Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bri.public (talk | contribs) at 19:45, 14 October 2019 (→‎Wikipedia Procreative Writers: oops - listed twice). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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:David Adjaye
    User talk:Africatalyst
    Talk:James F. Allen (businessman)
    Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Timothy Archambault
    Talk:Avia Solutions Group
    Talk:Bastion Collective
    Talk:Bell Bank
    Talk:Boku, Inc.
    Talk:Doug Bremner
    Talk:Bruce D. Broussard
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Martin Casado
    Talk:Cboe Global Markets
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Brian Chesky
    Talk:Cheyne Capital Management
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:City of Whittlesea
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Cyberattack
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Edmund de Waal
    Talk:Derby della Lanterna
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Discovery Land Company
    Talk:Michael Douglas
    Talk:Edelman (firm)
    Talk:EF Education First
    Talk:EMarketer
    Talk:End-user license agreement
    Talk:Engine No. 1
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:Foster and Partners
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Steven Furtick
    Talk:Gibson Dunn
    Talk:Global Strategy Group
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Graph database
    Talk:Evan G. Greenberg
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace
    Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:Roy Hamilton III
    Talk:Richard Harland
    Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
    Talk:HOK (firm)
    Talk:Hong Kong Free Press
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Infillion
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:Barry Irwin
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Valerie Jarrett
    Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service
    Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:Labaton Keller Sucharow
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Alison Lawton
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Lemelson Foundation
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Anthony Marinelli
    Talk:Mascot Books
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:Michael Meldman
    Talk:Christos Metskas
    Talk:Milwaukee Electric Tool
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Norwest Venture Partners
    Talk:Obama Foundation
    Talk:Olympus Corporation
    Talk:Omaha Steaks
    Talk:Operating system
    Talk:Orphan Train
    Talk:Orphanage
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Overseas Development Institute
    Talk:Pacific Equity Partners
    Talk:Lubos Pastor
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Plinabulin
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Programming language
    Talk:PureTalk
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:QIAGEN
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Quarter Pounder
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Marc Rowan
    Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Security AppScan
    Talk:Diana Senechal
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Snow Patrol
    Talk:Software
    Talk:Software license
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation
    Talk:Stikeman Elliott
    Talk:Subway (restaurant)
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:The Inter Faith Network
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Titmouse, Inc.
    Talk:Tricentis
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Bradley Tusk
    Talk:Union Pacific Railroad
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Bulat Utemuratov
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Romesh Wadhwani
    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

    Iridium Communications

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

    Rossy Evelin Lima

    This article appears to have been created and constantly updated by the subject's spouse, Gerald A. Padilla.

    Moriba Jah

    The author of much of the article is clearly Moriba Jah. Twice under his username, and the bulk of the edits under two IP addresses associated with Austin, TX (where Jah resides), which have both only contributed to Jah's page (since 2009). The page itself has many unsourced anecdotes that are inconstant with a wikipedia biography.

    Can you help with COI sockfarm investigation?

    articles (representative)

    Evidence (diffs) has been requested at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RadyoUkay819. Looks like a possible paid editing operation; I have seen article creations dealing with models/pageant contestants, and aspiring singers. Bri.public (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I posted some information. Wearing my admin hat, there's enough behavioral evidence to sock-block, but there are possibly more I didn't yet uncover so I also requested CU there that may find more. This is not my topic area, so I can't comment on the COI aspect, just the SOCK aspect. DMacks (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks DMacks. There's a prior analysis at User:Bri.public/Beauty pageants which might be helpful here, I haven't really cross-checked yet so I don't know. When I put that together in 2015, I wrote "The pageant articles are so bad, it's hard to find a legitimate editor..."; unfortunately, this remains true. Bri.public (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've nuked about 50 articles under G5. MER-C 09:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I started looking at the remaining articles. Just noting for now that someone claiming to be a pageant contestant started editing "her" article 48 hours after it was created by the sockmaster. - Bri.public (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Giada Pezzaioli was deleted after my g5 nom, for the third time – previously deleted in 2015 and 2017. - Bri.public (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is some evidence of the use of open proxies, so I've asked for a check. - Bri.public (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Random thought (not a serious proposal): would general sanctions help for this topic? MER-C 09:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The dreck continues. Anybody want to add Miss World Philippines 2019 and Michelle Dee to their watchlist?
    I've said this before but I'll say it again. There is, in my opinion, a serious risk that nearly the entirety of Wikipedia dealing with attention-seeking subjects could go this way. Certain topics are currently protected by topic-specific, aggressive upholding of standards – such as MEDRS/WP:MED – and can maintain themselves. But will the rest become a moth-eaten COI-authored mess like the pageants and Indian film are today? The jury is still out on whether the sanctions around cryptocurrency are working; it might be the next lost cause. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I applaud the hard work our editors do scrubbing promotional content out. Sadly, until the readers grow sour on the Wikipedia brand due to the corrosive nature of CoI editing, there won't be sufficient article protection and editing prevention to stem the tide. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This piqued my interest and I've filed more stuff to this SPI, withdrawn (but probably viable with more research); and another. Without giving away too many clues for the baddies, I think there's one paid operation in the southeast Asia region, and another in the US Bay Area. Also a bunch of passionate fans who aren't big on reliable sources, so it's hard to sort out the actors. - Bri.public (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rodney_Orpheus

    WP:NPOV and WP:COI and WP:CONFLICT

    Notability and commercial purpose is also possible, as the subject fails to meet notability test even in basic purpose of the article - the article was initially created as "Writer," and today the opening paragraph states the subject is known for being "a musician."

    Review of materials published or produced impugn the legitimacy; the name of this person additionally does not appear to be a real name. This is therefore a fictional media character.

    Request Editor examine claims and engage appropriate policies.

    Canlawtictoc (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC) 11:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I had a look at this. The page Rodney Orpheus has been consistently edited by rodneyorpheus, who claims to be the article subject. He provides a rationale for doing so on his talk page, and one on the article talk page as well. He says he is a long time editor and has the right to do so. I've tagged the article as an autobiography and for blp sources. I think that the editor's persistent ignorance of the established COI request edit procedure is basically disruptive editing, as they are not a neutral editor of their own page, even if they think they are.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi guys. Thanks for bringing this up. I completely understand your concerns - I'd feel the same way in your position. Let me attempt to allay some of the concerns raised.
    Although this is the COI noticeboard, for some reason Notability has been raised as well, even though that's a completely different discussion. However, for the sake of getting it out of the way, I'll address it here. Looking back through the history, I can see that Notability was first raised way back in June 2009, and that original Notability heading was removed (by another editor, not by me) in December 2009. It was raised again in March 2010, leading to more discussion in the Talk page, when consensus was eventually reached. After several more months of no further discussion on the subject, I finally removed the second header in December 2010. As far as I can recall that issue hasn't been raised since then. I am more than a little surprised to see it being raised again now. I particularly am confused by the statement 'the article was initially created as "Writer," and today the opening paragraph states the subject is known for being "a musician."' I fail to understand the logic in this statement. Apparently I can only be notable for one thing at a time? Is that the argument? Because that's not how notability works, either in the real world or on Wikipedia. To put this to bed again, even a quick comparison of my discography or book publication record shows that I well exceed Wikipedia's standards for either of these things. So discussing that again is really a waste of time.
    To move on to the actual COI issue: yes, that's absolutely a valid concern. I have done a lot of work on that article, and yes, I am the person in question. According to what I understand of Wikipedia's policies, that's certainly frowned upon (as it should be), though not absolutely banned. I welcome any correction to that assumption. So why have I been editing the article? To put things in context, I notice from my own editor page that I had performed my 2000th Wikipedia edit by December 2011. That's a fair bit of editing, and by far the majority of it was not about me! I have contributed to very many articles, including two Good Articles. Why? Because I love Wikipedia and am I strong believer in its principles - and Wikipedia can only grow and thrive if people contribute to subjects they have expertise in. So the reason I contribute to this article is simple, really - because I'm a Wikipedia editor, and it's a subject that I (obviously) know a lot about. That's it.
    "they are not a neutral editor of their own page, even if they think they are" - I absolutely do not think that I am a neutral editor, nor have I ever pretended to be. I have always been completely upfront about who I am, and what I have been contributing. It's not like I'm astroturfing, or trying to make myself look great. Every addition I have made to that article has been derived from a third-party source which I have cited. I have tried very hard to ensure that I do not add my own personal opinion to anything in there - anything I have added has been purely factual, or the opinion of a reliable source according to Wikipedia's guidelines, and everything has been (hopefully) correctly cited and linked to. If there is any case where I have not adequately done so, by all means please point them out and either provide a solution or ask me to provide one. I am more than willing to assist, but I would absolutely prefer someone else to do it: it's not only better practice, it's less work for me :-)
    Oh, I notice there's a BLP template there asking for additional citations, but nowhere in the body of the article is anything flagged as requiring citation. That would seem to be a good place to start on actively improving the article.

    Thomas Siebel

    The first three editors have only edited this article, all just in September. From the phrasing of the edit summaries, it would be surprising if they were not all coming from the same person. The "Honors and awards" has clearly become excessive. Looking further back, BAHB and Notevenonce have only edited this or two other Siebel-related articles that also look too promotional. Edwardx (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Anastasios Tsonis

    It appears that the subject of Anastasios Tsonis (Aatsonis) has been making repeated requests on Talk:Anastasios Tsonis for changes to be made to the article about him. These requests have almost all been answered, but none of his proposed edits have been made. However, recently the subject apparently made two edit requests that Spintendo (who has been communicating with the subject and responding to most of his previous requests) found so egregious that they had to be reverted on the basis of WP:IDHT: [1] I am not sure that this was the best way to handle this situation, given that this editor is fundamentally doing what he is supposed to do (propose edits on the talk page). But of course a never-ending back and forth with him is not ideal either. Input is requested. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    After 12 request edits, I would say it is safe to ignore the article subject's requests now. We are volunteers, not wiki service people. Excessive interaction with the article subject also has the potential of reducing the neutrality of the article by virtue of it having so much content determined by the subject. We have millions of articles that were created without any input by the article subjects, so I don't see the point in encouraging it. Personally I would have stopped responding after two request edit templates. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been said that a well-asked question is already half-answered. In the great pantheon of well-asked edit requests — this one won't appear. (To continue with my rather wordy reply, see below.)
    Reply from Spintendo

    I had asked that the COI editor supply 3 items to help with my review:

    • A verbatim description of any text or references to be added to the article
    • A verbatim description of any text or references to be removed from the article
    • If any of the above requested changes were not obvious, to give reasons for their being changed
    The COI editor duly responded with paragraphs of text placed on the talk page with the appropriate template. This proposed text contained what appeared to be text taken from the current standing version of the article (a minimal amount) along with other newer text. The passages of proposed text did not delineate which text or references in the current standing version of the article were to be removed, the supposition being that if text and references did not appear in the proposed sections of text, that meant it was to be deleted.
    My understanding is that if sections of text are to be removed, those sections need to be stated verbatim in the request along with reasons for their removal. The COI editor occassionally provided general reasons for why text should be removed, saying it was either "wrong" or incorrect. Again, my understanding of the removal process is that specific reasons for why something should be removed should be given, because the reasons for why one passage of text ought to be removed, can and often do differ from why another passage of text should be removed. Asking for these specific reasons to be provided by the COI editor makes it clear that their removing of these items needs to be accountable, and that since it is no less than the subject himself who is asking for the removal, that means the scrutiny of those reasons ought to be stronger.
    It's where the text and references were to be removed, that brought difficulties. The COI editor's formatting of references were hard to decipher, and at no time did they clearly state what was to be removed. Reasons for why these unlabled changes were to be made were also missing. The COI editor particularly did not understand that any reasons provided should be placed immediately adjacent to the text in question.
    As an example, allow me to state the following 4 claims:
    1. there is a red scarf that should be worn
    2. a blue scarf should be worn with grey trousers
    3. scarves should be worn on cold days
    4. I don't like the color
    The claims above are made in a small, confined and segmented space with a limited amount of text, just how edit requests are presented. Now then, with regards to the color I dont like, which color am I referring to? Am I talking about trousers or scarves? Because my statement about not liking a color was placed in the text haphazardly, who knows where the statement belongs. The placement of text in a small confined segmented space such as an edit request needs to clearly delineate which segments of text apply where. Text that is to be deleted should be clearly marked as such and reasons why should be paired with the appropriate claims, since reviewers are not WP:MINDREADERS.
    Without access to a well-asked edit request, I had to guesstimate my response. To that end, my best guess was that the COI editor wanted to remove criticisms from the article and replace them with passages of paraphrased text from their own written journal articles. Based upon that guess of what they wanted done, my reply was to decline the request.
    Regards,  Spintendo  03:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Brenda Novak

    Was warned on February 26, 2016 about COI and then claimed to be the article subject's assistant. They then continued to add Novak to articles and place blatantly promotional material in the Brenda Novak article. Even though they were instructed to WP:DISCLOSE their relationship on their user page they have avoided doing so. Dharmalion76 (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    And now Danita Moon has arrived to make the exact same edits as Brenda novak. Dharmalion76 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The first account should be blocked outright as WP:IMPERSONATE. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's been done. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rob Andrews

    Resolved
     – The sockpuppet investigation has been completed. Thanks to all of the editors who helped. — Newslinger talk 21:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Coordinated whitewashing campaign, almost certainly from a network of sockpuppets. Most of the accounts follow a similar username pattern and repeatedly remove mentions of Andrews's resignation (for alleged misuse of funds) from the lead section. I'll open a sockpuppet investigation with a more detailed analysis. — Newslinger talk 08:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet investigation started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sfj340sfeoem71 with extensive documentation of the suspected sockpuppets' editing behavior. — Newslinger talk 09:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey Newslinger, Please correct you investigation information. You have in your investigation that IMme4u09 delted information, but that is not the case. Never deleted a comment, just moved to related section within page. Happy to chat more if anyone has any questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMme4u09 (talk • contribs)

    I have strived to make meaningful edits to the over 100 pages I have edited. In the future if you have an issue with me moving something, please feel free to contact me.

    This is a biography of a living person and must represent only facts without bias. That is also why there is a talk page. Recently, a user purposely completely deleted the outcome of the event (which was that the FEC dismissed the complaint) and then moved only the mention of the complaint to the heading. That undeniably is very misleading. The facts of the articles are that there was a complaint by a watchdog group. That complaint was dismissed by the FEC. The articles also state that Andrews left office after accepting titular job at a firm. Everything else is speculative. The facts speak for itself, the FEC dismissed the complaint. If you feel that that you would like to remove those facts, please let me know how to file a complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMme4u09 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    As I mentioned at User talk:Newslinger § See talkpage, I wrote: "IMme4u09 removed information on Andrews's resignation from the lead section at Special:Diff/918085868." By moving the information from the lead section of the Rob Andrews article to a less prominent section of the article, you did indeed remove content from the lead section. Regardless of your intentions, sockpuppetry is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 18:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent work @Newslinger:. scope_creepTalk 16:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The Cybersmile Foundation, Stop Cyberbullying Day and filmindustry.network links

    Ad blocking, Comparison of DNS server software, DNS over HTTPS, DNS over TLS, DNS sinkhole, and MAC spoofing

    User Berean Hunter suggested that I post about this COI stuff here. I'm new to this COIN thing, so this post might be far from perfect. I find it very confusing, since it's so many different puppets and articles involved, and I wouldn't be surprised if I missed something. Lists of the diffs can be reached by clicking on "contribs" for each puppet above.

    A user, currently blocked for sockpuppeting, seems intent on adding links to a website, blog, and GitHub repo (which all seems to be of commercial interests). There is to the best of my knowledge no reliable source that supports the noteworthiness of this "Technitium" stuff. It seems to be pure self promotion. 185.213.154.168 (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Make sure the site gets on a blacklist. I recommend using the report button at WP: WikiProject Spam ☆ Bri (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    CharlesHolston's Response:

    • IP address 103.250.47.154 belongs to me which I used earlier and created an account to keep track.
    • The other mentioned IP addresses are from different providers altogether and not related to me. I do not have any ipv6 connectivity.
    • 185.213.154.168's COI allegations are without any basis as he has not provided any evidence other than circumstantial that all IP address belong to same city.
    • 185.213.154.168's contributions when inspected carefully revels that he/she has edited to remove content from multiple pages targeting any software linked to "Technitium" and only when pointed out on talk page, he/she then later removed other entries to show justification.
    • In case of page Comparison_of_LAN_messengers, the entry for "Bit Chat" was added by 72.128.114.238 which from IP lookup is in USA. And thus not in the same city as claimed earlier. To make removal of "Bit Chat" justified, the user removed several other entries with it.
    • 185.213.154.168's claim that "Technitium" is a commercial entity selling the software projects is also incorrect. I checked the links provided and its clear that all projects are open source and freely available.
    • 185.213.154.168 is using an anonymous proxy/VPN IP address which indicates he/she wants to hide identity. I suspect they have some motive against "Technitium" based on hiding their identity using VPN and the contributions they made to remove content from all pages no matter how relevant the content was to the page or who added it.
    • The talk page for Comparison_of_DNS_server_software already discussed to allow all DNS server software to be listed without notability criteria. 185.213.154.168 thus did not read the talk page and made removal of multiple entries from the page.
    • 185.213.154.168 didn't just stop at removal of entries, he/she made this COIN entry and subsequently also made an entry in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam to block all links. This adds to the suspicion that he/she has motive against "Technitium" and want to get it removed and blocked.
    • 185.213.154.168 contribution history shows that he/she has edited to remove content than to add something useful thus showing that their actions are overall destructive and targeted.

    I request moderators to consider all the points and do their own checks before coming to any conclusion. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesHolston (talk • contribs) 07:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Bridgestone Golf

    The IPv4 user's first edit of the Bridgestone Golf article bears an edit summary that reads "The edits include updated product descriptions, made by a Bridgestone Golf employee."

    Shcooper1995 joined in on the same day, ruining the same article in a similar style to the IPv4 user. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 16:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Gold Seal

    Existing dab page was replaced with an article about a company, written by Agencyblink which is also a Canadian advertising agency. That account was blocked for username violation. I restored the dab page, and now a new editor has again replaced it with the article on the company (twice) and ignored COI warnings on their talk page. MB 17:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The user in question has now disclosed their paid-editing status and begun work on a draft page, Draft:Gold Seal (company). That should resolve this issue (for now). —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "...a leading producer..." right in the lede sentence *sigh* - Bri.public (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It got deleted via G11, thankfully.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Infopulse Ukraine

    The user might have a conflict of interest, even if denied on wiki. Not posting details per WP:OUTING. Let me know if I should email evidence. --MarioGom (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I likewise have evidence, which I've emailed to ArbCom. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've carried out the block. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Kowsar publishing

    This user shows a clear bias toward Kowsar Publishing, and, alongside this, appears to be affiliated with them in some way. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    David J. Eicher

    The article David J. Eicher appears to be the work of single-purpose accounts with a likely conflict of interest. It has a long history of promotional editing. The thousands of incoming wikilinks suggest additional spamming and/or self-promotion. The related article John H. Eicher is subject to the same behavior. Also, I think there are copyright issues because the uploader of all the images of the subject spanning about 90 years are all claimed to be "own work". That would be one long-lived photographer. Peacock (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Listed creators ☆ Bri (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What evidence is there for the assertion that "thousands of incoming wikilinks suggest additional spamming and/or self-promotion", rather than the propensity of Wikipedia editors to cite good sources? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't doubt that some of the wikilinks are due to uninvovled Wikipedians. However, in the light of multiple editors (DEicher116, Boltzens, Lincoln18612000 at least) with a many-years-long sole interest in promoting the Eichers going all the way back to 2007, I would have to be incredibly naive to think that the thousands of incoming wikilinks to the David Eicher page arose naturally from the work of individuals without some COI. Peacock (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-coup

    User is persistently engaging in conflicts with other editors on the article. Their published Twitter account on their talk page proves their obvious conflict of interest. Link to Twitter. Another editor on the article User:Lalichii, is also going against the consensus of the other editors, however I am unable to prove whether they have a conflict of interest with the subject. Conflict has been ongoing for a month, and I have attempted to reach out to an administrator for more assistance but have yet to receive a response. Editors on all sides have came close, but haven't yet violated WP:3RR, but the whole situation is beginning to be a real mess. I hope we can get a swift solution soon, I'm growing tired of the conflict. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have fully protected the article one week to avert edit-warring. I don't believe that this noticeboard is the right venue as I don't see a COI in the above post.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    KDDB

    The user has an apparent conflict of interest (discussion, diff). Various editors have warned repeatedly but the user has not engaged in the discussion. A pattern of disruptive editing is also emerging. MarioGom (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have attempted to engage this user on their talk page about the matter, but have received no response. StrikerforceTalk 15:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (GLAM partnership)

    I'm not sure how we got here, but there are multiple editors affiliated with the OBC that are editing Wikipedia under a GLAM partnership. Note that the OBC is a think tank, not a gallery, library, archive or museum. Their editing looks a lot like advertising of their organizations (Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa, European Centre for Press and Media Freedom) as well as advancing their advocacy efforts (Censorship in Serbia, Media freedom in Serbia). Is this something that should be allowed on enwiki? It looks like GLAM being used as a backdoor for advocacy. --MarioGom (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    From the lede of our own article on OBC: "Its archives hosts more than 10,000 items... All its contents are available on[sic] Creative Commons licenses.". That places it quite unambiguously in scope for our GLAM partnerships. Have you notified the editors concerned of this discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please notify (not ping) all of the editors implicated in your OP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pigsonthewing: Ok. I have notified enwiki editors from OBC, except those who already commented here. --MarioGom (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pigsonthewing: On the scope, note that most well-established think tanks and political parties have some form of internal archive. I doubt that qualifies them for a GLAM partnership. Or does it? I'm not really familiar with the way these partnerships work, honestly. But Wikipedia:GLAM/About states GLAM editors should be mindful of the conflict of interest guideline, and should not use their editing privileges to promote the institution, but rather to bring the institution's resources into Wikipedia, in order to further Wikipedia's mission of providing articles summarizing accepted knowledge to the public. I don't think the conflict of interest guideline is being followed here. --MarioGom (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, my name is Niccolò Caranti. I am a Wikipedian since 2006 as Jaqen. I started working with OBCT in 2017 and, in order of having full transparency in a simple way, when I edit Wikimedia projects as a part of my job I use the separate account Niccolò Caranti (OBC). The same good practice has been followed by my colleagues that have edited Wikipedia.
    OBCT started working on Wikipedia in 2015, hosting a WIR (which was Davide Denti (OBC), not me) in cooperation with Wikimedia Italia, more information about the cooperation here. I may agree that OBCT is not properly a GLAM, but more generally a cultural institution. The term GLAM is used because the cooperation was modelled on successful GLAM partnerships. In any case, as Andy pointed out, we can contribute with our contents and expertise, just as GLAMs do.
    Our purpose on Wikipedia is just to improve the contents of Wikipedia, not to advertise or do advocacy. I, as many wikipedians and Wikimedia organisations, believe that censorship is bad, but when we write an article about (e.g.) censorship in Serbia our purpose is just to describe the topic. If we somewhere failed neutrality please point us where and we try to fix.
    As a part of our Wiki4MediaFreedom initiative we have written ourselves article related (broadly) to media freedom, and we have encouraged other wikipedians to do the same, by organising edit-a-thons (in cooperation with several Wikimedia chapters) and contests. Recently we also cooperated with Wikimedia Italy for an education project. Just to avoid any doubts: nearly all the sources used and cited have nothing to do with us.
    I am in knowledge of COI policy, and I try as best as I can to respect the letter and the principles of the policy. As an example, recently I realised that the article about OBCT was out of date: before updating it I described in the talk page the edits I intendend to do, and I waited nearly a month before actually doing them. If there is something more we should do in order to have the maximum transparency we will be glad to do it. --Niccolò "Jaqen" Caranti (OBC) (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Niccolò Caranti (OBC): Note that if you use the {{Edit request}} template, someone will step in to fulfill the request, usually in much less than one month. --MarioGom (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I'm User:Davide Denti (OBC); I was WiR for OBC at the start of the GLAM partnership in 2015-2016. I am using my personal account since I have not been linked to the organisation since. The GLAM partnership with OBC was set up in cooperation with Wikimedia Italia and has since won several WMF small grants too. The articles linked above are based on reliable third-party sources (inMedia freedom in Serbia, links to articles published by OBC are only 5 out of 82 sources), as all other articles created or modified via the GLAM. This was indeed the point of the GLAM with OBC: rather than gaining access to a specific material archive, Wikipedia gains access to specialist knowledge (as embedded in a cultural organisation which works since 20 years on South East Europe and media freedom topics) and expands Wiki's reach on the issue. I think this was a win-win for all sides. --Dans (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Davide Denti (OBC), Niccolò Caranti (OBC), here is how I see the issue (but other editors might have a different view):
    • Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa and European Centre for Press and Media Freedom articles were created and primarily edited by editors with an actual conflict of interest. I have tagged with {{COI}} and at some point me or other editors will clean up the articles, which have a promotional tone and rely heavily on sources closely linked to the organizations. The COI policy strongly discourages that you edit the article directly. You can add a topic to the discussion page and add the {{Edit request}} template. There are a few editors that are very dedicated to handle COI requests, and it usually doesn't take too long.
    • You seem to be counting only sources to the main OBC website, but I'm seeing a lot of references to child projects and partners. While expert contributions are great, referencing your own publications when they are not published by a reliable third party is problematic (WP:EXPERT).
    • Conscientious objection to abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm not sure that creating an article about this topic and positioning your website in various references is something under the scope of the GLAM partnership. --MarioGom (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The last point also applies to Poland in the European Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or Diesel emissions scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --MarioGom (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    On neither of those first two articles' talk pages have you complied with the conditions for using {{COI}}. Further, WP:EXPERT does not say what you appear to think it does; it refers to "information from his or her own publications ", and neither Davide nor Niccolò are (to the best of my knowledge) the authors of what they have cited. WP:CURATOR also applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pigsonthewing: Why do you think so? The articles were created under an actual conflict of interest, rely mainly on non-independent sources and contained a good deal of self-serving PR speech. --MarioGom (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think so because I've read those conditions, which are highlighted prominently in the template's documentation. Have you? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pigsonthewing: You are right, I often omit the step of opening a discussion in the article talk page since it is, in my view, a quite obvious case, and spans multiple articles. I guess you were referring to that. My bad. I'll open discussions with more detail. --MarioGom (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    About WP:EXPERT, sorry, I was not specific enough. See: Censorship in Serbia#Background, relying on a single source authored by Rossella Vignola (OBC) and hosted on the organization website (diff). --MarioGom (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The paper authored by Rossella was not published by her; it meets WP:EXPERT's requirement of "material [...] published in a reliable source by a third party.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How is OBCT a third-party if she authored it as part of her work at OBCT? Maybe I'm not interpreting third-party correctly in this context. Also I don't think that WP:CURATOR was meant for think tanks, no matter how laudable their mission is. --MarioGom (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CURATOR is about "Museum curators, librarians, archivists, and similar" It does not - quite deliberately, and quite rightly - restrict itself to certain types of such; nor place limits on where they work. We've already established that OBC has a >10,000-item archive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MarioGom: Many alleged issues are, imho, non-issues. Talking for example about the links, in Conscientious objection to abortion there are 16 external links: only 3 of them are OBCT or EDJNet. In List of journalists killed in Europe (another article I created) there are 66 external links: only 8 are OBCT or EDJnet. In some cases (such as Poland in the European Union and Diesel emissions scandal) I have added just an image or a sentence with just one source (in those cases it was EDJNet), but in other cases there was not a single link to OBCT or EDJNet or other partners: e.g. José Luis López de Lacalle (which I personally wrote). In Category:Wiki4MediaFreedom articles there are other articles we created, edited, or that were created as a part of our events or contests: overall there are just a few links to our websites. We link them only when we think they improve Wikipedia, in line with WP:CURATOR and other policies.
    I'm reading at the top of this page that it "should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue". This was not done here. Sure, there can be some small issues with some articles, but we are ready to fix what has to be fixed, and if someone else wants to fix them we certainly won't get in the way. But to solve those issues we should use the talk pages, not this one. --Niccolò "Jaqen" Caranti (OBC) (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Niccolò Caranti (OBC): Understood. It seems that I failed to make alleged issues clear here. I'll open discussions for each individual issue in separate discussions in relevant pages. --MarioGom (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm following up on user talk pages about disclosure and compliance (1, 2), as well as on article talk pages on specific issues (1, 2). Not doing so upfront was a procedural mistake from my side. Also the question on the limits of GLAM partnerships that I suggested in the initial message is out of scope for COIN. If an uninvolved editor wants to close the discussion, please, do so. Otherwise, I will do it myself in a few days unless there is any opposition. --MarioGom (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick and probably last update form my side on this topic. After following up on the user talk pages and getting the conversation on compliance ongoing, there is really nothing for COIN to act on. I apologize to Niccolò Caranti (OBC), Davide Denti (OBC) as well as to other OBC members on Wikipedia, for the confrontational tone I have used at times here. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you MarioGom, I will follow up in the talk pages. --Niccolò "Jaqen" Caranti (OBC) (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Geophysical planet definition

    I'm not sure if conflict of interest applies to advocates of a particular scientific view, but I think there is a problem on the "Geophysical planet definition" article. One editor is MarkVSykes. He's an advocate of this somewhat controversial position, using the first person in edits (us), citing his own work and editing an article which cites his own work. Another editor, "Nasaman58" seems to be another advocate of this idea. I don't know who he is, but I've been told this account name is used on Twitter by Kirby Runyon (definitely someone with strong opinions on the subject and an author of papers cited in the article.) I know I should inform them I'm making this complaint, by putting a notice on their user pages. But they don't have ones. Any advice or suggestions would be welcome. Fcrary (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fcrary: You should put a notice on their talk pages; both users (indeed, all users) have them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth noting that nasaman58 has also gone through the Dwarf planet and planet pages adding assertions that many planetary scientists use the 'geophysical planet definition' as stated in geophysical planet definition. Diffs: [[2]] [[3]]. 'Many' is a bit of a weasel word implying widespread adoption within the planetary science community that I don't think is warranted. Physdragon (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that I'm not sure it really counts as a conflict of interest, more a bit soapboxy. Changing 'many' to 'some' would probably be sufficient to remove any issue. Physdragon (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Call-out culture

    Sridc claimed to be the ip in an article talk comment, and I suspect they have an undisclosed CoI. They have repeatedly come to the article to insert a section about a book which is not used as a reference within the article. The IP is situated in New York State, and the author of the book is also from New York, and between that and the rather singular focus of the account I suspect the user may have some connection to the author. Regardless, use of the book in this context seems to run afoul of WP:PROMO as there has been no context provided as to why this specific text should be seen as relevant to this subject considering that it hasn't even been established it contains notable and reliable information on the subject. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified Sridc about this report; I did not post a separate notice on the ip because Sridc has claimed to be that editor. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's much to be done here at the moment other than addressing the content dispute directly. --MarioGom (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is not situated in New York. I had carelessly made the edits without signing in. Could we remove the IP address from this page out of concern for my privacy? I have made it clear in the Talk page that I'm only an interested reader, and is not associated (financially or otherwise) with the book or its authors. - Sridc (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sridc: I have removed the IP from the noticeboard report here. I think it's fair since it won't be necessary. But note that it will still be available in the history. --MarioGom (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Dhar Mann

    This article on an entrepreneur and motivational speaker has been sent to deletion twice 2011 and in 2014 because serial SPAs keep whitewashing all of the RS from it, preferring to use promotional material from the subjects website or authored by him. As a result, it gets cleaned up and kept, then reverts to garbage again. There are quite a few decent sources around, but..most relate to criminal charges,(which of course have been removed at least twice) and there is so much rubbish in the article I'm not sure how to tackle it. Curdle (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have sent COI warnings to the last two SPA users, which are the ones that are probably active. I bet there is a good deal of sockpuppeting there since the article creation, but most accounts will be stale, so I'm not sure if a sockpuppet investigation would be useful, except for the last 2 or 3 SPAs. I also cleaned up the article from most content that was unsourced or relying on non-independent sources alone. --MarioGom (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Splinternews article about potentially problematic edits by NRA employees

    See here: A Brief History of NRA Employees Editing Wikipedia for Fun and Possibly Profit. Some potentially problematic edits have already been noticed by an editor named here, but not by his username (so I'll leave it to him if he'd like to self-identify), but there are perhaps others worth scrutiny. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Not an uninteresting article, but strictly speaking it goes into WP:OUTING territory, third paragraph from the end. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Dominik Gross

    I suspect autobiography / self-promtion. Guy (help!) 17:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Last edit to Dominik Gross by one of above editors was four years ago. Do you think the page needs cleanup?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Openpity added references to several papers by Gross, I think it likely that quite a few of the cites we have to his work on WP were added by him. Guy (help!) 21:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Tjf5280

    See puffery in this diff at Greta Thunberg BLP

    Looks like an WP:SPA to pad this photographer's BLP and promote his work NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    South Gloucestershire

    The name clearly states a COI.. DTDP (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you check to see if they edited the page? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "SouthGlosCouncil" have only posted to the "South Gloucestershire" talk page so there is COI, but no COI problem to discuss here. There is a username issue so I have posted the standard request to change their account name on their talk page. TSventon (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sebastian Copeland

    The above user has been editing this article since 2014, up until earlier this year with the content of the article bordering on puffery. Almost all the edits to the article have been made by this user. The name Seabass=Sebastian and 1964, which is Sebastian Copeland's birthyear, potentially indicate that the author of the content is the articles subject. Regardless there needs to be discussion about whether the subject of the article passes the BLP:notability guidelines and if it is notable enough to remove puffery to make article encyclopedic.Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    When you see puffery, you can just remove it. Hit the edit button and delete it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean like that, it's like the fundamental structure of the article reads like a promotional leaflet, with massive lists of awards and photography exhibitions, it's difficult to know what to delete. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave it a preliminary trim. I agree that Seabass1964 is only here to promote Sebastian Copeland, and has done so single-mindedly for a staggering 7 years or more. If there is an admin reading this, perhaps they can block the user. The user was asked about COI five years ago on their talk page and did not respond.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    NewtonX, Inc. Afd

    An Afd has been held, the second one is weeks. The article references are atrocious. There has been several editors pushing against obvious evidence that the article fails WP:NCORP. This editor user:Carajou, who hasn't edited since last year (about 20 edits) and nothing since 2007 appeared this afternoon and came in at 3.23 to to use the exact argument as the other editors. Curiously he offered a search string https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=NewtonX&FORM=HDRSC6 which looks like a marker tag, possibly, to enable the quick addition of advertising or some article somewhere to support a keep vote in the Afd. Another editor user:Knox490 turned up exactly seven minutes after user:desmay. user:Renzoy16 is the paid editor who wrote the article. It seems to be the same arguments all the time. When I originally looked at the article I thought it was an obvious delete. Could be wrong. scope_creepTalk 21:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    They could be sockpuppets I suppose. Almost the same arguments in every one.scope_creepTalk 21:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep:, you need to notify users (see top of page) when they are discussed here. I had a look at the AFD and those users sound like they are prime material for an SPI. Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a long time editor and if you look at my User page, you will see that I got a "Defender of the wiki barnstar". Regardless, I took a quick look at the various AfD votes and saw that the editors above voted differently on various issues and companies when it comes to AfD votes. Since I have been editing, I have never seen someone act as aggressively as User: scope_creep. He comments on everyone's comments in the AfD. I like to assume good faith and perhaps he is just having a bad day. Worst case scenario, he is working for a competing company. In addition, the AfD is pretty much a back to back AfD too which again is very aggressive (only 30 days later).Knox490 (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional comment: The particularly disappointing aspect of Scope Creep's analysis is that there are overviews of the company given in some of those citations and they are from widely known business publications. They are not merely passing mentions. Therefore, the article does meet WP: Coredepth.Knox490 (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Scope creep, you know that I’ve been around a lot longer than you on Wikipedia (since 2003) and you’re accusing me of sock puppetry and having COI? You do know that was the weekend here and editors can be online at similar times, right? Besides, I’m a regular in the AfD department and if you check our histories, we vote very differently on many AfD entries. What I find really odd is that you renominated this article for deletion one month after it already went through an AfD (something most experienced Wikipedia editors would know not to do). You also are commenting underneath everyone’s vote to push your POV and strong arm deletion for this article (which is quite well sourced). Perhaps you’ve started this discussion in order to conceal what is a very reasonable suspicion that you are being paid by a competitor of NewtonX. If so, you should disclose that now. Yes, I agree with Knox490 on this, not because I have a sockpuppet account, but because your opinion is actually in the minority (I’m sure you’re getting shocked at the idea of you being wrong in general). Accusing other editors who have been long time WikiGnomes of the same is also pretty amateur. Those accounts have been also editing for several years. If you’d like to embarrass yourself nonetheless because you think you’re always right, go ahead and file an SPI. You can enjoy living in an alternate reality for a little bit before the SPI closes. desmay (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did inform everybody. That was first time I've put an Afd after it was no consensus, as the references were atrocious. This type of article, brochure articles for startups, was the primary reason WP:NCORP was put in place in the first place almost three years ago. If there was any inkling of notability it would have been left. I check all references when at Afd. scope_creepTalk 00:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Re the COIN discussion notifications, I do not see any on their talk pages. But it seems they are all here, which is good. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I missed a notification. Pc went south. scope_creepTalk 01:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:scope_creep, I agree that it was reasonable to start another AfD, but if the situation recurs I think it would be helpful to explain why the previous AfD was unsatisfactory in the nomination. TSventon (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @TSventon: I will do. That was first time I've ever did it. I always thought it was bad form in most instances to reopen any kind of second afd. But this time I thoughtit was so obvious that it was delete case, I figured by offering an examination of references against policy, everybody would see it was an obvious delete. I think due to the NCORP standards coming in about 2.5/3 years ago, it making these wee startups very aggressive in preserving their marketing on Wikipedia. Its the only explanation I've got. It is worth noting there is no analytics on how paid editors operate on Wikipedia as far as I know. The recent Rfa election has show that coi is continual worry for a large number of Wikipedia editors. scope_creepTalk 15:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the same argument of The nominator has set up a straw man used by Bmbaker88 in the Nextiva article, as was used desmay in the Newton X afd. scope_creepTalk 15:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This needs more eyes - There is something strange going on here. For background, I've seen many of the names on the keep side of that AfD (including others not listed at the top of this thread) pop up in the same discussions, !voting the same way, several times over the past few years. In all other instances, however, it's always clearly been about a particular ideological alignment, and not -- at least that I've seen -- anything to do with paid editing. Made me stop and try to figure out what NewtonX could have to do with creationism, anti-atheism, or some other evangelical Christian cause.

    Now that I look for it, though.... this isn't the first time these editors have turned up to do the exact same thing for one of Renzoy16's paid articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva (4th nomination). There again are Renzoy16, Knox490, Desmay, 1990'sguy, and Bmbaker88 (the latter two I would add to the list above, and probably would not have included Carajou FWIW). Another time is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas Gorny (4th nomination). I can't tell if Renzoy16 wrote that, but it's a co-founder of Nextiva, so at minimum there's a COI. In that one again is 1990'sguy, Knox490, Desmay, Renzoy16, Eliko007, and Bmbaker88 (!). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I can't add much here beyond saying that this AfD also made my spidey-senses tingle. @Renzoy16: unless I'm misreading something, I think the COI guidelines require you to disclose your paid editing whenever you discuss content you've been paid to edit. You didn't do that when you participated in this WP:AFD, and I would have missed it completely if it hadn't been pointed out by another editor. Looking at your contribution history, I note that you also didn't do that in this AFD for Nextiva, or this AFD for Tomas Gorny (the founder of Nextiva). These are both quite old, but I also notice that Desmay and Knox490 offered similar keep votes in those AFDs. Regardless of whether or not there's a COI for the other editors, the specious reasoning on !keep votes looks like the sort of thing that makes people think there's something fishy. If you want to avoid raising questions, please don't bombard people with indiscriminate lists of links containing passing mentions of corporations. Nblund talk 15:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack Peterson (filmmaker)

    "Jack Peterson" is someone who was associated with the Incel community. In 2018, an IP editor hijacked teh article "Jack Peterson" which was a redirect to an unrelated person. Later, the page was renamed to "Jack Peterson (activist)]] although I am not sure what he was an activist for, having apparently left the incel community. Today new account Quad11 made substantial edits and moved the page to "Jack Peterson (filmmaker)". The sources used to support the claim that Peterson is now a filmmaker are IMDB, a site called "Reel Romp" and a site called "Film Courage". Reel Romp is a paid review service. Similarly, Film Courage charges $300 for a Q&A interview like the one used as a reference. Jackdiamond2080 has identified himself as "Jack Peterson". Peterson lives in Chicago. Several IP editors who geolocate to Chicago have edited the article. I have listed to recent and relevant ones only. I'm sure that "Jack Peterson is not notable as a filmmaker, but I am more concerned by the COI and bogus sources at this point. Bitter Oil (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified the users above on their talk pages of this discussion, per requirements.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no relation to the subject, but I reversed the changes based on potential lack of notability (?). Hopefully there's no issue now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quad11 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This report was removed by Quad11, the subject of the report. I have undone their removal. If more evidence was needed that something nefarious was going on, you just got it. Bitter Oil (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a complicated article as it seems to have been mostly edited by the above users to a point where it would be hard to go back to an earlier version. I see you have posted this at ANI, so perhaps some blocks will happen via that forum.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what nefarious means in this context, but I reversed the changes with potentially false references if that was the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quad11 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability of Wikipedia

    Piotrus is trying to remove a news article that thoroughly roasted his editing. 176.221.108.218 (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The above is likely a comment by indef banned User:Icewhiz who got himself interviewed and harassed his opponents, even getting the hack who wrote this to include links to Encyclopedia Dramatica with outing and death threats content. Recommend speedy close and block. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have been shown the door long ago during EEML. Irrespective of whether the IP is Icewhiz or not (SPI is that-way), you have no business in getting editorially involved in a domain centered around you; that's textbook WP:COI and not very difficult to gauge, I guess. And, the optics of a (probable) second piece describing a Polish professor trying to whitewash his own deeds won't be great, either.[1]∯WBGconverse 15:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ Before you accuse me of planning to harass you in RL or whatever, I am just alluding to the line at the introduction of our COI policy that warns of public embarrassment.
    So you resort to WP:NPA violations while defending content added by editor who was indef banned for harassment and similar NPA attacks his IP sock (or some other sock). A very well reasoned and convincing argument, color me impressed... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir, stop being rude. I am not a smelly sock to put on your foot. Piotrus continues his conflict of interest edits: [4] [5]. Cleaning Wiki of press that is negative of Piotrus. 176.221.108.218 (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Shiva0706

    Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia but to promote "Shiva Sharma" and his work. The user was asked to disclose his relationship to the subject, but there is no reply. GSS 💬 11:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Tyrone DuBose

    Both users appear to have COIs and have been warned. Neither did anything about the warnings. One removed the COI tag from the article.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Owen Spencer-Thomas

    Every significant edit made by this user for over a decade has added material by Owen Spencer-Thomas, usually referenced to his own websites. Binglee seems to largely do the same. Guy (help!) 10:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    JzG please notified the editors you have named above as required (see the notice in red at the top of this page). Thanks Melcous (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Found another one. The entire article on Spencer-Thomas was written by WP:SPAs almost exclusively from primary and self-authored sources. This looks like promotional editing. Is anyone familiar enough with Ivor Spencer-Thomas to know whether that is spam or not? Guy (help!) 15:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see any coverage on Owen in a search. Does WP:ANYBIO ("received a well-known and significant award or honor") allow his article to be kept, for the MBE medal? Otherwise I would say send to AFD.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivor seems to be copyvio. User @Diannaa: is extraordiarly good at determining the facts on copyvio.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to everyone above. Have nominated it for deletion. Edwardx (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia Procreative Writers

    users

    Hey guys, just letting you all know that there is a company called Wikipedia Procreative Writers that is selling Wikipedia entries (so to speak) and they're not disclosing their status on either the talk page or their user page. Pretty much anything written by the authors of any of the articles linked on their site were probably paid for. Their terms and conditions page is a little vague on what is guaranteed. Of note is that there is no mention of what they will do (or not do) if the page is deleted. It also makes it seem like they will post what the customer sends them as opposed to them writing the page. Some of the pages that have been posted are a little dubious as far as quality goes as well. I just wanted to pass this along. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder if anyone told them what "procreative" means? Anyway, will dig into this later today. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 18:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=921253794"