected to Zulutimepilot, where Wang was/is listed a chief instructor. So, there really appears to be more than just a WP:APPARENTCOI here, and CTF99 has been editing the article and other content about Wang on Wikipedia since at least December 2016 (that's when the account was created) without declaring any connection to Wang or without following WP:PAID. Either CTF99 is who he's claiming to be which means that both COI and PAID apply, or he's impersonating Fretcher, which is another issue that's just as bad. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added EdiK2016 to this discussion as well based upon some posts made to the article's talk page which have been since removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update: Kigenkigen and CTF99 have been indefinitely blocked per WP:SOCK. If one or both get unblocked, they should be instucted to follow WP:PAID or otherwise the will be re-blocked again. EdiK2016 is still an active account, but they should also be advised about WP:PAID since they might be involved in off-Wikipedia legal action with Wang, and thus would also likely have a financial COI with respect to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Edoardo Raffinerie Garrone

    At Edoardo Raffinerie Garrone someone probably working for the company keeps overwriting the entire article with their preferred version. I've reverted them several times. The latest attempt does include independent references, but still has promotional elements. As often found, the previous version was itself defective and out-of-date. Would someone else care to see if they think this present version should be allowed through, with modifications?: Bhunacat10 (talk), 11:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    White Cube paid edits

    I ran across this editor as one of the pages they edited is on my watchlist. When queried they admitted they work for White Cube. Virtually all of their 150+ edits are to White Cube artist pages, or to correct old urls related to the gallery. The interesting thing is that they have been doing paid editing for 5+ years. Overall the edits are very neutral (mostly wikilinking to White cube page and updating URLs) and not POV pushing. Not sure if the articles need to be tagged for paid editing, so posting here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Iridium Communications

    Someone is apparently copypasting info from promotional material into the article.

    Facilius, Inc.

    This company has an Instagram page where they offer services including "Wikipedia page creation"; they have posted an "Instagram story" with the following purported examples of their work: Natera (created by SPA User:Monmay6, dormant since; expanded by another SPA, User:Best blood test), Chien Lee, Reliance Industries Limited, and Marc Thorpe. I note that Marc Thorpe was created by User:Muhammad Ali Khalid, who has been blocked since 2015 for undisclosed paid editing. bd2412 T 02:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I gave Marc Thorpe a bit of a trim. Lots of promotional garbage there, although I did see an esquire article in a search so he may be actually notable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatMontrealIP: The esquire article was written by a staff member of chrysler 200 (which it looks like Thorpe works with). So it is likely a paid article made to look neutral. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chien Lee was written by User:Gghenn2 - I am debating whether to ask about it directly on his user page, or to take more of a wait-and-see approach. bd2412 T 04:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliance Industries Limited is one of the older articles in the encyclopedia, so any work that this company did on it would likely have been in the nature of a recent cleanup. Not seeing anything obvious. bd2412 T 04:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Reliance Industries Limited has pretty much been neutralized. I also think Thorpe passes GNG and an AfD would fail but someone is willing to try. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Still Waiting for advice:FOI Online Awards

    I looked up the organization giving out these awards, apparently its an anonymous organization that conducts anonymous polls and gives the awards,(stated on their site). There is almost no mention of the organization at all, except for a few sketchy sites . The article was AfD'ed and deleted 3 years ago, the creator of the article or someone related to it was particularly angry about deleting it(mentioned in the afd discussion).

    The issue with the article is that many prominent celebs and some movie articles have this award listed in their awards section, some of them being added by people who edited FOI awards articles. It might be better if we remove all such occurrences of this non-notable award. Daiyusha (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Pride Northwest

    I could nominate it for AfD, but there's a concern with the number of obvious company associated accounts used. Significant amount of contents as it remains now originated from the account PNWStaff and the other three are basically single purpose accounts. CLMurphy1 describes himself as an event promoter and the name he provided himself comes back as management staff for the org. Debraporta comes up as executive director in Google. Please see article talk page for details. Following the duck quack I can reasonably suspect Mel45's exclusive participation on this article indicates it too is a related editor. How should it go forward? Graywalls (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    John Fekner

     Resolved Puppeteer and puppets are gone. Graywalls (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    yes, thank you to all the kind admins who took care of that.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems like most of Fekner related contents are added by the subject or those related to him through the accounts Daniellasuttoni and Incantation. The activity on those accounts are almost entirely limited to editing the John Fekner article and Fekner's Idioblast album. When they were editing other articles, they're usually related to category spamming with Fekner related contents or Fekner authored photos. example 1, example 2, example 3Graywalls (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, good call on this one. The Fekner article is like a finely tuned memorial to every time he took a breath or ate an apple. I have trimmed 1000 bytes or so so far, and am trying to rid it of more of the banalities. The general problem is that he's notable, but just in a regular way and not in a Vito Acconci, Chris Burden or Louise Bourgeois kind of way. He's a very average to slightly above average artist. The connected articles are similarly awful. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified the above users with COIN templates on their talk pages, per the policy.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed overwhelming majority of John Fekner promoting contents that have been injected into other articles by these accounts. Graywalls (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Fekner seems to say they are the article's subject here, offering to revoke donation of images they uploaded (see File:Fekqueens.jpg & File:FEKMYADwiki.jpg "John Fekner (c) 1980"). Bri.public (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, I received a somewhat nasty email from user Fekner, signed by a highly similar sounding name.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything that I donated to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons for over a decade was done with the best intentions and free for anyone to use. I worked with numerous editors, Wikipedia authority control for over a decade, Recently, both ThatMontrealIP& Graywalls removed text, research and all the images from the john fekner page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fekner (talk • contribs) 01:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This was the letter that was sent to: ThatMontrealIP For the past thirteen years I've made numerous contribution of images to Wikimedia Commons for free use to everyone using Wikipedia as a resource. As a supporter of Wikipedia, I've made yearly donations. I've worked with Wikipedia editors on both the John Fekner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fekner and John Fekner City Squad Idioblast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idioblast_(album)

    Now, I see all the major vicious editing of text and removing of images that bothThatMontrealIPand Graywalls Graywallshave done. It's sad, disheartening, discouraging to power of Wikipedia philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fekner (talk • contribs) 01:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Fekner, I see what you are saying but it's not as well-intentioned as you make it out to be. Participating in the editing of your own article, if you are indeed John Fekner, is basically promotion, and we try to avoid that here. See also WP:COI. John Fekner is certainly an important artist, but the article on him and the article on his album were very, very promotional. All that Graywalls and I did was to counter that promotional intent to reflect the existing sources. We are not here to promote John Fekner's accomplishments, but rather to note them in an encyclopedic way. If John Fekner needs to promote himself, he can do that with his own website. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatMontrealIP: What seems a little odd here is that he's been labeling the pictures so in a way seemingly contradictory to the license terms by using the © all reserved symbol and "Estate of John Fekner". Take a look at the license spectrum in the article Creative_Commons_license. © is in the most restrictive category. It seems to me that he CC-SA'd the pictures in order to be able to exhibit them and essentially maintain John Fekner as his profile without getting summarily removed but really intends on hanging onto control of how the photos are used by others. Why would he append copyright mark and "Estate of John Fekner" and express his intent to claw back the photos otherwise? Graywalls (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My take is the C symbol neither adds nor removes anything when they have already agreed to donate (share) content under the CC license. WP:COPYRIGHT states "You retain copyright to materials you contribute to Wikipedia, text and media. Copyright is never transferred to Wikipedia. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract or alter the license for copies of materials that you place here". Bri.public (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Bri.public on this. Uploading a file to Commons under a free license is not the same as an official copyright transfer agreement; basically, the uploader is only agreeing to freely release a particular version of the work. The licensing on that version remains in effect in perpetuity and anyone can continue to use that particular file under the terms of its license, but the copyright ownership or the original work remains with the original creator. This is one of the reasons WP:OTRS verification is often required for files licensed under a free license because the WP:CONSENT of the copyright holder needs to be clear. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marchjuly and Bri.public: I think what you are saying is exactly right. You can't ever give away your copyright (although your estate might get it, or it might expire and the work enters public domain), but you can license it very freely which is almost the same and what happens when you agree to Commmons terms of use. Fekner always has the right to control licensing of his work ("copy right"), but if he uploaded it to Commons with a CC license, then he licensed it to all under those terms, irregardless if he wants to continue noting that he has copyright over his creative works by appending © to his works. The least restrictive license issued for the work at hand will be the one we should concern ourselves with. I am not so concerned though, as it is promotional editing. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be an obvious COI which means he should refrain from directly editing the article as explained in WP:COIADVICE. Any content too promotional sounding remaining in the article should be cleaned up if possible or removed altogether if it simply doesn't belong. His COI however, doesn't prevent him from uploading files to Commons for use in the article; in fact, it's better for him to do so since it makes verifying WP:CONSENT easier. Now, uploading photos to Commons and then automatically expecting that they all be added to the article is where his COI comes into play again and that could be seen as self promotion (even if unintentional). So, the images could be discussed by others on the article talk page and then determined which if any could be re-added to strike a good balance between providing more information to the reader and avoiding WP:NOTGALLERY. Ideally, the infobox image should be for primary identification purposes of the subject; so, if Fekner uploads a selfie or other photo of himself which he holds the copyright on to Commons, such a photo should be fine for Wikipedia's purposes. One or two photos of representative works might also be OK as long as they are tied into the article content and not basically another "different" image showing the same style an technique, etc. Album covers, etc. probably are fine in stand-alone articles about the work in question and not really needed in the BLP article for simply "illustrative" purposes regardless of whether they're freely licensed, unless there is particularly one he received a lot of coverage in reliable sources for some reason; otherwise, hatnotes or links to those articles seems fine. Whatever images aren't being used in the article can also be linked to by using the Commons template mentioned above.
    As for "clawing" back the photos, I don't that's possible; he can as an uploader request that they be deleted per c:COM:DR, but whether they ultimately are will depend on the Commons community and how much it wants to honor his request. If the files are deleted from Commons that would mean they'd be no longer available to use on Wikipedia, etc., but their licensing would still remain in effect and anyone who downloaded the photos and was using them under that particular licensing would probably be OK in continuing to do so. Anyway, we shouldn't really be discouraging him so that he wants to abandon Wikipedia/Commmons altogether by removing every single file he ever uploaded in good faith for use in the article as "self-promotion"; instead, we should be trying to explain how he can help us bring the article better in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, particularly with the images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree with what you say, but it's better applied to good faith editors without COI. I see no need to pander to the needs of someone who is using us for promotional goals. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Graywalls: While there may be genuine conflict of interest concerns regarding the article, removing each and every image like you did here seems a bit excessive. It's not uncommon for articles about visual artists to contain images showing examples of the artist's work. Ideally, the article shouldn't just be one big image gallery of images, but one or two representative works which closely ties into the article content should be fine. Problems seem to arise when the files being used are non-free content because Wikpedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive, but most of the images used in the article seem to have been released by the copyright holder under a free license Wikipedia accepts and their licensing has been verified by WP:OTRS. The main infobox image should really be for primary identification purposes of the subject of the article, but some of the other images could be restored. Eliminate those which are being used in other article like album covers, etc. and focus on those which best tie in to the article content. One representaive example of each particular artistic style or technique is all that's really need, and the other images can be linked to using a template such as Template:Commons or another similar template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{Commons category}} is usually the template of choice Bri.public (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marchjuly:, I personally wouldn't just settle at "while there maybe conflict" when there's evidence that the subjective wrote the article himself and presented it in the way as he likes it and Fekner's name and Fekner authored contents were strategically seeded into articles in subject matter of his interest likely under his full control. Since those close to the subject chose every element of the article, the photos chosen represent how he wanted them presented in relation to prose. Therefore, it obstructs neutrality. I think it's fair game that photos were completely buffed out for now from the article. If others find him notable enough, they'll look around, find the pictures and reinsert them at their editorial discretion. Autobiography creation is highly discouraged. Concerning adding his own materials into other articles, I think this issue runs parallel with the dispute about Michael Simkovic that happens to be being discussed right under this dispute. Graywalls (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Simkovic references

    Wikipedia has a lot of references to the work of a particular law professor, Michael Simkovic. I noticed a new user (Mbs6446) adding a link to the same paper of Simkovic's to 9 articles this morning. Some of these references were to support a new sentence, others were added to existing content. This got me curious, so by employing the search function and the WikiBlame tool, I was able to collect the above list of accounts and IPs who are more or less single purpose accounts that add references to this author. I've only gone through about half the search results so far, I would expect there are a few more accounts to find. I'm apparently not the only person who has noticed this: a law blogger has also written about this here. Posting this mostly to raise awareness. - MrOllie (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note that one of the subjects of this report tried to alter it. - MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And again here - MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    first hat for comments from blocked editor Mbs6446

    Note the policy against outing wikipedia editors which is explicitly stated on this page. "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline." I've asked Mr Ollie to engage on substance on his talk page and on the talk pages of pages I've edited and to be mindful of wikipedia policies against harassment and outing, but he has refused to engage on substance. I attempted to edit this page to be in compliance with those policies, but in a way that would not prevent the substance of the report from being comprehensible.Mbs6446 (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Plase also note policy against attempting to out a wikipedia editor, which is per se harassment. Please note that attempting to out an editor is not permitted as a way of resolving conflicts of interest, and that citing academic work does not constitute a conflict of interest when it is on point and relevant, as all of my citations have been.Mbs6446 (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    way too long back and forth with blocked editor Mbs6446

    This is Mbs6446. I made several edits to articles about mortgage securitization, the GSEs, and the subprime mortgage crisis, including substantive edits that improved the accuracy and content of wikipedia articles. Specifically, I added more on-topic reliable sources, including citations to an award-winning (see also here), widely-cited, widely-read academic journal article by a tenured professor at a leading research university with relevant expertise.

    According to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources:

    ″Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. . . . Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. . . . One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.″

    Thus, the source cited is among the most reliable sources under Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources.

    Please note that news articles in journals with an ideological valence, think tank reports and other materials are considered less reliable sources than academic research. See Biased or Opinionated Sources Many of the other sources in the article are editorials and think tank reports, not academic articles, and the inclusion of more high quality and up-to-date academic articles would therefore improve the article.

    Many of the other sources in the mortgage articles I edited are think tank reports written by organizations that receive financial sponsorship from private lenders and therefore have an interest in portraying the financial crisis as having been caused by government policies rather than by private financial institutions.

    I've attempted to engage MrOllie on the substance of edits I made and on wikipedia policies regarding reliable sources. I attempted to contact him through both his talk page and on the talk pages of the wikipedia pages I've edited.

    MrOllie has refused to engage on substance, and instead blanket reverted every edit I made without any substantive explanation, and has apparently filed a grievance against a particular professor who he dislikes.

    MrOllie also cites to self-published material [[5]]. Indeed, the author of the post MrOllie cited acknowledged "that this post might be construed as an “off-wiki attack” ... that Wikipedians may perceive as harmful to their community." It may be helpful to understand the context of this post. The blogger apparently posted this criticism as a form of revenge for having been made to appear foolish for making substantive mistakes about legal education and student loans <ref>{{cite news |title=Repetitive (and avoidable) mistakes |url=https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2013/07/repetitive-and-avoidable-mistakes.html |publisher=Brian Leiter's Law School Reports |date=July 28, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Simkovic & McIntyre's "The Economic Value of a Law Degree"... |url=https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2014/11/simkovic-mcintyres-the-economic-value-of-a-law-degree.html|publisher=Brian Leiter's Law School Reports |date=Simkovic & McIntyre's "The Economic Value of a Law Degree"...}}</ref> --subjects about which the blogger purports to be an expert--even in a publication to which he has contributed.<ref>{{cite news |title="Million Dollar Degree" Authors Answer Harper, Leichter |url=https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/almID/1202617450833/?slreturn=20190231121410 |publisher=The American Lawyer |date=August 30, 2013}}</ref>

    I've asked Mr. Ollie about the specific substantive reason for each of the deletions to my edits he made as it pertains to the particular article, source, and context, over the last 2 hours, and how he believes that he is improving the quality of the underlying article by making those deletions.

    I also pointed out that his actions--targeting a particular individual based on something that is irrelevant to whether edits are improving wikipedia articles under wikipedia policies--could constitute Wikipedia:Harassment under Wikipedia's policies.

    Instead of responding on substance, MrOllie filed a grievance on the conflict of interest board and is apparently attempting to get every single citation to a particular author deleted whether or not those edits substantively improve the quality of sources cited on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbs6446 (talk • contribs)

    Mbs6446,please learn how to sign your posts.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrespective of the identity or identities of the individual or individuals behind these accounts, it appears that single-purpose accounts are being used to promote reference to the work of a specific author. If any of these accounts were substantial long-term contributors who made improvements to the encyclopedia in areas other than this one, this could be overlooked, but Wikipedia is not the place for a single author to be promoted as if they were the leading authority in an area where they are not actually of any greater authority than dozens or hundreds of others in the field. MrOllie is correct in reporting the appearance of such impropriety in this forum. I would not necessarily have gone as far as removing all instances of citations to the author in question, but I am satisfied with his explanation for his reasoning in so doing. bd2412 T 22:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As am I. The issue here (to me, at least), is that these edits seem not to be motivated by "hey, this article could benefit from adding XYZ content, with an appropriate source," but rather by an effort to find any possible place to add a citation to a particular author's work. As for the concerns about outing, well, it's against policy, but WP:DUCK applies here as well, so we're not obliged to retain a pretense about the source of these edits. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed maybe 1/3 of them. I think (Wikipedia's search function leaves something to be desired) there are still 70-100 or so cites remaining. So far I've only found 1 that was added by an established editor. - MrOllie (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    BD2412, MrOllie, SamHolt6 I take the point that the Wikipedia articles would be stronger with citations to multiple academics work by multiple authors, and I think it would be great if MrOllie had handled this by adding *more* citations to other prominent academics to reduce the apparent prominence of a single academic. Such additions would undeniably be making the Wikipedia articles better. But just removing some of the few reliable sources from lightly sourced articles is not making the Wikipedia articles better. It's making them worse. If one source is too prominent, then other editors should come along later and add more sources to make the one source less prominent. The more reliable sources, the better. If there are factual statements that have no source or only have a weak source (not very reliable), including a citation to a reliable source helps the article and removing the reliable source hurts the wikipedia article.
    If academics are using wikipedia to promote their work, that doesn't hurt wikipedia, and it's not comparable to promoting a commercial service--it's sharing knowledge. Every academic who wants to should be free to come in and add citations. It would be great if wikipedia actually had some editors with subject matter expertise. If enough academic editors come in and contribute, then wikipedia might actually have citations to serious peer reviewed works of scholarship instead of blogs and op-eds that haven't gone through the most basic fact checking. The Undue weight policy requires some evaluation of the relative merits of different views. See this essay on attracting academic editors. I would encourage Mr.Ollie to restore the sources he deleted and either add more sources to the articles to reduce the prominence of the one academic, or instead add tags to those articles that additional citations would be helpful. It would be great if every wikipedia editor had read every source on a particular topic and could cite 20 academic articles, but if someone adds citations to one source which is more reliable than other sources in an article, that's better than nothing and such contributions should be encouraged, not met with retribution.Mbs6446 (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not read through the entirety of this thread, but will note that reliable sources do not have a mandate to be included in Wikipedia. In this instance, I feel that the addition of a single reference (sometimes attached to a single sentence) can easily be removed as being WP:UNDUE given the scope of the topics involved. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    SamHolt6, More reliable sources are supposed to be preferred to less reliable sources. Please read the reliable sources policies
    It's not a question of the "privilege" of being included in wikipedia. It's not a great privilege--wikipedia has about the same prestige as a self published vanity press trade book, which is to say, not much. The only relevant question is whether the Wikipedia article is being improved by citations to more reliable sources. Each citation should be evaluated in the specific context of the article and the quality of the source. Most Wikipedia articles have citations to less reliable sources like think tank reports, blogs, news paper articles, and material that has not been edited, fact-checked or peer reviewed. If a source that is *more* reliable than other sources in an article is being deleted or removed, that makes the article worse. MrOllie's efforts to batch delete references to academic works by a single author without evaluating the substance of each edit and each work cited is not improving articles on wikipedia. It seems to be some sort of punishment, which may be emotionally gratifying to Mr Ollie as a way of exercising his wikipedia authority--note his dismissive attitude toward inexperienced editors--but the fact of the matter is, power-tripping isn't helping make Wikipedia articles better. Let's focus on substance instead of hurling around accusations of conflict of interest and making revenge edits.
    With respect to WP:UNDUE, this policy refers to perspectives or view points, not citations to sources. Undue weight refers especially to giving undue weight to unscientific viewpoints such as "the world is flat." Perspectives on mortgage securitization from an article by an expert in the field, which has been published in a reputable journal and widely cited do not seem fall into this category. I do not believe that WP:UNDUE weight is applicable here. Mbs6446 (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    long response by blocked editor Mbs6446

    Response from mbs6446

    I made several edits to articles about mortgage securitization, the GSEs, and the subprime mortgage crisis, including substantive edits that improved the accuracy and content of wikipedia articles. Specifically, I added more on-topic reliable sources, including citations to an award-winning (see also here), widely-cited, widely-read academic journal article by a tenured professor at a leading research university with relevant expertise.

    According to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources:

    ″Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. . . . Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. . . . One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.″

    Thus, the source cited is among the most reliable sources under Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources.

    Please note that news articles in journals with an ideological valence, think tank reports and other materials are considered less reliable sources than academic research. See Biased or Opinionated Sources Many of the other sources in the article are editorials and think tank reports, not academic articles, and the inclusion of more high quality and up-to-date academic articles would therefore improve the article.

    Many of the other sources in the mortgage articles I edited are think tank reports written by organizations that receive financial sponsorship from private lenders and therefore have an interest in portraying the financial crisis as having been caused by government policies rather than by private financial institutions.

    I've attempted to engage MrOllie on the substance of edits I made and on wikipedia policies regarding reliable sources. I attempted to contact him through both his talk page and on the talk pages of the wikipedia pages I've edited.

    MrOllie has refused to engage on substance, and instead blanket reverted every edit I made without any substantive explanation, has hurled around unfounded accusations of COI as an excuse to avoid discussing substance, and has apparently filed a conflict of interest grievance against a particular professor who he apparently dislikes.

    I've asked Mr. Ollie about the specific substantive reason for each of the deletions to my edits he made as it pertains to the particular article, source, and context, over the last 2 hours, and how he believes that he is improving the quality of the underlying article by making those deletions.

    I also pointed out that his actions--targeting a particular individual based on something that is irrelevant to whether edits are improving wikipedia articles under wikipedia policies and attempting to out editors--could constitute Wikipedia:Harassment under Wikipedia's policies. See here. (See especially "hounding" and "outing").

    Instead of responding on substance, MrOllie filed a grievance on the conflict of interest board and is apparently attempting to get every single citation to a particular author deleted whether or not those edits substantively improve the quality of sources cited on Wikipedia.

    Rather than waiting to reach consensus, he has proceeded without further explanation to delete every citation to this particular academic's work that he can find on any Wikipedia article.Mbs6446 (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • User has been blocked as a sock (surprise, I know). GMGtalk 18:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if we should hat the above discussion that involves a back and forth with him/her? S/he refactored his own comments (and mine, which he deleted), so the long text above is mostly meaningless now.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I felt bold, so I hatted that shenanigans. apologies if anyone esle's comments were hatted. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Marko Brajovic

    This user appears to have a COI based on their username and continues to edit the draft while ignoring talk page notifications. shoy (reactions) 16:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I tagged the draft, which is clearly a promotional effort as it has dozens of external inline links. I also reported the username for admin action.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pressmarkobrajovic was blocked by 331dot.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikibaji sockfarm

    articles (partial)
    sockfarm (partial)

    I'll come back this evening and put more info here. There's an SPI that hasn't been quite closed yet. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional spammers:

    MER-C 18:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Favor to ask of any admin including MER-C : could you evaluate Special:Permalink/812581456 (by sock Apmsia) to the deleted version of Draft:Kraiburg TPE (by another editor sock Apmsia) and let us know if it is similar? I suspect another undiscovered sock related to this group. Bri.public (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They are indeed substantially similar. MER-C 20:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I swapped the labels above (now struck/corrected) but I guess it doesn't really matter now. Bri.public (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting until this case gets merged, it is only visible at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SaiLeeKom - Bri.public (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about disclosure requirements

    I came across DIALOG Architecture Engineering Interior Design Planning Inc., which looked like a paid article to me. I checked the user page and talk page of the article's creator, 03wikicreator (talk · contribs), and there is a disclosure on their talk page (in the section titled "Disclosing COI") that they were paid to create the article. I'm glad that disclosure is there, but shouldn't it also be somewhere on the article's talk page as well? I'm not super well-versed in our COI disclosure requirement but thought someone here could educate me. Thanks. Marquardtika

    Other pages this user has created and/or declared a COI with regard to include:
    I added COI notices to articles and talk pages. Peacock (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave Dialog Architecture and excessively long name a trim. Wondering if it passes notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all. The user has been blocked as a sock and most of the pages have been deleted already. Marquardtika (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, Bbb23] swooped in there and took care of all the problems! Thank you.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rachel Hart

    I created this article and it keeps on getting tagged with a Conflict of Interest. Completly out of line. No conflict of interest. Nothing to disclose. How do we actually resolve this? It was reviewed and is live. Everything links to the appropriate source. --Media Edit NZ (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (user is referring to Rachel Hart article).ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia. It's probably your user name that is an issue. It sounds like a company: is it?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello ThatMontrealIP. That makes sense to why there would be a conflict of interest and I am happy to change my username. We are not a company, no. Again, how is it resolved though? Is the tag just always there? --Media Edit NZ (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you happen to know Rachel Hart? It is getting tagged because the article is what we call highly promotional. It was also sourced with lots of references written by the article subject, which I have removed. Also, all your edits for the past six months or so concern Rachel Hart, her husband and their television programs. And the resulting articles are promotional. So it has all the hallmarks of what we call promotional editing, which is exactly the kind of thing we discuss here. Please do enlighten us on any connection you have to the article subjects, so we can clear this up! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MediaEditNZ, other editors will discuss to see if she is notable, that is the point of the AFD. the larger question is that your editing overall looks clearly promotional; could you clarify what your connection is to the set of subjects you have been editing? Thanks!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly I am a big fan of the subjects I had been editing. That is it. I had started to watch the 100 Day Bach show on NetFlix. Started to learn about the subjects and producers and saw what was linked with them. I have no connection with the subject for the TV show that you tagged has a close connection to. I understand they might be promotional. Your welcome to cut them down. I was new to editing so I am sorry if I had caused some problems. I am. I am definitely a new comer! --Media Edit NZ (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK thanks for that, which clears things up. And welcome! One thing you might want to try is to read over WP:RS, which covers what we consider to be a reliable source. For example, you were using articles authored by Rachel Hart to prove she was a writer. This might be marginally ok, but we tend to frown on anything that isn't independent. If the publisher or the author of the article isn't objective and independent, then we generally do not use them. Same thing goes for company connections: The use of the company Stripe in her article is no good as it is either her company or her employer. Keep to independent sources that are in reliable publications. Thins also have to be very neutral in order to not be seen as promotional. I wish you good editing and hope that this bureaucratic machinery has not discouraged you too much.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for this information. I tried to look for sources and references that would work. The television show in New Zealand here [6] shows her all throughout the Episodes and Series. Something that was clearly notable, being on a popular TV channel in New Zealand. I have however asked to delete the article Rachel Hart as this was just going around in circles and was quite upsetting. Thanks again for your help. --Media Edit NZ (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't take it personally... you have to have a thick skin in here. The AFD will determine notability in an orderly way, if it is not deleted before then by your author's deletion request.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed my mind on this one, I don't believe this is good faith editing after looking at the user's contribs. It is all connected to one company, and it is also very slick editing that is not by a newbie editor. And it is all editing solely connected to the products of a single tv production company. Highly experienced volunteer editor suddenly decides to start promoting a single company's products. There are zero contribs outside of that subject area. There is a similar account over at Wikimedia Commons that also makes uploads for the same purposes: MediaSpyNZ. An SPI or checkuser might be in order. So in sum, I think the original UPE tag might be in order. WP:DUCK. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - we are not a company, no. hmmm. Hydromania (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Two of the accounts mentioned above (MediaEditNZ, MediaCheckNZ) are socks and were blocked. MediaEditNZ did have a pretty convincing routine though. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Bridge Back to Life

    Hello. Please refer to [7] and [8]. This is a recreation of a salted article under a different name. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I cut it from 17K to 4.3K. I am not really sure what is goign on there-- the article was a coatrack to discredit the DR. mentioned, or a promotional vehicle? I would have nominated it for Afd, but it has a few good refs.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sent to AFD. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Scytl

    This user appears to have, starting soon after their first edit, exclusively editing the Scytl Wikipedia page in a manner flattering to Scytl. For context, Scytl is an evoting company which has been in the spotlight after numerous security flaws were found in its product. See, e.g.,[1], [2].

    References

    1. ^ https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/1109908811697946624
    2. ^ https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/1112776403823419392

    I believe that given this pattern an apparent CoI exists.

    Disclosure: Although I do not know any person involved in this matter, Ms. Lewis, who is one of the security researchers who discovered these issues, did inform the public (and thus me) of this apparent CoI via Twitter. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Fernando Perdomo

    Need I say more? User has been editing this page for a while. has also added his name to other articles here and here Hydromania (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like an artist doing their promotional duty! It was all unsourcd, so I restored it to the earlier version before they came along.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a bid hasty IMHO. You also reverted some formatting fixes which I've re-added. As the article is all written in the same tone and format, I wouldn't be surprised if the earlier edits were also COI editors.Hydromania (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right about my missing your improvements. I did search for the typo check and could not find it, but missed the other improvements you noted. Apologies.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also informed the user about WP:IMPERSONATE as it's relevant here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. If they return to editing without either verifying or changing it, please report to WP:UAA. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:GPV International A/S

    Draft:GPV International A/S (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    CCS Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Erolatccsgroup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    User’s only edits were first acquiring Wikipedia experience, then on CCS Group. Now that CCS Group has been acquired by GPV International, their edits are intended to create an article about GPV International. My inquiry about conflict of interest was not answered, but the following inquiry on my talk page is written in the first person plural and is typical of corporate editing: s://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=89 Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    To start, looks like a violation of the shared username policy.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. It is perfectly ok to use <name> at <organization> as that clearly represents an individual. That being said, this is pretty clearly WP:PAID. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, I was reading CCS group as a user account. I corrected the order above.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And as they seemed to completely either ignore or not understand attempt to clarify how this works (they actually had to change their username once already and were warned about COI 2 years ago) I've issued an indef block. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention the edit-warring to remove the COI tag from the article. Anyway, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CCS Group. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Udit Raj

    Editor who has stated that he is the subject of the article has completely rewritten it in a non-neutral way. Reverted with explanation and reinstated: Bhunacat10 (talk), 08:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I cleaned it up a bit (removed improper bold, added proper sections). It seems like it may have been adapted from an essay, given the section headings It had previously. It's far too dense for me to figure out what is going on.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alessio Pasquinelli

    More brand skipped

    I don't like to use external source, but the user keen on maintaining the list of sponsored teams in the sport wear articles to include "current" teams only (removing the expired sponsorship without really providing any reason) and without disclosing his source to verify . Googling his name "Alessio Pasquinelli" in linkedin shown his past position as "SPONSORSHIPS BROKER CONSULTANT", "SPONSORSHIPS MANAGER" and current position as "Pasquinelli Work Advertising". Matthew hk (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it impossible for acupuncturists to have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing acupuncture?

    At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Acupuncture: not sure what to do here I asked the question "Is it true that according to the RfC cited, It is impossible for acupuncturists to have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing acupuncture?" More input on that question would be welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (1) The question is poorly phrased, and (2) why is Guy Macon still beating the horse that (I thought) was laid to rest by the "No" finding of the lengthy RfC he started: 2nd RfC: Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest?. This strikes me as odd and inappropriate re-litigation, for reasons I posted to Guy M's user talk page.
    Per that RfC, no, being an acupuncturist does not create a COI for acupuncture (and so on for other alt-meds). But yes, I'd say it's as impossible for an acu'ist to have a COI for acu as it is for a psychologist to have one for psychology, isn't it? As the RfC closers noted, WP doesn't recognize COI for "broad areas of interest or general competence. Thus, the proposal to single out alt-med practitioners in policy as having a COI is opposed."
    I am about to ask the RfC closers for clarification, and I hope this won't take up any more (nor any less) time than it needs to. Happy editing. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 00:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC); added to quote 01:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC); update: closing admins notified [9] (one is on vacation and won't be able to comment for awhile) 01:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    no it is not impossible. However a change in policy is not necessary. Guidelines such as WP:COISOURCE provide advice for editing contributions, which may originate from from biased editors. If an editor cherry picks RS to push unduly positive info then that’s biased/POV editing. If an editor inserts links which promote specific practices or products then this is COI editing. A good example from my experience is having to shoot down the addition of fairly innocuous pieces of text which are sourced from obvious commercial sites in the article on interior design. These are added by editors who use link spam to describe interior design using arguably encyclopedic text while employing dubious sourcing techniques. Anyone frequently exhibiting this kind of behavior ought to be declaring a COI as their commercial aims are influencing their editing practices. This ought not to be mandatory however. I am an interior designer and wouldn’t dream of adding my company’s website address into the encyclopedia. Discretion is advised and current policies and guidelines would seem to be sufficient in this case. Edaham (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Scott Shaw

    This is from an ancient SPI from 2009 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex West/Archive that was never cleaned up after. I found it today via this post on r/wikipedia (reddit). Most of these articles are films that Scott Shaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had an involvement in that do not appear to meet WP:NFILM. I haven't been able to determine whether Shaw meets WP:CREATIVE.

    I'm also concerned that Chinanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a still-active sock of the same master. The account was created at a similar time and has edited many of the same articles: [10]. SmartSE (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    UPE cluster

    articles

    See Special:Diff/891222663. - Bri.public (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    SPI pending: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gghenn2. MER-C 20:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Listing blocked Holbornassets who created Holborn Assets Limited and was blocked 4 August 2015. Not saying he's part of the current sockfarm.
    Expecting to see the creator of City Express Money Transfer turn up in the SPI. - Bri.public (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=891613090"