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:

Barkaat Ahmad[edit]

person
affected articles

Very obvious paid editor. Has been blowing off community feedback til tonight when they made a feeble effort at disclosure, diff, after I gave them the template:uw-paid1 and started tagging articles with template:UPE. Will not talk. Jytdog (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this linked to Sangler?Winged BladesGodric 09:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The DreamsCloud AfC move to mainspace was by this editor. Can it be moved back for re-review? ☆ Bri (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Mrkoolblu was created the day they moved DreamsCloud to mainspace. Both accounts have an interest in a CEO last name Taube [1][2]Bri (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Bri:--This has some interesting history.Based on off-wiki leads and some conversation with DJames, I discovered that whilst Davykamanzi had followed the rules about disclosure etc, he has directly introduced the articles to mainspace, without any review.Thus, I draftified a bunch of his creations, I was skeptical about.This included DreamsCloud.10 days later, up popped Barkat who re-mainspaced it but was swiftly reverted by Nihlus days later.Months later, Chetsford, an independent reviewer vetted and accepted it.So, draftification isn't an option.Winged BladesGodric 07:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Masterknighted[edit]

I blocked Masterknighted and their confirmed sock, Brainplanner based on CU evidence and blocked BigGuy based on behavioral evidence. The background may be seen here. There has been some socking and meatpuppetry for accounts that seem to have clear conflict of interests. A more thorough COI investigation is warranted and Masterknighted's cooperation in this matter will be considered when we eventually discuss unblocking. I seem to have gotten assurances from them that you won't find anything else.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

A small but interesting observation in this context: These 2016 edits by Masterknighted effectively implemented a suggestion that had been made repeatedly in the preceding months on the talk page by an openly declared COI editor (company representative), to de-emphasize and weaken the mention of some notable criticism of the company's product. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Marilyn Barnett[edit]

Has all the hallmarks of PE and the creator has already had one article deleted G11: Daniel Reid. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

One thing that sets off my alarm bells is an article claiming that somebody is notable for founding something that does not have an article itself. You would think that the notable thing would precede the article about its creator if it really was significant and the creator was not already notable for something else. OTOH, how often do we get people being paid to write articles about the dead? Vanity is typically a property of the living. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Vanity is also typically a property of a PR agent writing for his/her client. The point being here is that this article (to me at least) has the appearance of a biography masquerading as an advert. The subject, Ms Barnett, is not notable per Wikipedia criteria; the sources are all from local press, usually the same one, some barely mention her, and some are not about her at all. One is a routine executive profile.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Being relatively new to Wikipedia editing I am not sure if I am supposed to defend myself here or in another place so if this is the wrong protocol, please forgive me. I want to reassure you that I do not have a conflict of interest. I cant even remember how I came across her name, but it could have been on the Wikipedia list of requested articles, or else it could have been in an article I read that mentioned her. Either way, I thought she had some important accomplishments and should have a Wiki article about her. That is really it. Perhaps it is promotional, singing her praises, but cant that be fixed with some editing of the article? I am not wedded to the way the article is written and understand that Wiki articles are constantly being changed and improved. I am sure you know wiki editing is a learned 'art', and I am still learning. Thanks for your understanding and patience. Daniel Reid (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Yup agrees looks like undisclosed paid promotional editing. Expecially when taken into account their other contributions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Path Solutions[edit]

Path Solutions was brought up at this noticeboard in the past, then AfD'ed due to insufficient RS. Now recreated. The article sources look weak to me (who is bankingtech.com? IBS Journal?) and the COI template on an earlier draft doesn't exist on the final product. Spot checking sources like this press release and this CEO interview shows that source problems remain. Also noting this is an AfC product. If I could, I would wave a magic wand and send it back to AfC; this is not acceptable quality. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It was deleted in August 2017. Have started another AfD, suggesting we delete and salt. Edwardx (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Al-Masry Al-Youm[edit]

Deenasamirdakroury claims to be the marketing manager at Al-Masry Al-Youm, but has failed to make a paid-editing disclosure despite a notification and reminder at User talk:Deenasamirdakroury#Managing a conflict of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry:--See User talk:Deenasamirdakroury#Note.Winged BladesGodric 14:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric, but don't the terms of use require the user to make the declaration themselves? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry:If they agree to it by a t/p message, I don't see any problem.Not Bureaucracy et al:) If they choose to resume their activities in the article-space, they will be straight-away looking at a block and I will be speedying the user-page.Winged BladesGodric 14:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Jerry Bergh (manager)[edit]

According to a post today at W:C:Commons:Undeletion requests, User:Lifeline4 is Silvia Brooks. . Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Notwithstanding his original post at the Commons UnDR saying "My name is Sylvia Brooks", Lifeline4 now says that he is Silvia Brooks's agent. However, it doesn't matter -- either way it's a violation of WP:COI. . Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Hello- we are not Sylvia Brooks agent, we are her management company. Please spell her name correctly. --Lifeline4 17:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Jerry Bergh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeline4 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, as we represent Sylvia Brooks, with other clients, we fail to see why her profile is tagged with a the following.- A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (January 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)- This is a common practice in our industry, so we are not sure why she is being flagged. Please inform us what we need to change that does not meet with Wikipedia's practices. We read the article connected to this- and are working on cleaning up punctuation and wording- however, we do not see any language that does not reflect a neutral point of view. Please clarify.--Lifeline4 17:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Jerry Bergh

Also, just to clarify- the following comment which you site above- Notwithstanding his original post at the Commons UnDR saying "My name is Sylvia Brooks"- was entered by Sylvia Brooks. We had her come to our offices to give written approval of the use of these photos. As stated earlier- it is very common practice in our industry to work on behalf of our clients reputation- that is what management companies do. Please answer the above question about a neutral point of view. We have rebuilt her Wikipedia profile, adding in some of her recent accomplishments. Please be specific as to what particular wording does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you. --Lifeline4 20:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Jerry Bergh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeline4 (talk • contribs) As we believe Jamelwoodward has a prejudiced perception to this- we request that this be reviewed and undo. --Lifeline4 20:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Jerry Bergh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeline4 (talkcontribs)

@Lifeline4: You have just given us evidence of shared use of your account. Also, your account name is the same as your company. Each one of these alone is a violation of Wikipedia's username policy and will result in a block.
Before you attempt to edit the article of any client, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's non-negotiable policy on paid editing, as well as conflict of interest and ownership of content. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Swami Sukhabodhananda[edit]

This account is an SPA only editing the article Sukhabodhananda. Edits are mostly about changing or adding irrelevant ELs  LeoFrank  Talk 14:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is warranting a serious cleanup.Full-steam ahead:) Anyways, softer U-Block soughtWinged BladesGodric 14:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@LeoFrank: Done The change in editorial standards over the last few years is striking.This is G11-able stuff, now-a-days.If I fail to find good sources, it will be looking at the prospects of being subject to another AfD.Winged BladesGodric 17:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Annakoppad[edit]

After being asked directly by Jytdog, Annakoppad has disclosed being commissioned to write the following articles last month:

They are typical paid editing fare: poorly written, promotional biographies of marginally notable figures or articles on small companies. I'm also suspicious of the following articles, which Annakoppad has not disclosed but look similar:

I tried PRODding the first lot but two newish accounts appeared to object [3][4] – one a disclosed paid editor, one who hasn't disclosed but who has edited many of the above articles. Annakoppad removed the rest herself. Help reviewing and cleaning these up as necessary would be appreciated. – Joe (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: You're quite right, the initial edit was a word-for-word copy of the version deleted at Avaza (software), so it's eligible for G4. That presumably also implies that Annakoppad is either part of the same sockfarm, or somehow obtained a copy of the deleted version from them. – Joe (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Joe Roe: Just for info Annakoppad declares herself, on her user page, to be female, so "himself" above should be "herself". PamD 22:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Another FYI for Joe, I have seen "how to" guides for Wikispammers that say to get the old copy from Deletionpedia. So the two possibilities you enumerated aren't the only two. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The question here is if they are WP:PROXYING, are a new freelancer, or are part of the same ring but are acting as a good hand account. If they are simply a new freelancer that got the content from a mirror, we don’t necessarily have an issue. If it is PROXYING or a new semi-white hat good hand account, there are problems. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Everyone, I was paid to write the ones that I mentioned earlier. The rest of the articles are unpaid ones that I did primarily out of interest not for money. I did not realize that Avaza software was deleted once before. Manjunath sent me the details for uploading on Wikipedia and I did it.I am very keen on writing more and more, so I take up any freelancing job and I find little help in writing wikipedia articles. The only way I can contribute more is by writing as much as possible. Writing on wikipedia is a hobby after doing a full time job and I invest a lot of time to pursue this as a hobby. So, please be considerable when you think that I am part of a bigger scam on Wikipedia.Annakoppad (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Annakoppad
Hi Annakoppad. Thanks for responding. The problem is that your disclosures of paid editing have been neither complete nor forthcoming. For example, on Talk:Blueshift Labs Inc, you edited a paid editing tag that another user had placed, implying you admitted it was edited for pay, yet it was not one of the articles you mentioned to Jytdog when he asked you directly. So which is it, were you paid to write an article on Blueshift Labs or not?
Wikipedia is a fine hobby and I'm glad you enjoy contributing, but it is not a good place for freelance writing, especially of the type you have been doing (e.g. re-adding deleted material, creating promotional articles on non-notable people and companies). You should know from reading WP:PAID and WP:COI that the community strongly disapproves of paid editing, and as you can see below your less-than-open approach is already raising the possibility that you might be indefinitely blocked from editing. I would strongly advise you to stop and work with Jytdog to fully disclose all your paid editing up to this point. – Joe (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)  
  • given that Annakoppad has stopped working with me on their talk page, I suggest an indefinite block until they finish making their disclosures and i can talk them through the rest of the COI management process. Hard to work with someone who won't cooperate. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I gather that they have disclosed the client for the articles concerned. Is the issue simply that you believe that they have other articles which they have not disclosed? - Bilby (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, Please let me know what information you require for completing the COI management process. Thanks Annakoppad (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Annakoppad
  • note- I just dearchived this. Per this, a sockfarm was identified of which Annakoppad was a part.

Socks:

- Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Kenny Biddle[edit]

The user in question started a sandbox article early in the january about this obscure and almost unknown person. One January 2, the subject of the article himself created an account on commons and uploaded a number of selfie pictures, which were immediately added to the sandbox account. The user in question has been trying to get a lot of peacock and promotional material added to the article as well. There are two things that irk me, one is how can a person immediately know that a new user has uploaded the exact pictures that he requires onto commons. And the timing of kenny biddle (the subject) uploading the required pictures just when they were required is a bit too much of a coincidence as well. Without off wiki collaboration, this seems to be kinda impossible. The user in question has vehemently denied any off wiki collaboration dn that makes it a bit hard to swallow. Had he admitted that he just asked Biddle to upload his pictures for use, it would have been understandable, but his outright denial makes this fishy Elektricity (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Elektricity: If this were a court I could sue you for slander. No one accused me of collaboration, or asked about photos or anything else of that nature. So how and when did I "vehemently deny" something I had not been asked about? You need to point to what I said (an outright denial) that you bent into that accusation!
Also, your comment "The user in question has been trying to get a lot of peacock and promotional material added to the article as well" is ridiculous. I WROTE the article from scratch. How could I be trying to add whatever you consider "peacock and promotional"? Perhaps my writing style is not to your liking. But it was there in the first place. You may have legs to stand on if you said I was trying to KEEP it in the article. I do think you have been using a cleaver on my work when perhaps a pairing knife would do. But that is a matter of opinion and we should try to reach consensus. You are not assuming good faith.
Now regarding your points. "Obscure and almost unknown" are certainly relative. As I have mentioned, I am a scientific skeptic myself and Biddle has come up in many things I read and podcasts I listen to. I researched him and he seemed to me to be notable, so I thought Wiki should have an article.
On the photo timing... once the article was almost complete (I actually started it in late December, not early Jan. Get your facts straight.) and I was looking to add pictures, I searched Commons and found nothing there on him. He is easy to reach, as he makes his contact info very public, so I did so. I asked if he had anything he could upload. He was thrilled that I was creating an article on him, so of course he obliged. To be clear, he did not ask me to write it and did not know about it until I needed photos. Why was just asking for photos to complete the article a COI issue?
AND... Right at the top of THIS article it says: "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" Please explain how you followed that rule here. There was no discussion on the article talk page Talk:Kenny Biddle despite my attempt, as well as that of user @JGehlbach:. It went right to an AfD. Where again there was no answering of my questions, or of those of JGehlbach. RobP (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Tony Ahn PR/Reputation Management[edit]

users

This is my response to the notice posted to this noticeboard on Dec. 15, 2017. It would have been nice to have been notified so I could respond in real time and answered questions.

Let's go through the users first:

My accounts:

Not my accounts:


From Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of I'm Tony Ahn not previously mentioned above:

Now I'll comment on some of the articles:

Many of the articles above tagged "created with personal account" were not created by Tony Ahn & Co. or anyone associated with Tony Ahn & Co.

We received no payment for:

Those articles were done pro bono to build our client list.

Kate Torralba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was done on my personal account because I had a personal interest. No money was received.

I would very much appreciate learning if this is sufficient information to remove the various tags that have been applied to different article and user talk pages claiming suspected paid editing and suspected sockpuppetry, and if not sufficient, if someone would educate me as to what I need to do or demonstrate in order to get them removed. Thank you! I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm Tony Ahn. When you say "done pro bono to build our client list", what exactly is that meant to mean? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 13:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
It is meant to mean that I approached them and said "I'd like to write a Wikipedia article about you," and then did so. Then because a) they are celebrities here, b) the articles highlighted the quality of my work, and c) these celebrities were happy to report that working with me was a good experience, that helped me get paying work. They were all written when I first started my agency, I have no personal relationships with any of them, and none of them have paid me (in cash or in kind) for writing their articles or for anything else, ever. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, having just complained about not having been pinged in the previous discussion, why did you not ping those involved in the previous discussion? Pinging Bri, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, JzG, TonyBallioni, and Nypheean172. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 13:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I am unfamiliar with "pinging" or the template you used to do so, but I left talkbacks on the talk pages of Bri, TonyBallioni, DGG, and someone else, I forgot who now. I didn't notice comments from Shock Brigade Harvester Boris or JzG in my quick scan, so if I missed them, thanks for including them. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Procedurally required notifications were sent [5][6][7][8][9]Bri (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
A couple of comments
  • If you are writing an article in return for an endorsement (which is a type of service), you are receiving compensation. You might list the article subject as a "client" rather than an "employer" but it is still a paid edit according to the ToU.
  • Look at the number of red links above - do you think you are really providing any help to Wikipedia by creating these articles?
  • If one of your clients employs another paid editor at the same time they are employing you to write an article, this is a violation of WP:Meat. They can't have two people editing an article at the same time without very clear disclosure. You need to report this on this page or perhaps at WP:ANI. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Smallbones. An endorsement is a type of "in kind" compensation. It is not necessary that the reward for the article be cash in hand for it to be paid editing. In this case, the article was clearly written in exchange for something of benefit and value from the client. That is still paid editing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The law of unintended consequences applies. When you abuse a charity funded volunteer run project to boost your income and your clients' profile, you don't get to choose how we handle that abuse. So no, you can't remove the tags. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I will sign each of my responses so they can be responded to separately.

  • I did not write an article in return for an endorsement. I wrote the article so I could say I wrote it (i.e build a client list). I had no expectation that I'd receive an endorsement, nor did I ask for one. That is not paid editing. It is akin to listing articles one has written on a resume or submitting a freshly written Wikipedia article as a writing sample. I wrote the Carlos Celdran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article before I opened my business while I was in the United States. It was his idea I open an agency after writing it. Then we called him the first client. How is that paid editing? Daphne Oseña-Paez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I approached cold, and Ingrid Chua-Go (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a referral of Oseña-Paez. And this was in 2011, long before the Terms of Use had any mention of paid editing, or there were any guidelines. Please bear that in mind. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
These articles were used as part of the paid editing venture, so they are paid editing. We have no way to verify that the Carlos Celdran article wasn't created with the intention to use as part of the resumé, and therefore must be lumped in with the rest IMO. The others clearly meet the definition of paid editing that was recently clarified by Arbcom. They also clearly meet the definition at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure under 'other inducements'. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
So anybody who writes a featured article and puts it on their resume is by definition a paid editor because they benefitted by being able to put it on their resume? I don't think so. You have no way to verify that any of my thousands of User:Noraft edits prior to Carlos Celdran "with the intention to use as part of the resumé" so you may as well tag them too. Except maybe Bix Biederbecke since he's long dead. The burden of proof should not be on me to prove I wasn't paid, and there no evidence pointing to the contrary. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed as by I'm Tony Ahn (talk · contribs) actually added by Noraft (talk · contribs)
Except that you haven't used those many thousands of edits prior to Carlos Celdran to advertise your work. Creating a promotional article on somebody, then using it to advertise your business is paid editing per both definitions above. Even the GA review that you unwisely initiated after creating the article concluded: "This appears to be a promotional article, not encyclopaedic in style." Thus it certainly appears that you created the article to use as a resume demonstration piece; in other words you created the article to benefit yourself, not purely for the benefit of the encylopedia (i.e. 'paid editing' per the definitions above). The fact that you subsequently used the article as part of your resume (admitted above) only confirms the suspicions and validates the UPE tag. You should disclose the fact that the article was created for and used to promote a paid enterprise, otherwise the UPE tag is appropriate. As someone else said above: law of unintended consequences; you used the article for financial gain (whether you did it before or after the fact is irrelevant, as you have benefited financially from creating the article in either case). — <small Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh I ABSOLUTELY have used those many thousands of edits prior to Carlos Celdran to advertise my work: when I talk about my edit count, show them the work I've had featured on the main page, (like St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao), mention my WP:FOUR Award, my letter of appreciation from Sue Gardner, or tell them I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding red links, standards have risen and what was was acceptable a couple years ago isn't any longer. Also more than a couple of these articles were deleted last month without any notification to me, so I couldn't step in and stop the deletions by providing more information like I've done in the past. But your question is whether I am "really providing any help to Wikipedia by creating these articles." My answer is all the blue links. That's exactly how much help I'm providing Wikipedia. However I think the question is dangerous and prejudicial as the community doesn't evaluate editors on how many articles they created that have been deleted, and more specifically this noticeboard exists to discuss whether editors are following the paid editing rules: redlinks are irrelevant to that. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Your paid editing has clearly resulted in a number of unsuitable and/or borderline submissions, as evidenced by the number of redlinks (the guidelines on notability have not changed that much). You would be wise to not take on clients that are not clearly notable, and give yourself comfortable margins for notability. Trying to push through borderline/barely notable subjects is a recipe for disaster for you and your company, and results in lots of deletion discussions where volunteer editors are required to cleanup, research, and or delete unsuitable submissions. Not only that, but it also just makes you look bad. Who wants to employ someone who has had a bunch of their paid-for articles deleted? Can you not understand why we, volunteers, are annoyed with your constant attempts to game the system by pushing the boundaries of what is technically legal? Because of your past actions, no one is going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, as you clearly ran out all the AGF rope quite some time ago. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why. I've identified myself, disclosed my edits, and worked within the boundaries set. Then someone goes on a tear and deletes over TWO-THIRDS of those redlinked mainspace articles in the last 3 weeks. Remember that the articles that were deleted had been up for between two and seven years, averaging around three. And they were all there until December, providing feedback (until that time) that they met community standards. Judge me on the next one, since that will be the first one after this course correction. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed as by I'm Tony Ahn (talk · contribs) actually added by Noraft (talk · contribs)
You know well that the COI guidelines strongly recommend that you should not engage in COI editing. The fact that you do so makes everything you do suspect, especially when here is financial gain on table. AGF does not apply to paid editors when they have a history of bad judgement and gaming the system: I mean, seriously, trying to get things onto the main page in return for paid editing? What were you thinking? Just because something hasn't yet been expressly forbidden doesn't mean that you should do it: that is the very definition of gaming the system. Don't expect AGF from anyone with a history like that. You said above that "the community doesn't evaluate editors on how many articles they created that have been deleted"; that is patently false. Editors are often sanctioned for producing too many unsuitible submissions, and/or denied user-rights requests for having too many deleted main space submissions. Having created many articles that the community has decided were inappropriate represents bad judgment, and demonstrates at best an ignorance of notability guidelines, and at worst, willful abuse of them. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I have NOT engaged in COI editing. Those articles were moved to mainspace by independent members of the community, not me. When I said above that "the community doesn't evaluate editors on how many articles they created that have been deleted" I didn't mean "the community doesn't form opinions" I meant there's not a rule that says "15 deletions and you're out." Editors aren't sanctioned for producing too many unsuitible submissions; that's a byproduct of what the sanction is actually for. They are sanctioned for ignoring guidelines after being warned/educated. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Judging by the articles on companies that have survived so far, they probably did warrant deletion. Companies are comparitively almost never notable -usually requires coverage in books (I've even seen fortune 1000 companies deleted, actually) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • To my knowledge, none of my clients have employed another paid editor at the same time. If you are referencing Honeytecson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) she was our predecessor and we rewrote her article. She was no longer under contract with PPLIC when she made her second and final edit: to remove a period from an abbreviation. I just learned about it myself reviewing the PPLIC edit history. No idea why she did that. But if she had been under contract it would not have been a violation of July 2011 WP:MEAT, which was only concerned with disputes. My point there is to remind you the guidelines have changed over time, and to make your assessments based on the guidelines of the day, please. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I didn't ask to remove the tags. As per the paid editing guidelines, someone else would need to remove them after they felt there was sufficient evidence to do so. I asked what I would need to do or demonstrate for them to be removed. Some of the paid editing tags are applied to articles where there was no paid editing and others are applied to user talk pages suspecting them of being sockpuppets when their affiliation was openly declared. Are you telling me that inappropriately applied tags won't be removed because you've decided that I've "abused" Wikipedia? You are aware that I've followed all the paid editing guidelines as they came out and pages created after that time were moved to mainspace by other, non-involved editors, right? I haven't abused the encyclopedia at all. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Well my advice would be to not narrowly construe 'paid editing' and disclose widely. By not doing so you leave the door open for accusations of UPE. Even if the article was not directly paid for, if the construction of that article has been used to benefit your business it is suspect and you would be wise to declare it as such. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
That's great, but I posted this to find out what I need to do or demonstrate to get tags removed from erroneously tagged user accounts and article talk pages. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed as by I'm Tony Ahn (talk · contribs) actually added by Noraft (talk · contribs)
And I've told you. Declare your conflict of interest, and declare that you have used the creation of those articles for financial gain, then the tags will no longer be appropriate. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
But I'm tagged on 8 user accounts that are not socks, and articles that I didn't edit in mainspace (therefore no COI) are tagged. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This is some funny [expletive deleted], counsel for the defense keeps trying to pre-empt prosecution. – Athaenara 01:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not on trial, but I'm sure you're not the only one who thinks I am. I posted this notice to ask a procedural question which everyone thus far appears too biased to answer, which is just sucking more man-hours out of more editors as they all line up to repeat each other or scold me. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Why are you switching your signatures around (diff)? – Athaenara 01:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Consistency, to reduce confusion. Didn't realize the personal account was logged in. Care to answer my question now? I've answered all of yours. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
You didn't ask me a question, so I've nothing to answer. I'll nonetheless take up the implicit invitation to say something. I endorse the cogent and pertinent observations posted above by Smallbones, Seraphimblade, JzG (Guy), and Insertcleverphrasehere. – Athaenara 09:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I asked you all a question, implicit in the following statement: "I would very much appreciate learning if this is sufficient information to remove the various tags that have been applied to different article and user talk pages claiming suspected paid editing and suspected sockpuppetry, and if not sufficient, if someone would educate me as to what I need to do or demonstrate in order to get them removed. Thank you!" I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • User:I'm Tony Ahn I'm not seeing full disclosure per WP:DISCLOSE of all the clients, relationships and articles for all the paid edits, and also where there's just a COI, or did I miss something? Widefox; talk 16:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't make paid edits. Sometime prior to the disclosure guidelines, I started writing articles in userspace and having independent editors evaluate said articles, then move them to mainspace if they feel they meet community standards. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This is repeating my comments from the earlier discussion.

  1. At this time I think it would be appropriate to require that Ahn disclose all his personal and firm-affiliated accounts, and all works created for clients per WP:PAID in order to continue as an editor in good standing here. It is obvious that this has not been complied with for Matthew Fergusson-Stewart, at least. Articles created with "alternate" account are highly suspect as well -- horse betting, CEOs, lifestyle bloggers; the usual.
  2. Noting existence of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive929#Undisclosed paid editing concerning the same editor. IMO the opener was correct when they stated "extensive review of this user's practices seems to be in prompt order". Thread was closed July, 2016 with the comment "not undisclosed". By my standards, disclosure has been haphazard and hard to locate (i.e. articles are not uniformly tagged). Not sure what the best remedy is here and I'm AGF that Tony Ahn will show up to this discussion and give us reason for hope.
  3. It's hard to say who's working directly or indirectly with the firm; many of the articles listed above have many SPAs involved. I didn't want to list each of them here because of the overhead of notifying everyone who's mentioned on this page. The firm (I'll just say "firm" for anything involving Ahn because he's apparently mixed personal and business editing) has been active earlier in 2017 with Matthew Fergusson-Stewart and possibly-to-probably Revcontent, sandboxed by one of the firm's accounts (article on ceo John Lemp was done by firm). I was really hoping to hear from him so we didn't have to do things this way, forensic style.

I think these are even more pertinent now that we have more info from the firm. The AN determination "not undisclosed", knowing what we now know, was premature, and dubious if not flat-out wrong. My opinion on use of UPE tag is that it belongs on an existing article until as many new, neutral edits as it takes occur to make the article undoubtedly neutral. This doesn't happen just because the non-neutral editor comes in and demands it. We haven't developed best practices for this particular tag so here's a suggestion: Maybe a request in conjunction with a diff and list of editors who have been over the material is acceptable? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Just adding this to clarify one thing. I don't think my suggested best practice above should in any way impel other editors to take any particular action. For myself I have made my position vis-a-vis WP:BOGO pretty clear. I will not knowingly help paid editors with their paid content here. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Bri. In the beginning of this notice I disclosed my connected accounts and identified the non-connected accounts that I know of. Regarding disclosure, according to the terms of service, "...you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions." My disclosure is on my user page, as per the terms of service. That's what the AN determination "not undisclosed" referred to. And also that determination provided feedback that my process was appropriate. I was not compensated for any of the editing done by my personal account. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Just because you weren't paid for it doesn't mean that it isn't paid editing. The paid editing guidelines are clear under 'other inducements', and Arbcom's recent clarification is even more clear on that. Any edits which you make for the benefit of you as a person are paid editing, even if no one pays you for it. As a result, pretty much everything from your personal account since you started your PR company (and a bit before as well) are suspect and can and probably will be considered paid editing under 'other inducements', as you have used these edits as a resumé for your PR firm (creating articles with this advertised personal account benefits yourself and your PR firm). We are forced to broadly construe paid editing with regards to your personal account because of your actions promoting your PR firm based on the edits of that account. Again; law of unintended consequences. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Not in 2011 and 2012 when those articles were written. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Just one comment: When you are hired by someone, and outsource the work to another person or firm, you are responsible jointly with them for the work. It's not clear whether you have to declare it as well as they, but the simplest interpretation of the present rules is that if they disclose the entire connection, including the links with you, as two of the firms have done, that is sufficient. If they do it according to the rules, there's no further problem; if they do not, it's your problem as well as their's. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree, which is why I require my contractors to have disclosure notices on their user pages identifying them as PR professionals working for my agency. I'm Tony Ahn (talk)
      • I'm Tony Ahn, you say that you "don't make paid edits" (posted 17:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)). That is patently untrue. You are or represent a PR company and have made numerous edits on behalf of its clients, as you yourself have disclosed further up this page. Are you perhaps under some misconception that paid editing outside mainspace is not considered paid editing? If so, please disabuse yourself at once of that notion. Our Terms of Use apply throughout the project, not just in article space. Paid editing is tolerated in some other spaces (though it shouldn't be, because its aim is always, infallibly and intrinsically, to promote, and we don't allow promotion of any kind); but paid editing it still is. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Justlettersandnumbers I believe you are mistaken. I ran my process by ArbCom (see my reply below). And if the rules change, and that turns out to be the case, I'll simply write the article in MSWord before asking someone to evaluate it and post it if it meets community standards. Then it won't exist on the encyclopedia until it is live in mainspace, and won't fall afoul of the Terms of Use. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
You really need to quit it with this wikilawyering bullshit. This is textbook gaming the system that you are describing. Regardless of where you submit it first it will be paid editing and it will be you that is the originator, get that through your skull. This MSWord wikilawyering that you are suggesting is tantamount to meatpuppetry anyway. If you can't understand and admit that any submissions that you make that benefit you in any way are paid editing, then your COI is blinding you of that fact, as it really isn't up for debate. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
100% agreed with User:Insertcleverphrasehere. Just read this discussion after it lit up my watchlist; your claims you are not engaging in COI editing because you didn't edit in mainspace is incredible and just wrong. We have paid editors, who have to disclose and have been made to put all articles through AfC. They are still paid edits, whether they are made in mainspace or draftspace. Given that despite the consensus here that regardless of where the content is written paid edits are paid edits, perhaps you should acknowledge this and tag your articles appropriately rather than the WP:IDONTHEARTHAT wikilawyering I see? jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers Please remain WP:CIVIL. What I'm saying is that I don't even need an account or to EVER visit Wikipedia if I write in a word processor and therefore won't be subject to the terms of use (because I'm not using Wikipedia). So work with me here, because I'm trying to work with you. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)I really don't see how Daphne Oseña-Paez, which you created as Noraft, the personal account, then posted on your professional site and/or blogs and/or business interviews as an example of the firm's prowess, can any longer be considered non-professional. This is your business blog, right? The headline is "TONY AHN & CO. PUTS DAPHNE OSENA-PAEZ ON THE WIKIPEDIA MAIN PAGE", right? Your firm, not your personal name, is called "Tony Ahn & Company" right? Are you being completely honest and truthful to both the blog readers and the noticeboard readers here? I don't see how both can be simultaneously truthful. The article can no longer be considered non-compensated. This is exactly the headline being discussed when Jimbo said "Tony Ahn's actions are a disgrace". This is exactly why people here are using the phrase "gaming the system". This is why The Daily Dot thinks Wikipedia's front page is for sale, partly based on an interview with you in which you stated "We [do not] charge extra for a main page placement" (emphasis mine). Your words and actions right now are not inspiring me to be a helpful volunteer. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
        • There are a couple different concepts that usually but do not always overlap: personal vs. professional and paid vs. unpaid. WP:PAID did not exist in 2011. At that time, I only had one account (so it wasn't my "personal" account yet; it was just "my account"). I have not been compensated in cash or in kind by anyone who was the subject of an article written by the Noraft account after WP:PAID (nor any 3rd party) and before WP:PAID, the only article I was compensated for was Philippine Prudential Life Insurance Company. Feel free to tag that one any way you deem appropriate. Back in 2011, the only person with Tony Ahn & Co. (not Company...it is registered with the Philippine SEC as "Tony Ahn and Co.") was me, so yes I am truthful when I say "I was not compensated" to the noticeboard readers and truthful to my blog readers when I say the agency put her on the main page. In short it was a professionally motivated, unpaid article. Further down the line, I contacted Roger Davies, a member of the Arbitration Committee. I proposed that if I am engaged to write a Wikipedia article, I could write it in my sandbox, then invite a member of the Wikipedia community to independently review it. If it meets community standards, they could move it to mainspace. I also proposed creating an alternate account to separate professional edits from my personal edits. Roger circulated my proposal to the rest of the ArbCom. While ArbCom declined to comment officially one way or the other, Roger gave me his personal assessment: "What you propose doing with a "professional" account for existing articles sounds sensible. Be aware though that editing those articles from another account will almost certainly be linked sooner or later and may result in both accounts being blocked. So if you intend to also have a "personal" account you not only need to completely avoid editing articles you've commented professionally but also have a link somewhere from your "personal" account to your "professional" one. See the sockpuppet policy, especially the aspects about evading scrutiny." — Roger Davies, Sept. 3, 2011. I created my professional account (User:I'm Tony Ahn) and contacted DGG to advise him of what I am doing. He was supportive. November 26, 2011 I had the good fortune to meet Asaf Bartov, Head of Grants and Global South Relationships for the Wikimedia Foundation, in person, when he made an official visit to Manila, supporting Wikimedia Philippines. We talked about PR firms editing Wikipedia, and he said a number of interesting things, which I'll enumerate here:
1) "Jimmy Wales does not own Wikipedia. If he says yes to something, it is yes, but if he says no, it isn't necessarily no." This was in reference to me mentioning that Jimmy said that all PR firm edits were automatically COI and people doing it should be banned. I asked if I could quote him on that, and he said sure.
2) I explained the system I proposed to ArbCom, where I'd create an article in my sandbox and invite another community member to move it to mainspace, and he thought that was a promising way to address the problem.
3) He said "What you want to do is interesting, but you understand that because of the disrespectful way that PR firms have edited Wikipedia in the past, you aren't starting from zero but from negative two hundred. That said, I can see value in what you're trying to do." I agreed with his assessment, and I was willing to start wherever I could.
This is why I am subjecting myself to this investigation when it would be simpler and less time consuming to simply go underground. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Remain civil, Tony Ahn? What exactly do you find uncivil here? Anyway, while one of us certainly misunderstands what paid editors may do here, it is not I. A ping only works if it is in the same post as your signature – it won't ping if it is added subsequently, or if you don't sign; so if you want to ping Roger Davies, you should do so in a new post. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
"You really need to quit it with this wikilawyering bullshit...get that through your skull." I'm entitled to be treated with respect. All the other editors who have commented have been able to maintain this, regardless of whether we agree or disagree, and regardless of ther level of frustration. And thank you for the tip. Now I will reiterate I have asked multiple times what I need to do or demonstrate to have the suspected sockpuppet tags removed from accounts that I have not edited from. Can anyone answer this for me? I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@I'm Tony Ahn. To be fair on Justlettersandnumbers, he didn't say that, I did, and the fact that you followed it up with a reply that contains even more wikilawyering just proves my point that you have reached the level of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. No you will not be allowed to draft stuff in MSWord and get someone else to upload it for you: that would be a combination of meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry specifically done to circumvent wikipedia's terms of use (as you have admitted is the intention), why in the world would you think that would be tolerated? This sort of bad judgement and wikilawyering attitude does not seem representative of a good faith editor and just provides more evidence that you do not have the correct temperament to be a constructive member of the Wikipedia community. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say he said it. He asked what was uncivil and I answered him. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
So at the AfD per WP:BOGOF, instead of investing my volunteer time to find out what's gone on there, I'd rather volunteer elsewhere due to the undisclosed improper self-written sourcing, leaving only delete (WP:TNT). Widefox; talk 15:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
User:I'm Tony Ahn please be aware of running faul of Wikipedia:COITALK where wikilawyering in exactly this situation may be seen as disruption in itself, and other editors don't have to put up with it. When one fails to disclose, how can one ask to be treated with respect? You will get it from editors, but "entitled", really?! Widefox; talk 15:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
One can always be treated respect. This is why police officers arresting people still call them "sir." It is basic professionalism. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
(offtopic: One can always give others respect, but one can not always be "entitled" to it, or get it, no. Only paid editors are professionals here. You're literally demanding a standard we're asking you to strive for, which you're erroneously trying to hold volunteers to, ironic. I suggest you read (disclosure my essay) WP:BOGOF.) Widefox; talk 10:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
According to WP:CIVIL: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, including discussions at user and article talk pages, in edit summaries and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians." We're all entitled to respect, whether we agree or not, whether we're frustrated or not. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
(offtopic and moot: I'm Tony Ahn you're still not understanding my point, you literally can ask (and have even demanded "entitlement" for "civility"), but you Tony Ahn can't morally state you are "entitled" to civility (or respect) here. It's over, the truth is out, you're blocked, and your sense of "entitlement" to edit here as if you weren't doing something against the fundamentals has been shown to end now so it's moot, despite these vain attempts to lecture volunteers who through your actions have been forced to cleanup the mess you've made.) Widefox; talk 01:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Tony three quick notes.
You (and me, and everyone else) edits here as a privilege. It is not a right. You don't seem to understand that you are very close to losing your editing privileges.
You are not "subjecting yourself" to anything. The community is reviewing your behavior. You have chosen to respond. Your responses here have dug your hole deeper.
Because of your past behavior and what you have said at this page, at this point you have very few options to resolve this situation successfully. It will require a dramatic pivot in your approach to your work here that would appropriately orient your work to the realities of Wikipedia in 2018. I have offered to talk, at your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I absolutely understand I'm close to losing my editing privileges. The former noticeboard discussion was archived. I reopened it, which is what I mean when I say I am subjectng myself to scrutiny. I have answered you on my talk page. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
User:I'm Tony Ahn. Four questions/requests:
1) What we look for on the userpage is a list of content you have worked on for pay. See for example User:MaryGaulke. Would you please provide a list at your userpage of all the WP content you have written for pay, along with who paid you and the client? (by "for pay" I mean that you were paid for, that you expected to be paid for, and that you wrote to build you business) Please note I am not asking about "mainspace edits", but rather content that you placed anywhere in WP for pay, or that someone placed anywhere in WP on your behalf.
2) Since you are the owner of the paid editing business, would you please disclose on your userpage all WP editors that you have paid to edit? See for example the disclosure of another owner of a PR business here: User:JacobPace#Affiliated_paid_editors.
3) Would you please describe your realworld relationship with ScooterSponson, who has moved many of your proposed edits to mainspace and created the article about you?
4) Would you please disclose if you wrote any of the content posted to mainspace by ScooteSponson in this diff? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Answers: 1) Sure. 2) Sure. 3) I have done so already in my opening post. Did you need more information than that? 4) No I did not. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm Tony Ahn, when you replied to me "I don't make paid edits." (above), here [10] you previously said "All paid edits are for the article subject. I'll add that to my disclosure template." Those statements seem contradictory. Where is that "disclosure template"? I see none on your userpage. As you were correctly relieved of the false belief that PAID only applies to mainspace edits a year and a half ago [11], why are you returning to that falsehood, and how credible is it to still maintain this doesn't apply to you then and now? Where's the COI disclosure even? Widefox; talk 21:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, I see how they seem contradictory. I didn't say I haven't ever made them in the past, I said I don't make them. That's a statement of the present tense. If you smoked from ages 18 to 21, saying "I don't smoke" at age 27 is perfectly normal and acceptable. My disclosure is at the top of my userpage, with the penguin being X-rayed. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)]
      • The present (or future) tenses aren't cooperative when talking about the past (clue: "edit history"). Readers of this can judge for themselves what's "normal and acceptable" (one doesn't mark one's own work). I can't see any article, or connection listed in your "disclosure". If you don't want to satisfy WP:DISCLOSE then at least be honest and don't waste our time wikilawyering. How would you feel about a defendant saying "I don't shoot guns" when they were caught red-handed with a smoking gun. That's the pertinent smoking analogy. Beyond reasonable doubt, right. Widefox; talk 10:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

  • This thread is getting far too long to be dealt with effectively, and needs to be re-organized/moved to a different noticeboard. Any thoughts? Alex Shih (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
    • WP:PAYTALK has been referred to above, and TA should also read WP:NOTREQUIRED and WP:BOGOF. We don't owe him anything. Of course we should respond politely to his questions when we believe they're being asked in good faith. But if we don't believe that, the best we can do is ignore him. I suppose we could seek some penalties against him for disruptive editing, but I'm not sure it's worth the bother. TA, for his part needs to figure out why anybody here might want to help him, and if he can't figure that out he should just go away quietly. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
To quote MER-C in his reply to my recent query on his talk page:
My general impression is that we have a tendentious editor trying to exhaust volunteers' patience. My blunt advice: stop wasting your time. He's clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia (as he puts his interests first), so his editing privileges should be permanently revoked.
Athaenara 07:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Re. "...moved to a different noticeboard..." – seems unwarranted WP:FORUMSHOPping at this point in time, that is, as long as talks here haven't been concluded yet. I'd list it at WP:ANRFC when this would be ready for closure, but that (i.e. being ready for closure) hasn't happened either yet afaics. Maybe for some of the technicalities some specialists should be invited over here sooner or later (WMF people to check whether the solutions we may find consensus on stay well within their ToU?), but there too I see no need for that yet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Block breaking ToU, failing spirit and letter of PAID, COI, undisclosed/deceptive use of their own source as an independent reliable source, tendentious editing, clearly WP:NOTHERE. This is rammed home with claims of permission from authority, combined with digging deeper here by deception and disruption, whilst the truth is in plain view for all. My understanding is that we block editors to prevent further damage to reputation and content (and disruption). The editor here is defiant claiming they can always go underground to carry on. That would be block evasion. Standard unblock applies. Widefox; talk 12:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Note on disclosures: @I'm Tony Ahn, your discloses on all of your paid articles (such as Talk:Xander_Angeles) are innacurate. You say that you've been paid by your company to write the articles, which is an obvious obfuscation and does not represent the true origin of the funds. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@I'm Tony Ahn: "Many of the articles above tagged "created with personal account" were not created by Tony Ahn & Co. or anyone associated with Tony Ahn & Co." - can you explain what you mean by this statement? I'm looking at the above list and I'm seeing Kate Torralba, Daphne Oseña-Paez, Carlos Celdran were all created by the Noraft account. Matthew Fergusson-Stewart and Child United not being an admin I cannot check these. Are you saying these were not created by the Noraft account? If so, "many" is a bit of stretch for 2 articles. I don't see any other articles where it was tagged above "created with personal account". (There are a bunch more tagged created with business acount either directly or with a ditto.) The only other thing is is Philippine Prudential Life Insurance Company where it's suggested this was created by your firm based on the fact you've apparently claimed it was your first client. You're saying that the editor who created it was separately hired by Prudential. Okay fine, but the fact your personal account later rewrote the article appears to be true, i.e. again the personal account bit is true and it's not even tagged as created with personal account. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm assuming Noraft is you as you seem to have accepted that, and it is not a shared account. Which means any edits, including article creations, were made by you. I don't want to get into the dispute over what is and is not a paid edit here, including whether or not edits before your started your business count as paid edits and whether or not edits created pro bono count as paid edits. It's something that has already been discussed a lot. However even if we completely accept that these pro bono creations don't count as paid editing, or even if we accept they weren't created with any consideration of the business , perhaps because you hadn't even came up with the idea, I'm assuming you understand why it's incredibly confusing to claim an article created by you, the founder of the company, regardless of whether you'd even thought of the company yet at the time of the creation, was not created by "anyone associated with Tony Ahn & Co." Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Matthew Fergusson-Stewart and Child United were both created by User:Noraft and, to be clear, Noraft is Tony Ahn. – Athaenara 14:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal (single account)[edit]

Moot. As someone said, one too many. Winged BladesGodric 13:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that Tony Ahn edits with one and only one account henceforth. Discussion above illustrates that it is not very well possible to disentangle "commercial"/WP:PAID edits with one account and private/non-commercial with another. All edits by Tony Ahn should fall under WP:PAID and WP:COI scrutiny. Wikilawyering should be avoided. Of course PR for an enterprise is something that enterprise "pays for" (not something it "gets payed for"). Doing such PR with a so-called "private" account is effectively trying to dodge WP:PAID/WP:COI guidance – thus my proposal to allow Tony Ahn only one account and close the others as no longer allowed alternative accounts. This is probably not the only step in this issue, but maybe a first important step. As far as I'm concerned Tony Ahn can choose either their Noraft or their I'm Tony Ahn account to continue editing, or alternatively close down both and indicate here a proposal for a new account name, which, if accepted, would absorb both former accounts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That means he must choose one account, all the others being blocked. That would be all the others we know about. When more come to light they'll be blocked too, as will the main account he chose. – Athaenara 07:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's more or less the idea I had in mind. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support proposal on a one account prohibition. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the recent arbcom case only serves to underline the fact that separating personal and paid accounts is not a good way to go about things. Tony Ahn's private account is used for promotion as well, if only as a vehicle for advertising his services, which makes it attached to his paid editing anyway. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As I stated above, he should be restricted to zero accounts, i.e. indeffed. MER-C 13:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • See my comment below. A one-account restriction is, in and of itself, a useful thing, and does not conflict with the possibility of a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Support and in part because (as per MER-C's oppose) I suspect he'll end up permbanned or so frustrated by the curbs put on his drive to exploit the platform that he just goes away. I think his aims are inimical to the aims of this encyclopedia. – Athaenara 15:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. (Striking my support above.) I'm doing many other things, but each day more detail turns up (e.g. see Schonken's note below about the Daphne Oseña-Paez page) supporting a conclusion that Ahn and his associates/colleagues/partners in crime should be permbanently blocked from editing Wikipedia, with every article they have ever written (including Tony Ahn) under every account put under the most ruthless scrutiny and very likely deleted for subversion of this encyclopedia into an advertising vehicle. – Athaenara 09:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • [moved Bri's procedural question on blocking to the #Proposal (block) section below --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)]
  • Support, but he has to list any and all alternate accounts. Any future use of those would then lead to permaban or such. Advertising your services = paid editing. Simple.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on principle. Paid editors need to be transparent about all of their activity in Wikipedia. Having more than one account muddles that transparency.--MarshalN20 🕊 17:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  CheckUser note: The only other account that shows up on a check of I'm Tony Ahn is Noraft.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
There is another probable account I am aware of, but it has been inactive since 2009 ☆ Bri (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Is that Archer904 (talk · contribs) (active 2006-2010) or another one? – Athaenara 03:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the proposal, with a note that limiting the editor to one account does not necessarily conflict with a block. If and when the block is lifted, the one-account restriction would still be in place, unless it, too, is specifically lifted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would be a major change in our guidelines. We have always instructed paid editors to use a different account for the paid work (even for unambiguously benign activities such as Wikipedians in Residence) I would in fact encourage paid editors to do volunteer work also--the comparison is usually very illuminating, because the ordinary contributions are almost invariably superior. It's better to openly declare--and its better for the names to be clearly similar enough to be obvious. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Really?? I have never seen that happen. (Doesn't mean it hasn't, just that I haven't been aware of it.) If that's the case, how about he be limited to two accounts, of the same base name, one for paid edits and one for volunteer edits, such as "Tony Ahn" and "Tony Ahn (paid editing)", or something similar, with a specific connection between them noted on their user pages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @DGG: thanks for the generalities, but they hardly reflect what has been said in the preliminary discussion. Of course two accounts, one for the commercial activities and a separate one, not tied to these activities, is preferable. But what happens if edits done with the non-commercial account are part of the commercial endeavour? In that case the editor didn't clearly separate commercial from non-commercial, thus didn't use the two-account system the way it should have been. Your comment doesn't deal with that situation. In the preliminary discussion there is a link to a recently concluded ArbCom case that also had to deal with a situation where a non-commercial account was used to support the activities of a commercial account, in which you participated as an arbitrator. It lead to a desysop. I hope that decision was based on what actually happened, and not on the generalities of what only happens in a perfect world. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Not true. As soon as paid editing became an identified issue I created the pro account. Or are you saying I broke 2014 rules in 2011? If you retro like that, then I'm guilty, on Philippine Prudential Life Insurance Company only: work done in 2011. I didn't receive payment for any other work done on the Noraft account. I did clam credit after the fact, but I disagree that is form of payment. Payment requires quid pro quo with a second party. Sorry about PPLIC, I didn't know at the time, mea culpa, feel free to delete the article. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In 2018 http://daphne.ph/my-wikipedia is still part of your enterprise's publicity (linked from this page on your enterprise's website):
    1. Your enterprise getting publicity on Daphne Oseña-Paez's website (as is apparent on the http://daphne.ph/my-wikipedia page) certainly is a "quid pro quo" ("quid pro quo" does not necessarily depend on exchange of money). The quid pro quo is clear enough: you managed some of Daphne Oseña-Paez's publicity on Wikipedia, she managed some of your Wikipedia-related publicity on her website – there's even a nice picture of yourself on Daphne Oseña-Paez's website (for which you surely had to give copyright clearance). What more is needed to establish a COI based on a quid pro quo in WP:PAID sense? Your "Not true" is completely unwarranted: don't treat Wikipedia volunteers as if they're stupid or so.
    2. The problem is however that maintaining the http://daphne.ph/my-wikipedia link on your website, without even warning the prospective clients of your enterprise that what is portrayed there is far from what you can offer your clients in 2018, does continue to use edits done with the Noraft account as publicity for your WP:PAID account. So, in 2018, the two accounts can still not be disentangled.
If the two accounts can't be disentangled in 2018, and you continue to be fuzzy about quid pro quo (as if it's always actual money you're being paid with), it seems safest, from Wikipedia's stance, to subject all your edits to WP:COI/WP:PAID scrutiny. Which can be done easier if there's only one account. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Quid pro quo ("something for something" in Latin)[1] is a phrase used in English to mean an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is contingent upon the other." Emphasis mine. The article was not contingent upon anything. Therefore no quid pro quo. We figured out it could be used for publicity after the fact. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
And that page (Oseña-Paez) was initiated by Ahn's supposedly personal-only non-business account, Noraft. To Ahn, the distinction is clearly meaningless, it's all business. – Athaenara 08:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
That page was initiated by my sole account Noraft because there were no paid editing rules back then. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposal (block)[edit]

There is unambiguous consensus to block Tony Ahn, under all accounts, due to promotional editing and abuse of multiple accounts. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've seen !votes to this effect above, and propose to group, in this subsection, editors' ideas on whether all accounts used by Tony Ahn should be blocked. A usual block involves retaining talk page access, so even if consensus can be found on this block proposal the "single account" proposal of the previous subsection still makes sense too: Tony Ahn would retain access to no more than one talk page if both proposals pass. I'm not taking a position on this one yet, recognising that Ahn has little time left to come up with alternative workable proposals to address the situation. Please !voters in this section indicate the preferred minimum time delay for appealing if and when we'd come to a consensus decision here (I'd propose one year as being understood for those who don't mention an appeal delay period). I'll be posting a notice at WP:AN to invite participation in the proceedings here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Please also indicate whether or not you think that other accounts of editors who ever worked for the Tony Ahn & Co. enterprise, or for Tony Ahn personally, should be blocked – and if so, why. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC) I struck the part about the appeal delay restriction proposal: "Standard unblock applies" would be better according the procedural discussion below. Athaenara, since you'e been the only one !voting thus far besides myself, could you confirm that is understood? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support blocking all accounts with a COI relationship to Tony Ahn and his enterprises (including the accounts used by Ahn himself and those of the free-lancers working for his enterprise). Scores of Wikipedia editors have invested their time to help sort this out, talk to Ahn etc. The return (i.e. what actually contributed to building an encyclopedia) has been minimal, and not in proportion to the efforts. I don't think that disproportion is going to change anywhere soon. The editing patterns of these accounts do not comply to Wikipedia policy (this, tweaked here, offers a good overview of the main points), and I don't think it likely that these editors would change their ways anywhere soon. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I've devoted no more than an average of 15 minutes per day in the past week or two to this, so it's not a total time and energy sink, but it can't go on forever. As additional damning details turn up (e.g. Francis Schonken's 08:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC) observations above about the Daphne Oseña-Paez page and how her website advertised Ahn's services) it has become more and more obvious that Ahn and crew (whom he variously calls partners, colleagues, acquaintances, whatever) have been busily subverting Wikipedia, a volunteer enterprise which is striving to be a reliable and even esteemed encyclopedia. They should all be permbanently blocked from editing Wikipedia, and the pages they've written (not least Tony Ahn) put under the most ruthless scrutiny and many or all of them deleted. – Athaenara 11:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support block of all accounts connected to this firm or the individual Tony Ahn. In other words, a de facto site ban. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be a simple "I played by the rules as they existed prior to 2014" as it appears. The firm has proudly posted ways for companies to disconnect themselves from the firm's PR and/or crisis communications. This is endorsing flat-out tradecraft at a high level including burner phones, and is really at odds with our standards of transparency. At this time I have zero faith that this editor is following disclosure or will in the future. To the contrary they have taken every chance to wikilawyer and slide away from straightforward and prompt disclosure. I only raised the procedural question(s) in order to not make this argument twice and spend even more time on this issue as I think it is a hopeless case. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Tony Ahn has not disclosed his paid edits correctly. Disclosures such as the one on Talk:Xander_Angeles (where it says "has been paid by Tony Ahn & Co.") are wholly inadequate at best, and deliberately obfucatory at worst. Despite me pointing this out to him two days ago, he has done nothing to address the inadequate disclosures. given that he has done nothing, it seems that he is deliberately obscuring who actually paid him --the subject-- by using his shell company's name in the disclosure instead; another wikilawyering technique. This combined with other persistent wikilawyering (see above discussion) indicates to me that Tony Ahn will continue to attempt to game the system if he is allowed to continue editing. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support using Wikipedia for the purposes of advertising is clearly against policy. Bri has also demonstrated reasons to believe that future disruption will occur unless a block happens. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support because the editor clearly knew what they were doing and has been trying to wikilawyer around it. You don't try THIS hard to defend behavior like this and come out clean. --Tarage (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Per Athaenara: Ahn and his associates/colleagues/partners in crime should be permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia, with every article they have ever written (including Tony Ahn) under every account put under the most ruthless scrutiny and very likely deleted for subversion of this encyclopedia into an advertising vehicle. His quid pro quo with his client or clients is no different from receiving cash benefits and is therefore certainbly not a 'pro bono' as he claims. To allow this kind of blatant advertising of his offer of services to make money out of a volunteer created encyclopedia is patently absurd. The Daphne Oseña-Paez article should be deleted and salted whoever she is and however notable she is. She of all people should know that this kind of thing is not what Wikipedia is for. It would probably hit the national press and that would help send out the message that such defiant, unscrupulous use of Wikipedia is not tolerated. So much for his 'reputation' management. We really need to put people like Ahn and this kind ouf thing out of business. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
PS: It looks as if (unless I'm mistaken)the laudatory blather about Ahn has already been removed from Oseña-Paez's blog. Makes me wonder who actually services that self-important blog for her; if it has gone, it happened pdq.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with Tarage. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in addition to single-account restriction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. MER-C 11:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Supported (pre-nom above). Widefox; talk 13:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I've made my views clear above so I won't repeat them again. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support Tony's editing choices at Philippine Prudential Life Insurance Company, where he (as Noraft) cited his own advertising agency ([12], an article written by Tony Ahn) is unacceptable conduct. This article ([13]) features an interview in which Tony Ahn discusses how he can use his business to generate sources for a topic before writing a Wikipedia article. And then there is this article [14] that mentions Tony Ahn & Co and how it "boasts a flawless record of nominating pages to the highly sought after “Did You Know?” section of Wikipedia’s main page." We would be better off rid of Tony and his employees, acquaintances, alternative accounts, socks, colleagues, cronies, and anything else. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Per this [15] Theroadislong (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, all accounts should be blocked. Wikipedia does not allow promotional editing, and Ahn shows no sign of wanting to edit in any other way (or even of understanding what that might mean). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Procedural discussion about block proposal[edit]

  • Procedural question Can a block be effected here or does it have to go to ANI first? I've seen some pushback lately from let's say vociferous editors about the use of COIN for other than strict article cleanup ☆ Bri (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
    • See also my comment on moving to another page above: moving an active discussion elsewhere mid-discussion is less desirable (although probably strictly speaking not impossible) per the WP:FORUMSHOP policy. OTOH, there's no impediment to invite ANI regulars here, similar to the invitation I already posted at WP:AN ([16]). I'd avoid to offer shortcuts to the !voting subsections though: if people are not interested in assessing the preliminary discussion, they should better not be !voting imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Invitations to participate in the discussion here were now added to ANI and the talk pages of the Noraft and I'm Tony Ahn accounts. I hope that puts it procedurally all in order. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I would say that the breadth of response here is equal to what it would have received at AN (where block requests normally go) and almost as broad as at ANI (where block requests rising out of existing discussions are located), so I do not see why a block can't arise from this -- all it takes is a consensus, and an admin willing to put that into effect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
        • @Beyond My Ken:See TParis's comments in the last Arb-Case.Winged BladesGodric 06:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
          Yeah, these ideas may have been presented vociferously (as Bri said), but they seem twice irrelevant here: not retained in final ruling, and no admin actions being under scrutiny in this COIN thread. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
          • You would be correct. The point behind all of those proposals was that the committee should not sanction an admin because this forum is not adequate. The committee implicitly rejected it twice: first by taking the case, which typically they do not do without prior discussion, and another time by not including those proposals in the final decision and by deciding to desysop an admin and levy sanctions against him and another non-admin editor. Loud objections to this noticeboard being used by one person do not make it an invalid place to have discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
      • The ANI posting appears to have been unnecessary overhead. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Bri and Francis Schonken: Block Ban proposals generally go on WP:AN Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
So there's no need to notify ANI etc. I think it'd be procedurally better so to speak and less controversial (and this would be controversial, I reckon) if it were done on AN. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
So actually I took a look WP:BAN, the policy on bans, and it says Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. So it's reasonably clear that it should be done on WP:AN Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
From WP:BAN (start of third paragraph of lead section): "Bans are different from blocks":
  • No bans have been proposed thus far (nor a general ban, nor topic bans, nor interaction bans, nor whatever type of ban): so whatever is said about bans in applicable guidance and policies doesn't apply (yet).
  • Up till now blocks have been proposed, and I still think treatment of these and other non-ban proposals, without at this point unwarranted forumshopping, to be the best course of action.
  • Whatever results from this discussion (or not) may be challenged afterwards, see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, where it is said that a challenged close of what is discussed here up till now should be treated at AN. So if something contentious results we'll be at AN anyhow. That's why the AN header says it "is for block reviews" (emphasis added), not for blocks themselves: having recourse at a different venue seems reasonable in that case.
We might consider moving shop to AN, abort the discussion about blocks and other measures here, and convert this to a full-blown ban proposal there. I'd oppose that, as long as the discussions here are active, measured, etc. Opening a different thread at AN, discussing ban proposal(s) while discussions here are still ongoing, would be FORUMSHOPpy at best since there's considerable support for the current proposals to address the situation (without needing to wield the banhammer): seems we might find broad consensus on some of the proposals, so I'd think a competing "ban" proposal, discussed concurrently, rather counterproductive at this point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can see, what is being proposed is a community block of all of Tony Ahn's accounts with a period of time before appealing. Aka a community site-ban, because there aren't any community blocks - as far as I know, an individual admin could do the blocks, but a consensus here wouldn't matter much. I know blocks are distinct from bans - they are used to enforce bans - but what is being proposed is pretty much a ban isn't it? Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Re. "Aka a community site-ban": no, there's no community site-ban being discussed here.
Re. "there aren't any community blocks": correct, nor are they discussed here. We're trying to gauge consensus on what would be the best way forward. Once there is consensus one way or another (or not) we can decide what to do next.
Re. "a consensus here wouldn't matter much": says who? WP:CONSENSUS is policy, and I propose to work within the framework of that policy. When we go forumshopping now (WP:FORUMSHOP is part of the WP:CONSENSUS policy), the forumshopped result may result in something that "wouldn't matter much".
Re. "what is being proposed is pretty much a ban isn't it?" – no, no editor would be banned from the site with the proposals that are being discussed here up till now, even if they would all pass. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I guess there is no real ban, but what I really am saying is that any uninvolved admin at their discretion could unblock him - this consensus wouldn't matter too much unless enacted as a community ban. It's not really forumshopping if it is going to the correct forum. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Up to this point I prefer to propose solutions that offer maximum latitude to negotiations, which includes keeping I'm Tony Ahn/Noraft in as a negotiating party if possible. If the result of that is that this contributor gets it easier to negotiate modifications to whatever is on the table now, I'm all in. So I'd still prefer that for the time being than having a competing community ban proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Other restrictions are being proposed - Please !voters in this section indicate the preferred minimum time delay for appealing if and when we'd come to a consensus decision here (I'd propose one year as being understood for those who don't mention an appeal delay period). This would be a formal prohibition from making certain types of edits on Wikipedia pages or a ban - and so definitely has to be done at WP:AN. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
after (edit conflict) Re. appeal delay proposal: yeah, maybe better to change that to "Standard unblock applies", according to the first block proposal that appeared in this section. I'll attend to it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Accounts that are brought to this page can be blocked without needing consensus by any administrator at their discretion if it is demonstrated that they are violating WP:PAID or WP:NOTSPAM. Most of these accounts have less edits than this one, but a consensus arising from COIN that an account has violated policies on advertising, paid editing, and conflict of interest is in my opinion valid grounds for a block. As noted, ArbCom did not comment on the proposals as to where the preferred forum for review of potential WP:ADMIN violations was, despite it being raised very vocally by one editor in the MisterWiki case. The harassment policy in particular prefers COIN as the venue for review of things involving off-wiki information that is not oversightable/covered by OUTING. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposal (move to AN for ban proposal)[edit]

Moot. Winged BladesGodric 13:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we move to WP:AN and discuss a ban proposal instead of the proposals above? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose moving the discussion to AN: I don't think a ban proposal would find enough support when less intrusive measures may find consensus & yield the desired result. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
How is blocking all of Tony Ahn's accounts any less "intrusive" than a site-ban? Is there any real difference? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the proposal.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh - you're against blocking all of the accounts but want to restrict him to one account? I think even that would have to be done at WP:AN, again being a restriction/type of ban. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Even the less invasive measures could be proposed at AN - they'd just be stronger, being community restrictions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a community noticeboard. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

But maybe I've got all this confused. Any admins etc want to weigh in how exactly the blocks etc would work it if say one of the proposed restrictions above was passed? My thinking is that moving to AN would give these restrictions teeth in that a consensus would be needed to overturn them rather than an individual admin. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Occam's razor and the KISS principle apply here: don't needlessly multiply complexities. If you find yourself going off on procedural and/or dramaboard tangents, take a few minutes to re-read the discussion itself, here. – Athaenara 15:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah yeah, but I do think that it is relevant in that any consensus here will be argued a lot more, leading more drama down the road IMHO than if it was done on AN which wouldn't be so hard to do. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
In say the recent arbcom case there were some complaints that it wasn't discussed on AN etc. Something similar likely here - and I really don't see the huge trouble in going to AN since the block proposal is pretty nascent.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
"... take a few minutes to re-read the discussion itself, here" seems to be some valuable advice given to you. Seems you didn't even read the content of the subsections in which you are commenting. The "complaints" in the recent arbcom case are linked to above, and I gave two reasons to dismiss them as irrelevant to this COIN thread. All of that in a subsection in which you commented. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose we issue quick blocks here for spamming all the time, I don't see why we cannot have a conversation regarding more complicated blocks here that are relevant to this noticeboard's purpose. There is a requirement for notification, which gives the users a chance to respond. This is the community noticeboard where things involving off-wiki adverts and other information that falls short of outing is preferred to be discussed per the harassment policy. Moving it to AN would unnecessarily publicize off-wiki information, which is acceptable here, but is not ideal in other forums. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I see no reason why we can't handle this here and now, and I know of no guidelines suggesting it can't. To start another discussion elsewhere and rehash the drama would be absurd. We already have enough work to do on Ahn's case and the endless combat of his kind of abuse of Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kudpung. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No need at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Web article detailing Tony Ahn's editing process[edit]

This 2014 article [17] by the Mumbrella features an interview with Tony Ahn in which he describes his editing methods. After reading it, I am thoroughly drained of any faith I could show towards I'm Tony Ahn. It may also be relevant to some of the votes going on above.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoting from it
"What if a client hasn’t had anything written about them?
This is an issue that isn’t impossible to get around. You have to have press coverage to get on Wikipedia. So I have placed articles in the press on behalf of clients. If you don’t have press, I can get you press – because I work in PR. I can set up an interview with a newspaper, and then write the Wikipedia article. If I have to get you two insertions, then the Wiki article it’s 75,000 Philippine pesos for the whole lot."
I've been saying for some time that interviews with the founder or ceo of a company in magazines are worthless for notability. I've been told by one of our other paid editors that there is essentially no magazine or newspaper where PR agents cannot place or at least suggest stories. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC) .
DGG, Indeed. Interviews are primary sources that are not intellectually independent of the firm. While you and I share a similar minority position re: the GNG, we thankfully already exclude them from notability even within the broken GNG system. This quote shows why we need to take a more critical eye for content the might also fall foul of WP:SPIP. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Rightly or wrongly, quite a few AfDs have considered them as one of the sources for GNG-- in earlier years, probably 1/2 of the times they were suggested, this past year, probably 1/4. So it will be very helpful to have the additional reason for not accepting them. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
We place profiles pieces too. There's no way to know whether any particular coverage you see came from a public relations pitch or not. And that's a reality you can't change, so you can deal with it or not. We are going to cease using Wikipedia in the next 24 hours. You may dispose of the User:Noraft and User:I'm Tony Ahn accounts as you see fit. I have no access to the other accounts tagged as suspected socks, so those people can appeal if you choose to ban them. That's their problem, I suppose. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
To be frank here, this whole Tony business is a blatant example of the difficulty (if not plain impossibility) in controlling for "honest" paid-editing. People who are in the business of writing articles for a third party will always support, at the heart of their contributions, the interests of the companies and persons paying them. There's no point in denying it.
Tony, or Noraft, claims that this is the end of "their" Wikipedia activity. I doubt it. It seems obvious that their company, and others like it, know enough of the tricks about the system to circumvent even permanent bans. They'll just create another account, because that's part of how they make their money. Why kill the cash cow?
Perhaps a better solution to this problem is indeed to increase the GNG requirements, specifically pertaining to the use of interviews as sole proof of notability. Even if it's just a band-aid on a larger wound, it's better than nothing...because simply banning Tony/Noraft is still doing nothing.--MarshalN20 🕊 02:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Along with GNG, we need to bolster NOT and Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources (which is still an essay despite so much policy depending upon it). --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 52#Improving the RS Guidelines regarding Lifestyle reporting was one of Ahn's many attempts to get Wikipedia to relax its encyclopedic standards and make it much easier for him to get his planted interviews or other items treated as WP:RS. – Athaenara 05:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Was that related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Tenner (2nd nomination)? ☆ Bri (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
His stab at making 'lifestyle' sources acceptable RS was in September 2016. The first Tenner AfD was in July 2016 (months earlier), the second in December 2017 (a year later). So, maybe, maybe not, doesn't matter anyway because he uses that approach for all his promotional work. – Athaenara 06:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello all! Thank you for calling my attention on this matter. I don't know who Tony Ahn is and am definitely not part of his firm. I've noticed that some of the pages (that were connected with Tony) that I've edited were either revised/deleted. Please let me know how I can help with this concern. Thank you. Nypheean172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) — Preceding comment signed as by Nypheean172 (talk · contribs) actually added by 222.127.18.108 (talk · contribs) 06:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Polkadot (project)[edit]

Borderline WP:N combined with promotional activity, copyvio, undisclosed COI, editor coordination, multiple accounts (AGF). Uhooep is not an SPA like the others, but as creator of two of the three articles it's possibly just coincidence. Widefox; talk 21:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, i'm not sure what the suggestion is of me being included here, however I have no connection to other wikpiedia accounts or COIs relating to the subjects of these articles. I have been editing Wikipedia on and off since 2014 on a range of subjects. I created Gavin Wood and Polkadot (project) because I have an interest in emerging blockchain technologies and cryptography. I feel Wood played an important role in the Ethereum project, much like Vitalik Buterin, who admittedly has a longer and more established bio. I created Polkadot (project) as a basic stub which I note has now been expanded by other users. I also note that multi-language versions of Polkadot have been created (not by myself), and my only involvement in the multi-language versions has been to update to a more recent picture of Wood. I also wish to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, and if Notability debates are considered necessary then I approve of such debates, but I would prefer to be exonerated from any multi-account or COI accusations as it's simply not the case. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions. Kind regards Uhooep (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Uhooep, let me be re-emphasise that I'm not suspecting your account of promotion but the others are all SPAs, but one account has disclosed meatpuppetry with an editor with a COI, and using multiple accounts. I couldn't list the cluster of articles without you as creator being mentioned and needing to provide you the mandatory notification, that's all. Widefox; talk 22:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Get a CU carried out and get it over and done with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sugo Music Group[edit]

Solid off-wiki evidence that Sugo Music Group is looking for an article on their CEO. I note that the corp article has all the hallmarks.. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bri:--Cleaned up.What are the prospects of an AFD? Anyway, clear-cut UPE.See Kenshoo.Winged BladesGodric 06:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Already prodded and proposed for speedy d by SamHolt6. Patient is unlikely to survive. ☆ Bri (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Alex Shih deleted page as an expired PROD? The PROD was just put now. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
And, Alex has corrected himself.Winged BladesGodric 07:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, that happen sometimes when there are multiple deletion tags on one page. Restored and deleted again under CSD. Alex Shih (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
On a side-note, the sole remaining creation looks to be UPE but I'm afraid that he passes WP:NACADEMIC.Winged BladesGodric 04:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
As there are no other substantial edits, and the editing clearly violates the terms of use, that's a sufficient reason for removal. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hongyuan Zha. Are we now using speedy delete in such cases? If not we might need a new speedy criterion, but AfD is still available. As he is notable, someone else might want to write an article eventually. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The progress will be interesting.Proposal for such CSD criterions regarding TOU violations/UPE have been rejected in the past.Winged BladesGodric 13:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

New sock farm[edit]

Related to a previously blocked farm that was CU confirmed and I blocked in November here. Current SPI reference is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seokochin. Below are the accounts. I don't have time to add articles now, but if someone doesn't get to them, I'll do it later tonight or this weekend. The accounts used both regular IPs and proxies.

Accounts

Thanks everyone for the cleanup help. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I deleted everything apart from 100 Happy Days, which had a rather suspect keep outcome at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Happy Days. MER-C 11:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Happy Days deleted G5. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Upwork job[edit]

This is a five day old request for G-Terra's bio to be posted on Wikipedia. This is the subsequent page creation by a five day old account. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

There's something I don't understand in the logs for G-Terra/G-Terr. Is this a workaround for page creation? ☆ Bri (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Block the author. delete and salt their creation(s). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Bri, he has 20 deleted edits.So, no tricks:) And, that was one of the most terrible jobs, I ever saw.Kudpung, isn't that G11-able stuff?!Winged BladesGodric 09:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Deleted, salted, blocked. MER-C 11:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Julia Duin[edit]

User:Kinnaret claims to be Julia Duin and is making changes to that article. Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 07:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Julia's edits seem harmless enough although she shouldn't be doing it. A gentle word, perhaps? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Done by Melcous. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

John Christodoulou[edit]

Eniberisha repeatedly removed cited content and added promotional stuff. They received a COI notice and warning, and stopped. Another new editor appeared, Somethings29, very likely the same person, and did more of the same. Left a COI notice to no effect. Repeatedly reverting is usually the most time-efficient way of dealing with this sort of promotional editing, but sometimes they are too persistent, as is the case here. Edwardx (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed both accounts. MER-C 11:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, MER-C. That was quick! Edwardx (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

DataCore Software Corporation[edit]

I think we have here a recreation of a salted article. Without admin privileges, it's hard to tell if there's a relation between the creators. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

There is an archived COIN discussion DataCore (COI & SPA)Bri (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Kudpung:--Any similarities? I checked OTRS details but that doesn't help much.Winged BladesGodric 16:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The deleted one and the new one bear little resemblance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Wes Nichols[edit]

Exceedingly promotional article. First COI, could be a mistake. scope_creep (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Scope creep: The user disclosed a professional relationship with the article subject on the draft talk page [20]. Also, you must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@AbeAbeModiin: Were you paid by Wes Nichols (directly or indirectly) to write an article about him? Please note that any writing on Wikipedia in exchange for compensation must be declared in the manner prescribed by WP:PAID. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Drm310. Will do. scope_creep (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
No need, I already did. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

There was a disclosure which they removed about a minute after. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Joeysdy[edit]

Joeysdy has a conflict of interest with Yidan Prize and the related Chen Yidan. The most obvious evidence are the following self-authored photos/promotional images:

File:The Worldwide Educating for the Future .jpg
File:Charles Chen Yidan.jpg
File:Yidan Prize Medals.jpg
File:Yidan Prize Summit 2017.jpg

I have warned this user at his/her talk page of the policy at WP:COI, but he/she has still not disclosed a COI and has been removing maintenance templates at Yidan Prize. This is a WP:SPA here to use Wikipedia for advertising, in contravention of the policy at WP:NOTPROMOTION. Citobun (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Michael Zasloff[edit]


Michael Zasloff is a promotional-sounding article with significant contribtions from Michael zasloff (talk · contribs) and Mzasloff (talk · contribs), two accounts apparently used by simultaneously by the subject of the article (the Michael zasloff account acknowledges being the subject in this edit). Three other articles that have a connection to Michael Zasloff, trodusquemine, squalamine, and magainin, have also been edited by these accounts to highlight Zasloff's contributions to the subjects. Itsashaunparty (talk · contribs) has made some promotional edits to the biography as well, and this account's edit history is suggetive of undeclared paid editing [citation needed]. Ekswet (talk · contribs) is another account that has added promotional material to the Zasloff biography [citation needed]. ChemNerd (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

As you can tell by my account history, I am still learning Wikipedia. Regarding this article, I am very curious as to which edits I made that are in anyway promotional. Most of my recent edits were simply adding citations. It appears to me, Chemnerd, that you are in no way familiar with Dr. Zasloff's continued contributions to the medical community. That is fine. However, I am curious as to which part of the article appeared promotional. Where was someone making money? Ihave never been paid to edit Wikipedia and never will accept payment to do so.

I have eclectic tastes an Zasloff's work excites me. On occasion, I'd make small additions to the article (see history). I noticed that another user recently had made schanges that seemed accurate but weren't well cited. I went through and added a few citations (see history). To be honest, I didn't even look at the History page to see who it was.

My wiki username is a handle I use for lots of social media -- even a gmail account Earlier today I was contacted by someone representing Dr. Zasloff. They nformed me as to teh situation. And it is a lot less sinister than you would have it appear. According to this person, Dr. Zasloff cam upon the article recently and made changes he thought were fit. Like most people, he was not nd is not familiar with Wikipedia's standards. To him, he was contributing to his biography. There's no profit motive.

This is how it was explained ot me, and I believe it. There is no evidence that says there was any funny business. itsashaunparty (talk) 5:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I worked all of those over. They were horribly promotional and obviously the product of conflicted editing. Jytdog (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Steve Down[edit]

Article seems to be guarded by user:Anon1-3483579, who edit's no other article. There has been an accusation in the past, about Anon1-3483579 who is supposed to be Clark Gardner, an former employee of Steve Down. There was an article on him, which I adf'd. Change history comment: Clark Gardner is no longer employed by Financially Fit. He was an independent contractor and not an officer of the company. Clark Gardner is Anon1-3483579. Clark Gardner has a restraining order against making edits to this page. scope_creep (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi scope_creep, I figured I'd give my opinion on the matter. I'd like to point out that the users which make such accusations are the same users who continue to vandalise the Steve Down page. And as of recently, because I've been busy, I've only been monitoring the pages I have edited in the past, which include honesty Lucky Strike Brachioradial pruritus and Gujarat International Finance Tec-City. The Steve Down page happens to be one I make the most edits on because of the continued vandalism that is always in my recent watchlist. Users continue to blank the page and copy paste advertorial material. But that's a different story that I think admins are aware of. I find it humourous that users have accused me of being Clark Gardner, as I, as you stated, created a separate page for the individual which contained information I would assume Clark Gardner wouldn't find favorable (as all the notable information on him has to do with his financial crimes). So I'm not sure what info you need from me, but I can assure you I'm not Clark Gardner. The only reason I created a page on him a while back was because it came up in information for the Steve Down page and I believed it warranted a separate page (others decided it wasn't notable, so be it). As I have repeatedly stated on my talk/user page and the Steve Down talk page. I have no personal interest in these subjects. I actually came across the pages that I monitor by browsing "random article." I am not entirely sure how Clark Gardner is involved with Steve Down other than his relation to Financially Fit, but I can assure I am not him. -Anon1-3483579 (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I hope so. You did say that to me right enough. scope_creep (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • i worked over the article. i asked Anon1-3483579 if they had any connection and they said no; seems to me based on their edits that they are editing contra WP:BLPCOI but they said they have no relationship. i have given them notice of the DS on BLP articles. that is all we can do for now. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

smartpillwiki.com and tipweightlossdiet.com[edit]

spamlinks blacklisted; spammer blocked Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All that this person is doing is trying to find ways to spam links to these websites into WP, including creating Intelligent pill and the current draft Draft:Smart pill. I have nominated the links for the spam blacklist but this person is NOTHERE and should be indefinitely blocked. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Note this comment left at my talk page. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Sambabkc is just one week on Wikipedia. Maybe he just have to learn the ropes and rules. This looks more a case of Wikipedia:Please bite the newbies. The Banner talk 23:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe u lern rite english gud won day! And good faith is not a suicide pact. The spamming is both blatant and persistent and if you look at the two sites they have similar design.Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
You can keep your insults with you, dude. Where did you explain to him what was good and what was bad? Nowhere, as far as I could see! So you are just hammering an newbie. The Banner talk 00:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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