Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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

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

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

Another day, another sockfarm[edit]

See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anatha Gulati

Articles created

Added since 30/7

More older articles

Substantially edited


Given the redirect method used to create these it is obvious that they know exactly what they are doing and have been blocked before. I think regardless of the SPI, these are all safe to delete via G5 per WP:DUCK. SmartSE (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I went through and nominated the most obvious and most recently created articles for speedy deletion, when they had a clean edit history (i.e. few other GF editors). My rule-of-thumb cutoff date was created after April 2017. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Not sure about Veal Milanese? Why a food? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC) refspam / SEO perhaps ☆ Bri (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
It looks like a false positive. I must have missed it when I was going through the list manually, because I would have removed it otherwise. Rentier (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The earlier edits of that account don't look so typical of UPE either and doesn't look commercial. I've removed the tag and will cross it out above. SmartSE (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I was curious about the zipper related articles. All of them seemed to have links to the website of SBS zippers. Fujian SBS Zipper Science & Technology was created by User:Mozhike, who was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Mokezhilao (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mokezhilao/Archive). Connected? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

  • This reference used in Prescott Papers was written by someone who appears to be the CEO of this SEO company: It was only a couple of weeks prior to it being used, so it is likely that it was written specifically for the article. SmartSE (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Other references written by him on other sites show up here. SmartSE (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I've endorsed a check for this case (you can read my comments at the SPI), but I frankly wouldn't wish this one on any CU. The number of overlaps with other sockfarms is eyebrow-raising. I applaud you guys for the extraordinary detective work, as with many others. GABgab 02:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Btw, is late-July/August sockfarm season or something? It seems like we've been getting an abnormally large number of... abnormally large promo groups. Must be the heat. GABgab 02:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • If topics like metal zipper and nylon zipper are created as conduits for spam, can we please be careful to keep the useful information in those articles (while removing, obviously, any spam links). We are sometimes overzealous in purging good materials added by bad accounts. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Padmanabh Singh[edit]

Resolved: This manifested in socking and quite naturally,the page has been semi-protected!Winged Blades Godric 10:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I am having real problems with Rijusikri at Padmanabh Singh. I've tried to explain in various places, including the article talk page and here (I haven't responded to their actual email). Other people have also been involved in trying to explain.

They've declared that they are an employee of this self-styled maharajah (see this version of the article re: use of the title) but they are not getting it. There's no doubt some of the material is verifiable, as I have indicated, but the sycophantic babble needs to stop. Later today, I can try to expand the article from a stub such as that which I have just linked in the diff but I can't do it if they keep reinstating the rubbish. Can someone please explain this to them - I'm running out of patience. - Sitush (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Several experienced people seem now to be watching, so this can probably be treated as resolved. - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Concern about editor TxFactChecker[edit]

Ran into a User with a name similar to a ([1]) political consulting company, and so I put username COI tag on their talk page. The user then requested to change his/her name to its current one, TxFactChecker. This user has continued to create articles about politicians in Texas, and I thought it would be prudent to bring this to the attention of editors more experienced in these matters than I am. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

These politicians are notable politicians worth having a Wikipedia page for. I am not paid to edit these pages nor do I have a vested interest other than I find it fun and informative to inform the public of people that do not have pages. If you read the articles, you will notice that it is all facts I have submitted and they are all sourced by credible sites. It is in my opinion that SamHolt6 is actually the one with a conflict of interest seeing as how he takes issue with every politician I have made a page for. Clearly the user SamHolt6 is demonstrating his/ her bias and is projecting them onto other users' pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TxFactChecker (talkcontribs) 20:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@TxFactChecker: Please read WP:BOOMERANG. Your edits look partisan to me, so maybe you should return to Facebook. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@Chris Troutman: Im sorry you think my edits look partisan. Are you only saying that because you're being non-objective and dont like what you're reading? It sure looks that way to me, go back to facebook yourself
@TxFactChecker: No, your work is not written from a neutral point of view. My other advice is that language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make the article less accurate or relevant and there is no suitable alternative.
The WP article on Dan Huberty describes a living person. It makes an allegation of public drunkenness as fact. It may be true, but there is no credible source. Regards Rhadow (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@Chris Troutman: Show me where I used profane/ vulgar language
@Rhadow: There seems to be some confusion on your part. You clearly have not seen the video wherein Huberty is confronted while being drunk and public and clearly and openly admits to it. I will add in source of the video so you can correct yourself.
@TxFactChecker: I am not confused, but I appreciate your concern. I hate to be pedantic, but Empower Texans is not a credible secondary source. There are problems with using a YouTube. It is a primary source. That disqualifies it straight off. I did watch it. The guy admitted to having a drink -- several times. He denied he was drunk. I'm afraid TxFactChecker, that I am not a sympathetic ear. Rhadow (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Current staus--Out of the two creations, one have been AfD-ed (which is heading towards a consensus to delete) and another one is subject to a still-non-contested PROD.Winged Blades Godric 10:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Greg Karais[edit]

According to the current Wikipedia article, "Greg Karais (b. 1970), is a Canadian Bear enthusiast". The most current version of the article was created by on 31 July by User:Not Your Average Wikipedian. According to the logs, the article has been created and deleted twice before. User:CanadianWikilover was responsible for one of the earlier versions. Very shortly after I pointed out the connection between the two accounts, both of the users blanked their user pages.

Aside from being a bear enthusiast, Greg Karais is also the publisher of Yukon, North of Ordinary, a quarterly magazine which serves as the in-flight magazine for a small regional airline. All three of the named accounts and at least one of the IPs have edited the article. It may also be helpful to know that Greg Karais (along with his wife Krystal and their Wheaten Terrier "Cargo") rents out cabins at Crag Lake, near Carcross, Yukon. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@World's Lamest Critic:--Please launch a SPI.Winged Blades Godric 10:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Not much point since all accounts have stopped editing. I will if I see anything new. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Oswald Foundation and Anand Chowdhary[edit]

User: creates Draft:Oswald Foundation at 7:38, edits it until 7:54. User:Pushingatoms moves it into mainspace at 8:07. User:Nishant Gadihoke has only contributed to this article. Similar pattern with Anand Chowdhary. User:Bluemusic15 has only contributed to Oswald, Chowdhary, and one other. User:Arvindsingh2 has only contributed to Chowdhary. Likely that these accounts are all somehow connected. Edwardx (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Content issues. Oswald Foundation cites nine times, other press release sites six more, various Facebook pages seven times, and lots of fine reliable sources (not) like Jaipur Women Blog,,, ScoopWhoop, etc. Plus own websites, Twitter and even github projects. But I'm taking a WP:BOGO vacation right now. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Anand Chowdhary was accepted by someone with 6 edits?!?!?! Surely there's nothing promotional here... Ravensfire (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • SPI still pending. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Manc1234/Prof Aleiscter (Orangemoody)[edit]


According to evidence on talkpage, this is indistinguishable from OM. User is blocked though hasn't been tagged yet. Articles listed above are page creations. Several go back to 2015, newest was created under 90 days ago. SPI started: permlinkBri (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Nuked a bunch not substantially edited by others under G5/G3, whichever is appropriate. I'm a little hesitant to delete Arteluce, that dates back to 2011. MER-C 04:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Longford Cinema seems to be OK. It's an old Grade II listed building, and apparently vacant or abandoned. Unclear who would benefit from COI editing. John Nagle (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

J. C. Maçek / Neptune's Trident (revisited)[edit]

In a previous posting on this noticeboard, I outlined Neptune's Trident's long history of promoting J. C. Macek. The latest example is even clearer. On July 27, Neptune's Trident created an article for a book publisher, Bloodhound Books. On July 28, Bloodhound books announced that it had signed J. C. Marek to a book deal. Not only does it appear that the article exists only because J. C. Marek is involved, but it was created before his involvement was publicly announced. How obvious does something have to be before it can be stated here? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed all links that just mentioned Bloodhound Books while talking about something else. ArcticDragonfly (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Bloodhound Books was deleted at User:Neptune's Trident's request. Neptune's Trident has made no comment, so I will assume this is a tacit admission of COI. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


A little bit of outing is required here, so here I go. I reviewed his draft articles, and looking at his contributions it was evident that he is a paid editor. A search for the given user name reveals that he is an Upwork freelancer. The magnitude of his contributions indicate that he needs to be blocked before this goes any further. Jupitus Smart 13:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Redacted per WP:OUTING - Bilby (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you may have forgotten to notify the editor of this discussion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I usually just ping the concerned parties. But I seem to have forgotten that as well. Rectified. Jupitus Smart 04:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Not so fast. Please explain why this is not covered by the exemption in WP:OUTING (emphasis mine): "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable in specific situations... There are job posting sites where employers publicly post advertisements to recruit paid Wikipedia editors. Linking to such an ad in a forum such as the Conflict of interest noticeboard is not a violation of this policy." It was reaffirmed by Doc James here. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that it doesn't look like a violation of the policy, even before considering the fact that the editor has self outed. Rentier (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes agree, one is explicitly allowed to link to ads for paid editing here on COIN. One still needs to be careful that the "advert" is not a covert attempt to harass someone. (ie someone created a fake ad to harass a Wikipedian in good standing) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I've redacted this - it does not meet the exceptions set out at WP:OUTING. - Bilby (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Bilby: How does it not meet the exceptions? The policy states that Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable in specific situations. This user has uploaded his photo and posted a link to his private Facebook profile on Wikipedia. How can a link to his Upwork profile, which contains considerably less private information, be considered outing? Let's not forget that WP:OUTING is a subsection of the Harassment policy. Do you believe that Toriqul-kushtia was being harassed here? Rentier (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Linking to other websites is allowable in specific situations does not equate to being allowed to link at will. There was no need to link to the profile. - Bilby (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I should clarify this a bit more, as it is probably needed. The exception under the harassment policy is that we can link to a job ad, even though that might by default out an editor. However, in this case the link was to a profile, not an ad, and the profile had nothing to do with Wikipedia. As to the editor making the connection themselves, the editor did not. They posted a photo presumably of themselves here, but that doesn't mean we can link to a profile under a different name because a crop of the photo appears in it, and while it is true that they did provide a link to their Facebook account (as a source for the photo), it wasn't their Facebook account that we linked to. I share the belief that the editor was doing paid work - although I'd have preferred at least some attempt to warn them before an indef block - but the evidence for that was only in their editing history. - Bilby (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The ridiculous contortions that good faith editors have to go through when dealing with paid editing are a joke, and this thread illustrates said joke. Roxy the dog. bark 16:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
It is not a joke. The community has always been strongly opposed to outing. It is especially a problem in this case, where the user was outed without justification. The Upwork profile which we linked to had no evidence that the user had ever been paid to edit Wikipedia, yet that was used as a reason for an indef block and the reason for outing. - Bilby (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Query undisclosed paid editing company writing articles about themselves?[edit]


Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James:--I have redirected Anjan Contractor to BeeHex and drastically edited BeeHex;removing certain purely-promotional material.Take a look!Winged Blades Godric 06:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Perfect thanks User:Winged Blades of Godric Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hanas (PRC)[edit]

Noticed that editors are adding perfectly formed but unreferenced articles at high speed today, suggesting to me some form of paid editing. There are probably more, which I shall now look for. -Roxy the dog. bark 07:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

There might be nothing to do here. Articles like Ma Fulu(Senior Vice Precident) are wiped and two of the accounts blocked. There is also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TianqingleBri (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

GABgab 04:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Plural Acronyms[edit]

I came across this draft during AfC. Rather than being an article about grammar, it appears to be nothing more than a crude SEO technique to promote a company called Mentor Media. A Google search for the editor's name indicates that they work as an online marketing consultant. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Technical analysis software[edit]

As part of the OfficialPankajPatidar sockfarm cleanup above, I dialed back the product features in Technical analysis software. This is following even more excision of product feature lists by MrOllie. Unfortunately an anon has reverted both of us without any explanation, restoring over 20k of unsourced material. The IP is a static Comcast Business IP geolocates to the same area that just happens to be headquarters of one of the companies whose article links to Technical analysis software. The MetaStock article also has pages and pages of feature lists and such. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Good. That whole area needs some work. We previously had COI problems with alternative data, which means taking data from non-finance sources and crunching on it for financial prediction. Surveillance capitalism seems to be partly the same thing, but from a different ideological perspective. Then there's technical analysis, which is a reasonably good, broad article. I'd suggest merging anything worth keeping at technical analysis software into technical analysis. That article gets looked at, so linkspam there will get noticed and dealt with. All of this is related to big data, to which I recently added a small finance section. This is a real subject area, but what we're getting are little POV articles on parts of it, not an encyclopedic overview. John Nagle (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I did almost 20k of cleanup on MetaStock but something tells me a new redlinked editor might pop up there soon. Agree with you on the efficacy of a merge of technical analysis software into technical analysis. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Proposed merge, with appropriate tags at both articles. John Nagle (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The Kopaz[edit]

The Kopaz is a newly-registered WP:SPA account whose only Wikipedia edits have been to the Dale Groutage article and its current AFD discussion; I already suspected conflict of interest due to his WP:BLUDGEONing tone in the discussion, but was reluctant to actually bring it up here because I couldn't figure out how to raise the issue without outing him. However, in his most recent comment at the AFD discussion, he switched from referring to Dale Groutage in the third person to referring to Dale Groutage in the first person — so for all intents and purposes he's now outed himself. That said, since I'm the primary person in his line of fire at the AFD discussion, I'm not the right person to decide if any COI warnings or sanctions are warranted or not. Bearcat (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible paid promotion[edit]

User:Daowner (User talk:Daowner)) recently created the article Daniel C. Adams (web designer), which I tagged for COI after Daowner cited [2] as a source. When that article was subsequently deleted for violating G11, User:Alvinturner (User talk:Alvinturner338) created the articles Daniel C Adams and Daniel C. Adams (designer). I think we should keep and eye on these editors and content relating to Daniel C Adams. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Springbox aka Mobile1st[edit]

Springbox and Mobile1st are one and the same according to Bloomberg [3] and the company creates software called Mobilizer. The editor, formerly named Mobile1st, has partially disclosed a conflict but hasn't specified what it is and continues to directly edit. WP:REALNAME applies. His latest action (after a years long hiatus) is to add several sources to dePROD the article, including and It is problematic. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, it is not at all true that Springbox and Mobile1st are one and the same.(Mobilizer is a web tool sold by Mobile1st.) Mobile1st was spun off from Springbox in 2014. The services offered and the personel are entirely different. Here is some info on the leadership of Mobile1st: I have alerted the Springbox people to the erroneous info offered by Bloomberg, which Bri cites. My conflict of interest -- I am a friend of Springbox ceo, and he asked to me produce a factual, verifed account of the company. I tried to find good sourcing for the key facts of the entry. Jake Rabin (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh here's a page detailing the leadership of Springbox, which you can see is different from mobile1st: And here's mobile1st, though its new ceo isnt mentioned: Jake Rabin (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I want to add that I'd love your guidance on how to make the article better fit Wikipedia's standards. Thanks for your help! Jake Rabin (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


This user, whose username strongly suggests a conflict of interest, has for a third time overwritten the article with the identical advert, despite talk-page warning: Noyster (talk), 12:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Large portions of the material being added appears to be a copyvio, taken directly from - clear promotional wording. Also being added by IPs which appear to be related to the named account. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


Easyship was created a few days ago by User:Kingd97, who has no edits other than on this topic. The company may or may not be notable but the original article was filled with blatant promotion. I trimmed the advertising and editorializing after which there wasn't much left. User:Kingd97 restored the promotion by the rather unconventional approach of moving the article to Draft space, editing it there, then it moving back to article space. More eyes are needed on the article. Not sure what to make of moving the article back and forth to Draft space -- it could be seen as disruptive, or it may be that User:Kingd97 simply is inexperienced. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did create a Wikipedia page for Easyship, but it was not meant for promotion. I am making a page for Easyship like every other company with a Wikipedia Page, to inform others what Easyship is, and Easyship is a notable company. I was told by a Wikipedian (whose Username I have forgotten) to make a page for Easyship again, and that is what I did. He told me to switch from Article to Draft, write a better one and then switch it back to Article. And also, so many other companies have a Wikipedia page, how come they are not deleted and Easyship's is? If you believe that those company pages are not there for promotion, then how/why is that the case for Easyship? Kingd97 (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


A Google search for the editor's name indicates that they are an employee of the company, and an undeclared paid editor using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


Bringing this here because there was what appeared to be a paid editing declartion that was later rescinded after I noted it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainbow Housing Assistance Corporation. There does appear to be a COI here given the very long defense at the AfD and the lengthy bouts of inactivity followed by creation of perfectly formatted articles from scratch. The following were created by the user:

Please also note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toniharrison25, which is connected to this. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  • User Response Hello, I would like to clarify. I was not paid to create these pages. The lengthy defense at the AfD comes from my experiences as a journalist, dedicated to research and providing factual information. All pages I've created were throughly researched, in terms of finding the content, sources and spending a large amount time teaching myself how to properly code the pages. I initially disclosed my employer to show transparency and represent that I was not paid to create the Rainbow page. These efforts were misunderstood. Now I see that my efforts to clarify the situation has, again, been misunderstood. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to further clarify the situation to stop the confusion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HannahVerg (talkcontribs) 21:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
    • HannahVerg, could you please explain then why you described Etched Communication as "client" and then explained the relationship between that firm and the subject of the article? To me that suggests payment, but even if you are not being paid directly, if you are creating an article about this subject where one of your clients has a PR relationship with the subject, it is likely a conflict of interest. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
      • TonyBallioni, Yes, I can explain. Etched Communication has a client who is working with a government coalition. This government coalition has a relationship with Rainbow, so there is not a direct PR relationship. I learned about Rainbow through my work, but I was not paid by that employer to create the page. I originally disclosed my employer and client to explain how I came about learning of Rainbow. I created the page because after researching Rainbow, I believed that the organization was noteworthy enough to merit a Wikipedia page. I was a surprised that a Wikipedia page had not already been created for this organization.


Silicon Valley "home renovation resource platform...with the goal of helping others make their renovation dreams a reality" with $1M startup money. And a shiny new Wikipedia page from a just as new editor. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I've removed some copyvio. — JJMC89(T·C) 04:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Eyes on Yan Gorshtenin[edit]

The new article Yan Gorshtenin has been introduced and edited mainly by User:Gorshteninyan (talk), which implies a potential conflict of interest. The editor has several times removed an autobiography tag placed on the article, and some of the information added to the page seem to be very promotional towards the subject. Requesting we keep an eye on the situation. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Smallbones...this is one for the examples file. "Worked countless hours...discovered his entrepreneurship journey...his accomplishments have led him into many new[ing] teenagers in his community start their own ventures in media marketing and self branding." Sourcing to high school newspaper even. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It's tempting, but I'd rather not make fun of a high school student. My question is how he can write the article, and nothing other than "his" article and get it in main space without going thru AfC? Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Smallbones, because WP:ACTRIAL doesn't start until September 7th at the earliest, so until then, anyone can create any article they want in mainspace by simply picking a username, password, and typing in a captcha :) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
7th can't come soon enough. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It won't matter much. WP:ACTRIAL is a minor speed bump, not a traffic barrier. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I was speaking ironically, the joke is on us since we have such a low bar and examples of just this kind of self-hype everywhere. Why wouldn't an ambitious young person go ahead and insert this? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Bri, I just tagged as G11. If someone is familiar with Commons deletion-speak, they should probably head over there to nominate that glorious webcam selfie for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

A WP:SPI also is in order. The subject lives in Los Angeles, and the article is being edited by both User talk:Gorshteninyan and two IPs that geolocate to... guess where? I've gotta get to bed but if somebody wants to file the paperwork that would be great. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Boris without commenting on whether or not your conclusion is correct, I don't think an SPI would be productive; these kinds of cases don't go well over there in my experience. They will not publicly relate IPs to a specific editor. If we had continuing disruption a block might be possible but right now even that isn't evidently necessary. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Lotteries editor[edit]

A cool edit filter that was brought to my attention, Filter 867, flagged one or more of the articles above. Ubet (company) created by a brand-new editor with unusual facility for creating entire articles in one edit. Who has done several more since. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Could be an editor who has an interest in the Australian lottery industry, or it could be someone with a vested interests (I.E COI or paid promotion.) No harm can come from us keeping an eye on the situation. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up after GringisMan[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HelgaStick which will shortly be moved here. One of the accounts had semi-disclosed they were taking jobs from Fiverr but none of the others had. They also had a keen interest in politics as well, which may need looking at closely. SmartSE (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


Articles created or substantially edited[edit]

I've only included obvious UPE articles here. There are other political biographies which could also be.

More added by Bri below.

More missed by Smartse:


  • What is the paid editing template that shows up on mobile view? I'd like to tag at least one of these pending further actions. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, {{undisclosed paid}} seems to do it. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There's a contribution surveyor report for the three really active accounts here. Regarding your question about the not-obviously-commercial editing, it's hard to suss out. Example, what is this all about? HelgaStick is the "good hand" and Liborbital, GringisMan the "bad hand"? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


I edited the Omaze article to remove insufficiently notable and biased information. This information appears to have been added by H-riddle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who is repeatedly reverting my edits to the article. CoolieCoolster (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Mukesh Hariawala[edit]

The page and its AfD would benefit from some examination by editors who are experienced with COI issues. (By the way, I've taken COIN off my watchlist.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree a concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Creation of previously deleted articles by User:Sungoesup[edit]

First created by this group[4].

Now again:

Other articles:

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

SPI started here [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrospect (software)[edit]

Long-lived single-purpose account. User page says CEO of Ronny Lee Publications, LLC, no COI or paid editing disclosed despite initial COI notice by @Diannaa and "me" last year. The article on Retrospect doesn't seem to be anywhere near the encyclopedic standards, and hasn't improved since last year despite continued contributions from DovidBenAvraham; quite the opposite, in my opinion.

On first look, the article on Ronny Lee is probably fine. But I have no idea what to do about the Retrospect article, so I'm bringing this up here as a first timer. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

For comparison:

  • Before (3 October 2016)
  • Then (23 October 2016)
  • Now (20 August 2017)

2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"CEO of Ronny Lee Publications, LLC" means I am the sole owner and only employee of a New York State Limited Liability Corporation that was set up slightly over a year before Ronny Lee's death, so that the 20-odd guitar method books and charts to which he held the copyright could continue to be sold despite the fact that his macular-degeneration-caused legal blindness made him unable to read orders coming in through PayPal e-mails. I don't pay myself a salary or expenses, the copies of the books are stored in a closet and on bookshelves in my apartment, and the LLC loses money each year.
I am not and have never been an employee or contractor of Retrospect Inc., or of its predecessor corporations. I have paid for every new edition of the Retrospect software I have ever used, either at the new-purchase price or at the upgrade price, including most recently in spring 2017 for Retrospect Macintosh 14. I'm a 76-year-old retiree who looked at the Retrospect(software) article in early October 2016, saw that it was truly a stub that IIRC was at best current as of 2005, and decided to expand it in hopes of getting other people to buy it—so that Retrospect Inc. could stay in business and add new bug-fixes and features I could use. That expansion has proved to be much more extensive than I expected, for reasons I'll discuss on my own talk page.DovidBenAvraham (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)