Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 Lowercase sigmabot III.
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 by posting personal information here. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline. If private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can email with the evidence, or email any functionary for advice. Functionaries and members of the Arbitration Committee will review private evidence and take any necessary action.
  • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
  • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
  • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN declared COI editor 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:

Paul Atherton[edit]

user:Itsallnewtome has now four times removed the COI tag from the article Paul Atherton.[1] [2][3] [4]

The article Paul Atherton was created by user:Amanda Paul, an SPA interested only in Paul Atherton and the very small number of films where he was producer or director. "Amanda Paul" acknowledged "knowing" Paul Atherton and posted images to Wikimedia Commons as "own work" while listing the creator as Paul Atherton.[5] Amanda Paul stopped editing under that username in 2016, after questions from other editors about COI.

Unlike Amanda Paul, "Itsallnewtome" claims to have no personal connection to Atherton: "I was drawn to Atherton's Wikipedia page upon hearing about his Royal Court Judgement through the Disability News Service, as a disabled person I'm a subscriber." Nevertheless, the user has SPA editing focus on articles related to Paul Atherton and close acquaintance with details of Atherton's past including many that are not online [6] [7].

The promotional tendency of many of this user's edits also suggest a COI.[8] These are my reasons for believing that Itsallnewtome should not remove the article's COI tag -- but I welcome advice from others with more experience. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I gave the article a once-over and trimmed some items. Certain items had been puffed up to increase the ref count (a general description of Chronic Fatique Syndrome had three sources not related to the subject, for example.) To me this looks like paid or professional editing, but I say that in the least accusatory way possible, and direct it at no one in particular. It is certainly a promotional article, although it is fairly neutral. The editing is quite good, although whoever keeps putting spaces between the refs needs to stop that. User Itsallnewtome is exclusively and solely interested in editing articles on Paul Atherton, that is for certain. Perhaps some others can get to the bottom of it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I removed a Youtube source that led to Paul Atherton's Youtube channel. When I got to the source that was actually a letter to the editor form Paul Atherton, I started to agree with the idea that there is COI going on here. I wonder if Checkuser can help. I have added the autobiography tag, because who else but the article subject adds statements about them commenting in the press, sourced by a letter they wrote to a newspaper?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
It should also be noted that an image of the subject (now used on the article) was uploaded to the Commons by an editor using the name of the subject. This is quite the coincidence given the recent editing activity surrounding the article. SamHolt6 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@SamHolt6: Very interesting... then user Itsallnewtome updated the photo with the summary "Updated photo profile to one taken this year", or something like that.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The thing that sticks out to me is the weird referencing style, with the ref's wikicode broken into separate lines, and then improper spaces left between the refs. It's very distinctive. That was happening years ago in the article, and it has been happening recently too.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: As a new editor I've simply copy and pasted previous referencing styles amending with new information eg. adding a new publication title and details, in the hope of it being corrected if anything is wrong.
Although in truth, I've added barely anything to the article itself (amended a number of paragraphs, added depth to citations, included some images when subjects were merged without them & added the MECFS reference as I felt it read way better, which you've since remmoved), instead spending most of the time here on the talk page trying to discover what is and is not acceptable (the MECFS comment and references I did add and was a direct copy and paste, from the wikipedia page on the actual subject). It's taken ages to understand referencing styles, writing and debating, plus doing the research etc. and I'm still clearly not aufait with the environment. Why is there a Tiwtter citation template, when it's claimed by HouseOfChange that Twitter cannot be used as a reference for example?
After an initial discussions wtih Girth Summit here I sgned up with an account and I had hoped to improve this article by giving it more depth from offline sources (something one would have expected every editor to do, but seemingly doesn't happen). For instance HouseOfChange claimed certin things weren't available online in the first instance and I discovered them easily. They then spent some time researching (after the event) and discovered other sources online that they'd originally claimed hadn't existed
The hours I've invested on this endeavour has meant it would be impossible (unless I did nothing else) to even engage with another subject. I don't have a general interest in ANY subject, but I do in this. I've made that reasoning extremely clear in amy communications with everyone.
I managed to trigger a myriad of AFDs on Atherton's other work by engaging with this article and felt obliged to defend them. The conflictory nature of Wimipedia meant I've invested hours drafting responses to things, that I felt should have been addressed years ago by experienced editors. I certainly wasn't interested in getting embroiled with his cited work pages. I've not found this environment particularly supportive, I've consistantly asked questions to understand the right processes and why some things are accepted and others not and instead of assistance found silence or worse
The merging of articles Colour Blind, THe Ballet of Change & Our London Lives after the AFD's, was also done extremely poorly by experinced editors. seemingly duplicating referneces, not checking links etc.
And I constantly struggle to do the right thing, I notice that you've removed the profile links I submitted in respect to the Freelnace Journalist articles on the Londonist & Guardian (that were contextualised in a different way previously), which I did as there is more than one Paul Atherton writing journalistically and by-lined (which is what I stated in the edit summary), this seemed a logical position to take but has been interpreted by you as puffery for example.
I've spent hours on editors talk pages, debating such things as why the example of a National Film Archive given for purposes of notability isn't an actual Natoinal film archive (Just a list in the library of congress) which appears oxymoronic to me. I then tried to kick start a debate about films being collected into National Archives and museums making them notable on a speicialist page (after advice fron 4meter4 , but got precisely nowehre, because of the lack of interest by Wikipedia editors on the film pages.
When I first came to the article it read like someones extremely interesting and notable life, now it reads like a list of events with no coherent narrative.I think to best understand my engagement with the subject in is eactly the same way Russell Kane at Mens Radio Station does in his recent interview with Atherton there
I obviously keep a close check on Atherton's social media pages, as you'd expect anyone to do with an interest in their particular living subject. The photograph was discovered from that. The hornets nest I triggered being interested in Atherton's article, demonstrates I thnk, the main criticisms of wikipedia, in that a small group of editors have become dicatorial, swoooping in, only in cases where they can remove content, but never to engage with a discussion or a process on the subject itself. I removed the COI as the majority of this article has been re-written by HouseOfChange. My notes on the Talk page for doing so, I felt were concise and left the situation open for debate, yet garnered no debate there. Instead finding revesal of things I'm doing with no explanation. It feels that many experienced editors in this environment have forgotten just how hard it is trying to learn the myriad of things needed to do (especially now I understand that Bots are doing much of the work) to effectively contribute to the environment Itsallnewtome (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am not buying your polished explanation. It seems fairly clear that you are a promotional editor for all subject Paul Atherton. You edit nothing else, which is contrary to the idea of building a encyclopedia. it is also promotional editing, contrary to our policy of no promotion. People ask questions, and you reply with a huge wall of text. It's obfuscation, more or less.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: Sorry, am I to understand, that reasoned, honest (I told you this article was currently my only focus) evidenced answers are not what Wikipedia wants? Instead you believe, it's just your unevidenced opinion (please demonstrate what I've edited that would be considered promotional)? Mearly all of the changes you made to the entry, were to edits done by experienceed editors merging AFDs. I've barely edited the article myself, however you did take out a reference to an entire chapter in a book entitled "Crippled" referencing Atherton saying it was minor, and in so doing so you made my point about poor editing in this environment. This is an open source platform, whether I chose to focus on one subject deeply or write about many things that I know very little about, does not breach Wikipedia guidelines. People ask questions and I give them the weight and respect to answer detailed and as fully as I can. Obfusacation is the idea of avoiding answering the question, as such, do please show me how my response didn't answer your question? Whilst I'm doing my best to comply with all wikipedia guidelines you seem to breaching them all over the place. e.g. WP:GF, WP:DNB, WP:HA, WP:Civ, WP:PA & WP:5P4 to mention just a few. Itsallnewtome (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
For a "new editor", you certainly know a lot of policies and guidelines. I think WP:DUCK is thing one you should perhaps read. Please don't bother with another wall of text, as it wastes precious editor time.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I can read @ThatMontrealIP:. I have logic. It's not difficult to construct a valid argument quickly from what is available and accessible here. Somthing you clerlly have failed dismally to do. WP:Duck is meaningless in this context as you've not cited to what you are referring, either providing evidence or even example. Itsallnewtome (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

(Restart indent) @Itsallnewtome:, if you are editing like someone with a COI (and this is the point I think @ThatMontrealIP: makes by pointing to WP:DUCK), then the article should carry the COI flag as long as you continue to add promotional material while disputing the efforts of others to make it read more like an encyclopedia article and less like a resume/fanpage. It is your behavior at issue here, not your identity or your pure-as-a-lily motivation. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

And AGAIN I ask, can you point to the specific edits that I made you believe fall into that category (i.e. Promotional material)? I've asked you numerous times and as yet, have not received a response.@HouseOfChange: Itsallnewtome (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@Itsallnewtome: I mentioned two above when I filed this report: First, inappropriate puffery of Atherton's thoroughly trivial freelance op-ed writing. Second, this edit. In common with many other mentions of Atherton mistakenly used to expand this bio, it is clear the Private Eye writer mentions "Paul Atherton" not because he IS notable or because he DID something notable but as a briefly-named example of something else -- homelessness, disability, adoption, etc. etc. The same edit added several more impressive citations -- but they were all about CFS, none of them mention Paul Atherton at all. you have said that (in addition to tracking all his social media) you plan serious research to find offline sources about Paul Atherton. But how on earth did you find a squib from 2010 that mentions him? That is really impressive detective work.
Part of the problem is that your idea of what this article should look like is the chatty, promotional bio created by "Amanda Paul," where colorful OR does indeed give the impression of an "extremely interesting and notable life," as you say above. Wikipedia, however, publishes encyclopedia articles, not colorful lively bios. Please look at some other bios to learn what Wikipedia articles look like. Filmmaker Sam Masud and disabled writer Melanie Reid -- either one far more notable than Atherton -- nevertheless have short, factual bios. Their articles cite and link to high-quality, in-depth coverage elsewhere. People who want to learn more about Masud or Reid can find lots more information in those references. No such high-quality independent sources exist for Atherton's story -- he does not meet GNG -- he is barely notable based on NARTIST (two of his films were collected into archives.) Working on other Wikipedia articles would really benefit your desire to improve this one. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Dear @HouseOfChange: thank you. This has perfectly highlighted your bias against Atherton's article (something I still don't comprehend - eapecially as you claim to have no personal connection with him - I notice you've now challenged the copyright of the photo Atherton uploaded, without replacing it, which is surely something a respectable Wikipedia editor would have done?), your lack of understanding of British Media and your appalling research skills, really emphasises why you have no place in this conversation.
1. The Private Eye article wasn't something I added. I merely properly corrected a reference that existed on Atherton's page since it was placed there in 2010. There are two articles that followed in succession that have been referenced on Atherton's article page in repect to Private Eye Magazine, one entitled "Wheels of Misfortune" (which previously linked to a copy of the article on Keep and Share) and included a detailed news story on Atherton's battles with the DWP & a Homeless hostel in Brixton which is clearly signifficant, else it wouldn't have been covered by the journalist (that's further evidenced by the significant contributiion in the Housing Chapter of Dr. Frances Ryan's book Crippled Atherton has on the same subject) and the other "A Hostel Takeover" which came the following week (the reference being previously linked to a copy of the article on Issuu). I'd taken advice from @Girth Summit: on the best way of correcting this error, as copies of articles on thrid party sites are believed to breach copright and I used that advice to correct the problem by citing the article and publication precisely and dropping the link to the third party sites.
Rather, than as you try to imply, being a mere mention, half of the entire article is about Atherton's situation (the other about another disabled man being abused by Leonard Cheshire Homes), the Eye intervened to get his MP Chuka Umunna to personally address his issues with Lambeth Council. The seemingly unprecedneted follow up story (I've never come across this with the Eye before) was enitrely in respect to Atherton and his continued battles he was having to gain access to the property following the Eye's intervention.
2. Private Eye Magazine is one of the most politically influential publications in the British Isles and what you consider a "squib" as anyone who knows the publication will tell you is a fully fledged invetigative report by the extremely well known investigative journalist Heather Mills who was herslef impersonated by Heather Mills.
3. This is the article's contents, so the notion of notability has no bearing when adding evidenced information. Atherton's notability has already been established. This then is purely down to weighting, I'd argue that with one article in a publication of this calibre it would be enough, but with two I cannot see any sensible person arguing against that.
4. Again, I didn't add Atherton's freelance press articles, merely contextualised them differently, they had already been apportioned to the article when they'd been published. However, there seemed much confustion by some editors as to whether these articles were Atherton writing about himself, which they clearly were not, so I clariifed. As freelance bloggers and columnists like Dan Hodges get an entire article page to themselves, it's not clear, why you would be so degrading towards journalism when it comes to Atherton, maybe it's just your bias?
5. As already stated I did add the basic description of what ME/CFS was, directy from the Wikipedia page on the subject. That had nothing to do with referencing (as the references came with the quote), but was a stylistic choice to assist a reader about the condition, without having to leave Atherton's page to do so. Atherton was one of the main subjects in a documentary film about the condition entitled What About M.E?, so it's clearly significant to his personal life.
6. Some of the criteria for a biography as defined by Wikipedia (WP:BIO) is, as you know, "remarkable", "unusual" and "interesting" it's hard to see those words together without thinking "Colourful", but I've neither been salacious with my words nor efffusive and certainly not "chatty", but, as you know, I have always been open to discussion on style.
7. However, none of this evidences anything promotional or conflict of interest. Do you wish to present anything else to support your claim? Itsallnewtome (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@Itsallnewtome: I have stated my opinion, I hope other editors will also weigh in on whether or not you should remove the COI tag from Paul Atherton. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Just a general statement: editors who write like the above long walls of text are usually the article subject. SPA account, and a true crusade for the article with extreme minutiae. I can't see how any other person would be able to maintain such a fervent defense of a middling notability subject. The autobio tag is appropriate.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for being slow to chime in on this - it's a hectic time of year for me, I've hardly logged in over the last week or so. I have been pinged a couple of times in this discussion, so I'll briefly set out my thoughts:
  • I had a long conversation with User:Itsallnewtome on my talk page earlier in the year (now archived here). Their position was that they had no connection to the subject of the article, or to any of the previous accounts that had edited the article, they were just a Londoner who had an interest in the subject. Bearing in mind WP:OFWV, I was prepared to AGF and believe this.
  • I expressed my view that the subject of the article is probably just about notable, but that much of the article (at the time of that conversation) was poorly-sourced promotional material and coatracking, and that it should have been stripped back to a stub. The current version of the article is a lot better, but I haven't been through the history exhaustively to see who is responsible for which improvements. I still think there are things that should be cut - for example, I don't see why we are naming family members who aren't independently notable - but this isn't the place to discuss that.
  • Itsallnewtome's editing history does seem quite single-minded - since creating their account back in August, they have been exclusively interested in our articles about Paul Atherton and his films. There's no policy against that, but this particular article has had a history of SPAs working on it, which is bound to raise eyebrows. If we assume that Itsallnewtome really is a new editor, whose interest in this article is entirely coincidental, their indignation at these suggestions is perhaps understandable; however, rather than making critical remarks about experienced editors (some of which above border on the offensive), they should perhaps recognise that the history of the article, combined with their singular interest in it, is bound to make other editors suspicious.
I don't have a view on whether Itsallnewtome has a COI - the behavioural evidence, to my mind, does point towards a connection, but it doesn't seem cast-iron to me, and I'm not sure whether a Checkuser would be able to help - I'm no expert, but I think that the IP data necessary to connect their account with previous SPAs would no longer be available. Given the ambiguity, I'm not sure that any sanctions are called for here, but I would suggest that Itsallnewtome adheres very closely to our guidance on collaborative editing, and avoid reverting other editors or removing tags without gaining a consensus to do so first. GirthSummit (blether) 19:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: Rather than do a checkuser against the antique edits of Amanda Paul (who was better at spelling and typing than Itsallnewtome) I suggest a checkuser against the edits made on November 19 by Itsallnewtome on en-wiki and the upload by self-identified "Paul Atherton" on the same date to Wikimedia Commons of the now-deleted copyvio image that Itsallnewtome added to en-wiki on December 13. But my point here is a narrow one (why I filed here rather than at SPI), the article has suffers from repeated COI editing and a warning tag (COI or AUTOBIO) should not be removed by Itsallnewtome. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
On the other hand, SPI may not be definitive. Between the disappearance of Amanda Paul and the appearance of Itsallnewtome, Paul-Atherton-fans had brief sprints of editing from several different IP addresses in London (e.g. adding Atherton's name to article,expanding bio, and AfD participation from a computer in an Apple Store. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
It definitely seems like an SPI with a dash of CU is in order. If I understood all the machinations here more clearly, I would file the SPI myself. HouseOfChange? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

(restart indent) The article has been trimmed of most puffery, trivia, and coatrackery by ThatMontrealIP and by me, so I removed to autobio tag. The early life section is still too long and detailed, but because it is based on resources now offline, I hesitate to trim it.

Continued advocacy to expand the article comes from Itsallnewtome (most recently that Atherton should be considered a "comparable figure" to Samuel Pepys.[9]) I don't think that editor (or any future Atherton SPA arriving from London) should in future edit this article. It will be great also if his talk-page suggestions focus more on items covered by RS that we might have missed seeing and less on trying to demonstrate the inadequacy of current Wikipedia editors and policies. @Girth Summit:, what do you think? HouseOfChange (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, ThatMontrealIP It seems too much of a stretch to accept that it is a coincidence that Atherton logged in himself to add an image to Commons, and that Itsallnewtome then immediately added it to an article, unless they are either the same person (either Atherton, or a different person who falsely claimed to be Atherton when they uploaded the image to commons), or two people coordinating their editing. I'm no expert on SPI, but I'm not sure about the right way to approach this - the Paul Atherton account is a commons account, so a local CU might not be in a position to investigate. I'll ask a CU for some advise on this.
With regard to the content of the article, I agree that it's in a much better state now, you've done a lot of good work trimming away unnecessary/improperly sourced content. The suggestion that we start padding out the article with the content of his diaries is obviously a non-starter, unless independent sources discuss them (which is, after all, the only reason we would discuss the contents of anyone's diaries.) GirthSummit (blether) 12:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Update: Itsallnewtome seems to have stopped editing (as did Amanda Paul after questions were raised about COI.) I greatly respect the reasoning behind WP:AGF but when one particular article has a decade-plus pattern of getting puffed by SPAs, I am grateful for this noticeboard as a place to seek clarity. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@HouseOfChange: @ThatMontrealIP: I've been waiting for you to finish your investigations before reattmepting to edit any further. As Atherton's Video-Diary is currently aceepted as the only, into the Museum of London and has been on public display there too (as too Samuel Pepys a comparison, that the Museum made, that's why I used it as an exmaple). I can totally understand why so many people quit trying to edit here. A lot of effort for no reward, is not how most people work. Equally, as stated, all my focus has been on offline material - let me know when you've sorted yourselves out with your invsetigations and I'll supply you with the information I've gathered together from archives to date (it's the first day back in work here following the Christmas Break in the UK for the Canadian & US editors amongst you). Itsallnewtome (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Please do not edit the article Paul Atherton but post your suggestions to the article talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Itsallnewtome:I think it is pretty clear that you have a COI. Your single minded pursuit of things only Atherton does not make sense. Only people like the article subject pursue subjects like this and contribute so much intricate detail. Your username doesn't reflect yoru editing skill, which is considerable. But it is skill that is consistently directed towards Paul Atherton. I agree with @HouseOfChange: that the best route is for you to just edit via edit requests on the talk page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC) (plus slight refactoring of wikicode to make pings work, by HouseOfChange) HouseOfChange (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


User:Morbidthoughts has written, edited, or argued against the deletion of many pornographic performer articles. Flickr accounts and other media suggest that Morbidthoughts works as a promoter, photographer, or otherwise within the pornographic industry.--NL19931993 (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am a freelance photographer, and I take photos of people in pornography. But you already knew that when you first approached me and got rejected. [10][11][12][13]. Thanks for the bad faith retaliation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
My purpose in contacting you was to work for the betterment of the project for article which meet Wikipedia's standards. My point is that your personal interest in the subject area appears to cause you to want to keep articles which do not meet Wikipedia's standards and which are not encyclopedic.--NL19931993 (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh you mean like these?[14][15][16][17][18] How did those nominations help improve the project again? Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
[aside] It's rather disingenuous to ask ([19]; SFW) a photographer to "temporarily change the licence so images can be uploaded to Wikicommons", when that involves making an irrevocable release. I'm disturbed to see our project misrepresented in this fashion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
NL19931993 is now blocked for sockpuppetry. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Resolved: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


Without trying to "out" this editor, there appears to be a connection to the London Chamber of Commerce in London, Ontario. Please see [20]], [21], and [22], as well as several edits to London, Ontario. I left a COI message on this editor's talk page, and their response was that there is no COI. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree: it appears to be a rather clear-cut case of COI, and most likely of the paid type. Denial does not change facts. The chances that this editor has no COI with at least some of the edited articles are negligible. --JurassicCrawler (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Help with cranial nerves[edit]

Hello all. I would like to ask for advice and help relating to a COI editor above. Summary of the situation

  • Active during 2015
  • Removed a fair amount of content from cranial nerve article
  • Changed 25 citations on that page to a book of the editor's authorship
  • Published an article in the journal of anatomy [23]
  • Ceased editing

I was reviewing the good article cranial nerves following a comment by Zmvictor and was disheartened to see how it has deteriorated. I did note this with the editor at the time [24] but only really in retrospect have I noticed the amount of damage and, with greater awareness of COI a few years on, I'd like some advice about how to repair it and anything else that needs to be done. With my retrospectoscope I think I may have been overly deferential to a claimed expert editor. Thanks for your help. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

AnatomyCzar has not edited in four years, so there is no pressing COI issue here. If you feel an earlier version was better, then revert to that version. Also, just a friendly note that connecting offsite articles with author names to WP editors ( I am not sure which one you're connecting it to, and please do not say) is not allowed per WP:OUTING. OK I see here that the editor points to his own publication. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I have added the WP:SPA Ijaz Mahmood.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. I've done my best to revert the COI editing (eg replacing citations without changing the text) but preserved helpful edits.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Sidemen and KSI (entertainer)[edit]

Appears to be associated with KSI, sometimes removing sourced content, posting promotional, unsourced content or content sourced to twitter and primary accounts, and covering numerous related articles: [25]; [26]; [27]; [28]; [29]; [30]; [31]; [32]; [33].. In part, using Wikipedia articles to chronicle tiresome and often non notable arguments between group members. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I would add Zaydx to this. They are clearly coordinating with Timwikisidemen, based on this: [34] Hugsyrup 16:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm adding a related article, W2S; though there are many, this is newly relevant because it's another member of Sidemen, and the edits are new, made since this report. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
It's looking like it's a problem with all sidemen related articles. Idan (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I’m not sure what the correct course of action is here, but there seems to be a group of editors who are closely coordinating on these articles. I’m leaning away from them being sock puppets because of the talking to each other (though of course that is sometimes used by SPs to misdirect) but this edit by Masterpk404 on Zaydx’s talk page [35] followed immediately by undoing it does slightly smack of accidentally doing something while forgetting which account you’re logged in as... But would be good to get input on whether any of this is actionable, or just needs keeping an eye on for now? Hugsyrup 08:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok ignore me. In the least surprising turn of events imaginable, the users listed above are confirmed socks and have been blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Timwikisidemen Hugsyrup 08:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I think admin misses blocking the master User:Timwikisidemen, it's because I missed to include him to the list, just the title. RicherMan66 (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, masters aren’t always blocked - the reason being that blocks are preventative, not punitive, and you could argue that once the socks are blocked, the disruption has been prevented. I think often you would only block the master if they had shown themselves unwilling to stop socking. From what I’ve seen, though, admins take wildly different approaches to this, and it’s not unusual for the master to be hit with an indef block first time round. And you formatted it correctly - title should be master, socks in the list. Hugsyrup 09:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Timwikisidemen is NOT anybody's master, and is unrelated to the two blocked users Zaydx (talk · contribs) and Masterpk404 (talk · contribs). I have more suspicion over someone whose first edits declare themself to be a WP:SPA and file an SPI report.
Hugsyrup, the report wasn't formatted correctly. The page headers were missing so there was nothing linking to Tim in the report. It's easier to use Twinkle to be sure it's been filed correctly. As for the length of blocks, admins can see deleted evidence, and checkusers can see (but are forbidden to talk about) links to IP accounts. It's futile to try and double guess what went into the block decision. Cabayi (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Fraudulent AfCs[edit]

CEOs, owners, presidents or founders
Other individuals

There's a blocked sock who accepted all of the above AfCs. They are tied in to ADJEAD sockfarm I have a much larger list at User:Bri/COIbox92 which I'm going through for more likely bad-faith creations and/or accepted articles. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Real nice black eye for the rest of us at AfC.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Richard J. Arsenault appears to have been an autobiography, according to a malformed disclosure at User:1zstone. Would it be appropriate to draftify it and require resubmission through AfC. There is only one other substantial editor (SPA). ☆ Bri (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I would say so. I looked and these articles appear to be all over the board. I am not sure of the M/O of the blocked user but if they were approving submissions for their own benefit, they likely approved others that were not for their benefit. I would support moving anything to draft that may be questionable in the least. Unless it is clearly notable then ship it back to AfC and we will get to them when they come up in queue. We can then weed out the good submissions from the nefarious ones. Just my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I searched my list for biographies matching one or more of these criteria:

  • SPA creator
  • few or no co-editors
  • writing style and other matches for WP:Identifying PR
  • has been tagged as promotional
  • weak notability
  • media irregularities (copyvio/pro headshots especially)
  • explicit call-outs as "expert"

The matching entities are added to the articles list above. Bri.public (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

watch out also for minor awards, lack of exact dates for degrees & positions, and, for this particular editor (or group), disproportionately long lede sections. ,
Bri, there are several possible ways of handling these, and we need to decide so we do not work at corss purposes:
They can be improved into articles. (If we do this , I suggest we be even more drastic than usual in removing promotional material, PR references, and uncited BLP. )
They can be returned as is to draft space (best done by commenting out the cateogries, etc.)
They can be listed for deletion. If they're so promotional they would need complete rewriting this would be the usual (and I think the best) course, no matter how they got into WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
It will just cause confusion if w work at cross-purposes doing different things to the same articles. I suggest we indicate here who is taking responsibility for handling them which way. I'd also advise not adding categories etc .which will just have to be removed when re-draftifying.
I shall personally check all the academics tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@DGG: I agree, having a unified and considered response to this case and cases like it is important. That's why I brought this up here instead of acting solo and in haste. It's also important to improve the integrity of AfC and help prevent future incidents, if there's a path under which that is possible.
Your triage process is agreeable to me; in fact I've already implicitly done it by not listing every single article that was approved by this actor. I'd prefer to leave the rest that are listed in COIbox92 alone. Which isn't to say they are good articles; in fact they are mostly pop-culture dreck. However, our pop-culture articles generally are dreck, so they are unremarkable dreck. Bri.public (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
By the way, I noticed anomalies in these article histories. Acceptance was virtually on the heels of the last edit by the creator. Would one expect that in a randomly chosen, neutrally reviewed AfC where the queue is many thousands of articles? I've notated the time deltas above. Bri.public (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Of those who might be considered academics,
Atayants & Homan are notable,, and the articles are not unreasonable.
Polenova is notable , but the article needs substantial trimming. It's an edited translation of the Russian article--bios of this sort in the ruWP tend to be quite excessively personal by our standards.
Druzhinin is also notable . Our article is a adequate shortened revision of the Russian article (The German article is a more sophisticated expansion
Corado is notable (one of his booksi s from Harvard UP) , but the article needs to be rewritten. It's less competent than others in this group.
Yasmin is not notable as a physician, but as a journalist. I think the article is rather promotional
I'm moving Corado and Polenova & Yasmin back to draft, but the others are good enough for mainspace.
Looking at the Russian articles, whoever translated them has a decent knowledge of Russian and English, and knows Russian academic culture and the enWP--they kept in only what counts, which naïve translators do not. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
rechecking some articles that at first I thought potentially good enough for mainspace, I have returned Dmitry Zinn to Draft as most of the article ins unccited, and also Seema Yasmin, as some of the statements there have been difficult to verify. I may also move Slice --it's notable because of the NYT ref, but most of it is PR.
DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@DGG: Maybe you use a script and don't need this, but I'm preparing some text for user feedback on the draftified articles. The message will look like this:
An article you recently created, [[DRAFT:ARTICLENAME|ARTICLENAME]], had an improper review and is not ready to remain published. I've moved your draft to [[Wikipedia:Draftspace|draftspace]] (with a prefix of Draft: before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]] and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~~~~
edit summary will be: something like Draftified article due to improper AfC review by sockpuppet. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to work something out. Yours is better, and I'm going to use it. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Credit where credit is due: It's adapted from Evad37's MoveToDraft script. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@DGG: The editor has apparently simply copy/pasted Energa back. At the least, this is WP:Cut and paste move, bad from attribution point of view, but should they be admonished to go through AfC? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
This is getting more and more common. I did what I usually do, which is delete it as G6, improper move from draftspace. Since the ed. seems a possibly good faith editor in addition to whatever paid editing they has done . I left a friendly notice. If its not a good faith editor, I leave a warning. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Reminders about verification[edit]

As hints in reviewing for COI (and reviewing generally):

Emmy awards: Most Emmy awards are from a particular chapter. This needs to be stated. it also needs to be stated which pf the many categories it was for. Emmys are not like the Academy Awards--there are a remarkable number of them, very similar to PR-based awards. It also need to be verified if it was an award, not just a nomination.
Pulitzer awards: Most pulitzer awards for news coverage are to a team, not an individual. This information is often omitted.
Degrees : Dates are needed for verification. Watch out for "studied at", "attended", and "studied [art, music,....]". They do not necessary imply a degree. This is especially true for business executives, as there are a great many short executive education programs leading only to a "certificate". Some are only a few weeks long. This is the case even for the most prestigeous schools, such as Harvard.
Positions Dates are needed. They need to be in chronological sequence. The most recent and most notable can be in the lede, but the whole sequence is needed. (this is a basic rule for evaluating CVs in the Real World also--watch out for gaps) DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing from Buzzinga Digital[edit]

Undisclosed paid editing ring operated by Buzzinga Digital (, a marketing firm founded by Yashraj Vakil. There is an active sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BuzzingaWiki. Thanks, MarkH21, for filing the report that exposed this operation.

I'm continuing to search for affected accounts and articles. Feel free to add to the list above. — Newslinger talk 09:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Search complete. The SPI might reveal other accounts that don't use the word "Buzzinga" in their usernames. — Newslinger talk 10:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Added Weikfield Foods from the SPI. — Newslinger talk 08:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


A website called Vakilsearch ( is closely linked to Buzzinga Digital. This domain was blacklisted in October 2018. See the COIBot report for details. — Newslinger talk 21:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Mark Mattson[edit]

I came to this via an WP:RfPP request. LogicandProportion has been adding content that has been reverted as "Per talk, all unsourced or sourced to Mattson's own works". User has messages about their possible COI on their talk going back to 2016, including a COI notice from Jytdog. User seems focused on Mark Mattson and related topics. -- Deepfriedokra 11:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Far too much material was removed. I added some material from the NIH. I'll add his papers, and the list of his degrees. . Regardless oft he puffery, he is actually extremely notable. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Mahatma Gandhi Central University protest[edit]

Primary editor has written a very detailed description of the event, but is strongly connected to the subject. I've asked him to find some other editors neutral to the subject to scrub the article, but he insists that the article is non-neutral and notable and has provided lots of references. Is there a place where I can request a neutral editor to rewrite / unbias the article? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

As I can see this page has been deleted. If you want I can rewrite this article in my words. --HRC491 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Shashikala Dani[edit]

Moved from WP:AIV: ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Account is being used only for promotional purposes. Shashikala Dani. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 13:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Scrum (software development)[edit]

User simultaneously says that he is 'not advertising or being paid for my edits' and 'I work for Ken Schwaber and he is the creator'. Seems contradictory to me. Thoughts? - MrOllie (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, definite COI regardless of whether or not their edits are PAID. Not strictly a contradiction, since paid editing , as I understand it, means that the editor needs to be paid for editing Wikipedia - an enthusiastic employee editing a Wikipedia page when it's not part of their job isn't paid editing. Either way, they need to start making edit requests on the talk page and stop editing the article directly. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 17:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I would agree with that. Classic coi and edit requests are the ideal mechanism for this approach. scope_creepTalk 17:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Two more apparent employees:

More discussion on my talk: User_talk:MrOllie#Removal_of_content_for_Scrum_(software_development)_written_by_Ken_Schwaber There is a bit of resistance to using the article talk page. MrOllie (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I do not interpret his statement as an unambiguous denial of WP:PAID. There are multiple possible scenarios: He may work for a PR firm that is being paid for its edits, he may be an employee and his job is pr for Schwaber or his firm generally, .... DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I've started a SPI report. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

New Acropolis[edit]


Besides the mostly-SPA behavior, Giladsom seems to be connected to the organization. If an admin cannot find the obvious evidence, let me know if it needs to pointed out by private email. Instead of acknowledging COI guidelines, the editor is deflecting the issue pointing to other users instead. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarification on CoI[edit]

Hi all, one of the new editors has explained their relationship with Isha vidya which as per their website is a subsidiary of Isha Foundation run by Jaggi Vasudev. Is this covered under WP:COI. (also ping WBG )--DBigXray 22:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • The editor has shown a great example of the tu quoque fallacy. And as a patron of a children's rural education non-profit run by the Foundation, they have a COI. - Bri.public (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I am an involved editor and can't appear to make an objective judgement; however, agree with Bri. There are other aspects of COI as well. WBGconverse 03:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I am also involved and I too agree that editor has COI and TBAN over Jaggi Vasudev, broadly constructed is better for them.— Harshil want to talk? 03:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi all! New here! Could some one explain what I'm missing here? I've not made any edits that are non-factual, or opinionated. Isha Vidhya is a separately registered Non-Profit, and this disclosure has been made voluntarily at the beginning of the Draft of Isha Vidhya article, which was taken down in a mass nuking. Appeal to dismiss the COI and reject the TBAN here.
Moreover, all my comments and edits have been compliant to norms, both mandated and social, with proper attributed comments. If there's a valid reason, please explain a proven instance of misconduct or violation than what construes as a witch-hunt. Thanks :) KP (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
If any, WBG's page has a shown demonstrated pre-inclination towards Atheism bordering on hate for all organised religion. To quote a quote from the user's home page "Religion, a medieval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms." If any, it seems that it is this bias that has lead a lot of opinions to be construed and misrepresented as facts in the Section "Politics, Religion and Pseudoscience", a policy unambiguously violated multiple times, and defended by users User:DBigXray and User:Bbb23: in page Jaggi_Vasudev. I'll be happy to talk about why the edits were made, and let people decide if I've exhibited any bias, or if it is indeed a systematic tag-teamed vandalism and bullying targetting the two pages and now, me. Thanks! KP (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This thread is to determine whether you have a conflict of interest with Jaggi Vasudev and any derivatives, thereof. It appears that you have one (per the commentators till now) and you need to abide by WP:COI which (in a nutshell) means that you can't edit these pages anymore at own whims and need to *always* vet your proposed content past neutral eyes. This is not the proper place for discussing a TBAN, fwiw. As to me, that's a quote from a widely acclaimed author and extrapolating that to infer my hate about organised religions is nonsensical. Fwiw, Sadhguru's cult falls under NRM, which ain't exactly a religion. Yet again I will say that NPOVN and the relevant t/p(s) remain open for you (and other CO-afflicted editors) to debate any content. WBGconverse 10:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, for the explanation, User:Winged Blades of Godric per your counsel, will try to add a NPOVN on the two pages for your edits. So, is there a follow up to this? Could you guide me about how I can contest this decision of COI? Thanks! :) KP (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This discussion (which is in-progress) aims to determine whether you have a COI or not. Feel free to make your case over this thread, about why a patron of an organisation can be deemed to not have COI with it. WBGconverse 15:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@KumareshPassoupathi: I didn't want to spell this out, but maybe it's best if I do now. A conflict of interest exists if you have an outside interest that may not be aligned with the interests of Wikipedia. Since you have declared that you are a patron of an organization, we can infer that you are interested in its success and its being portrayed positively. That presents the conflict. This would be true for anyone in the same position, not just you. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bri: Thanks for taking the time out to explain this! I feel the relationship seems a bit of a stretch, but I'll comply. Would this also mean that I shouldn't participate in Talk Page discussions on the articles as well? KP (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@KumareshPassoupathi: You can absolutely participate in talk page discussions on articles with which you have a COI. Perhaps this guide for COI will help; see the first three bullets of "Summary" in particular. — MarkH21talk 08:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@MarkH21:! Thanks for taking the time out to help me understand! I'll follow these guidelines! Thanks again to the other users, Bri, WBG, Harshil169 and User:DBigXray for helping me get here! :) Happy Wiki-ing everybody!

Eurasia Group[edit]

Hi! Happy new year! I looked at consultancy articles and saw some edits made to the Eurasia Group page. I was advised about the outing policy, so I will avoid linking to the individual in question. However, there is ample indication that an employee of said company is editing those articles. Please advise as to how to proceed, as I am quite new at this. Thank you, PK650 (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds logical but do be careful with accidental WP:OUTING. I imagine there are a dozen or more Brian Harpers in every major city.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Varsity College[edit]

I found this one too. ConversationLAB is actually a PR firm, which would also make those edits blatant UPE. Best, PK650 (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

If there's a COI issue here, it would be with Varsity College (South Africa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), since the only edit to Varsity College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is just a redirect hatnote. When the edits were made, the Varsity College article was about the SA school, not the AU one. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, I got the links mixed up. I think you're mistaken about the sequence of events though: the user appears to have initially tried to entirely replace the content of the Australian school (Varsity College) with their ad-like content for the SA university. This was obviously reverted. They then added links to the university's website on the Bachelor of Commerce article, edited Adrian Gore's biography, and finally edited Varsity College (South Africa). Best, PK650 (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Sue Hadjopoulos[edit]

Editing biographical and related articles, and engaging in edit warring upon removal of promotional content. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I've started a SPI at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rflans. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Nicholson Baker[edit]

Three recent edit summaries—one at 21:16 and two others 50 minutes apart—suggest that User:Wageless is editing his own BLP, Nicholson Baker. This raises WP:COISELF. Please remind him of Wikipedia's behavioral guideline in this regard. NedFausa (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of the conflict of interest guidelines - the thing was that somebody had (bizarrely and falsely) edited the article about me to say that I'd gotten a divorce from my wife of three decades, naming her, and that I'd moved to South Florida following the divorce. I wanted to correct it right away, and did so, after deliberately logging in and indicating that I was doing the editing in the edit summary. Somebody then wiped my edit saying it was unsourced. I sourced it, again being clear that I was doing it. I have never edited my own article before (even though I would like to)--but the quick correction of obvious vandalism seemed okay. I also corrected my place of birth, which has been corrected before. (Born in New York City, not Rochester.) That seems to be a simple mistake. The edit saying that I'd gotten a divorce happened back in October; someone emailed me about it on Jan 7, 2020. The edit first appeared here: and was done by, who seems to be in Columbus, Ohio. The user previously vandalized the Jonestown article, changing "Jim Jones" to "Bert and Ernie." Thank you. Nicholson Baker —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
NedFausa, this seems very much like the kind of edit that falls into the exception to WP:COISELF if "the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly." Going forward, if this occurs, Wageless should follow the rest of the guidance, and "follow [the edit] up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons, or the talk page of the article in question." I've added the article to my watchlist. If this issue pops up again, we can get it protected from IP editing. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@Wageless: You probably forgot a single edit in 2013 and another in 2014, but no matter. You might want to know about the procedures outlined at Wikipedia's advice for subjects of biographies. Bri.public (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks BubbaJoe I will follow the guidelines going forward. Yes Bri.public thanks for reminding me: in 2013 I corrected my college major (it was English, not Philosophy), which nobody else was likely to know and which reporters had gotten wrong, and in 2014 I added a more up to date photo (which was then removed, even though my son took the picture). I've never done rewriting or fiddling or tweaking, though, only these few factual fixes. Nicholson Baker Wageless (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

K Stephen Bailey[edit]

Username is the exact same as the registered agent of said organization. I have no issue with paid contributors, and they are new, so I gave them 24hrs to disclose the connection. Per the terms this goes against WP:PAID. I personally do not recommend a perma-ban, just a topic ban until disclosure is made. Jerod Lycett (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

They disclosed with "I have worked here for 40 years", but need to follow the formal process. Bri.public (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The edits were primarily copyvio from the NMA website (went from 1% to 88% on earwig), so I reverted them. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The Gardens at SIUE[edit]

The Gardens at SIUE (Redacted)

I am a novice at editing Wikipedia. This week I updated information on the page for The Gardens at SIUE, using the email address for The Gardens ((Redacted)). I am a retired administrator at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, volunteering in the role of Chair of The Gardens Advisory Board. My intent was to update some misinformation on The Gardens Wiki page which indicated the gardens property had been leased to the City of Edwardsville. I am not paid for my work for the board and am not promoting The Gardens through the Wiki page. We have many other ways we promote The Gardens (website, Facebook page, Instagram) and have no intention of using Wiki for this purpose. It would be helpful if I could update the Wiki information sometime in the future and I can do so, using my personal email address if that is a better approach. My personal email is (Redacted).

Thank you, Marian Smithson — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Geophysical planet definition[edit]

I previously reported this at the edit warring noticeboard [36], but it was recommended that I bring it here instead. Nasaman58 has previously been referred to the COI noticeboard [37], but that discussion fizzled without any conclusion. At the time I was on the fence about whether there was a COI issue. I am not generally averse to scientists editing articles about their own work, but in this instance it is becoming an issue with using Wikipedia as a soapbox to push an idea. Nasaman58 has repeatedly removed wording from the opening of the article about the geophysical planet definition being a proposed definition ([38], [39], [40]). The proposed geophysical definition has some high profile and very vocal advocates, but I don't see evidence that it has seen much adoption outside its circle of advocates. As such these persistent changes both seem incorrect with the potential to cause confusion, and like an attempt to elevate the status of this proposed definition. Nasaman58 has ignored multiple attempts to engage them in discussion ([41], [42], [43]) such that I feel I have no option but to ask for some external action. The interjection of Nasaman58 is particularly aggravating now because it seemed that, after an exceptional amount of discussion on the Talk page, the article seemed to have finally stabilised. To save people jumping to the old COI listing, the reasoning behind the listing is that the username is the same as the twitter handle of one of the authors of the proposed definition. Nasaman58 doesn't seem to be active very often so this listing would likely need to stay up for longer than usual to give them some chance to respond, but given their previous lack of response to just about anything I'm doubtful they would engage this time. Physdragon (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

No comments at all? Physdragon (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Dz369 and Peter Miller (Literary Manager)[edit]

The editor has exclusively edited articles on authors and books to add representation by Peter Miller. The editor has created a promotional article about the literary agent and claims no conflict of interest, but that's highly dubious based on editing activity. — MarkH21talk 22:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Earl W. Bascom[edit]

Single purpose account to promote Earl W. Bascom and introduce this commercial website which sells Bascom-related products. Has not responded to COI notice and continues to add the promotional website, as with this edit, and in the past, this edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Saad Anjum[edit]

I am a first time writer on Wikipedia. I wrote an article Saad Anjum and I did put the COI code in my talk section. I wanted it to be peer-reviewed and if someone can tell me the chances of my article being published. SaadAnjum (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Your draft has already been deleted, so it's not possible for me to review it. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Since I'm an admin, I took a look. It contained the parraph " He currently is trying to get bigger in the talent industry and setting his goals to be in more campaigns, productions, short films, and commercials as an actor and model. He is trying to expand and grow his modeling career with his goal to sign with Ford Modeling Agency. He is also trying to expand and grow his acting career with his goal to be in his own big-hit action movie in the future and be a A-List Actor." followed by a list of minor roles. This is self--promotion of a rather obvious sort, and also fails to show notability . When you become notable, someone other than you will likely write an article. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yury Mosha[edit]

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.

Recreation of a recently deleted article. This time the editor seems to be the subject, hence the COI. The last time it was deleted was for UPE. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Just discovered this issue is being investigated at SPI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
All taken care of, this can be closed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2020 (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.

Swarajya (magazine)[edit]

This account says that removed slanderous claim against my colleague which was sourced. Saying colleague means they have COI with company. Please block user. (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

No. The user name is unfortunate as it suggests a single purpose for editing. However, attempts by the above IP to add BLP negativity to the article with poor sources have been prevented. We thank the reported editor for bringing the problem to editors' attention. In the faint possibility that they see this message, it would be better to report problems at the article talk page or at WP:BLPN if that fails. Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Alexander Proudlock[edit]

Promotional account. Writing biographical article whose submission was declined in September 2019. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 00:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Vénera Kastrati[edit]

Would someone like to take a look at this? Article created and maintained by an WP:SPA, repeated additions of unsourced content. I've had a few shots at cleaning it up, but been reverted each time. Notability is very doubtful, so it may be that AfD is the best way forward here. Any thoughts on that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Ulugbekhon Yusuphonovich Maksumov[edit]

Editor who states they are not paid but a third attempt to create article about industrialist, a businessman with his business INKAS on WP. I sent the article to Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulugbekhon Yusuphonovich Maksumov. Both remaining articles are almost identical in content, fact for fact comparison, all from 3 ref's. scope_creepTalk 20:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

How to write an article about cryptocurrency on Wikipedia for the Signpost that won't just make things worse?[edit]

This is not a specific COI complaint - I'm just asking the esteemed and opinionated commenters here for general ideas on something that touches on a lot of our issues. Smallbones has suggested I write something about cryptocurrency and Wikipedia for the Signpost. 500-800 words on the situation here, nothing major.

As it happens, I'm someone with expertise in both - I was the UK volunteer press contact for Wikipedia for much of the 2000s (and still comment when asked), and I'm also an expert of telly-pundit book-author status on cryptocurrencies and why they're all terrible. And I also follow the crypto articles on Wikipedia, and do what I can to keep the firehose of spam manageable.

The problem is that whatever I write will be taken massively out of context, no matter what disclaimers I put on it. I tweeted a while ago about the Wikipedia COI rules including "holding crypto", several months after that rule was added - and it was immediately all over the crypto blogs. Because these guys think of Wikipedia as SOMEWHERE TO SPAM.

Our entire crypto problem, and the reason that GS/Crypto exists, is a stupendous COI problem - HOW GODDAMN MUCH THESE GUYS DESPERATELY WANT TO SPAM WIKIPEDIA.

The editors in the crypto area have come to a rough working rule on sourcing - WP:RSes only, mainstream press or peer-reviewed academic sources, no blogs, no crypto specialist sites (because they look like specialist press, but are literally all devoted to advocating their hodlings and never saw a press release they wouldn't reprint). This isn't a written rule - but it's enforced by the editors following crypto, and anything other than solid RSes in an article is a death sentence at WP:AFD. Crypto advocates complain regularly, but the rule has stuck - because WP:RS is solid.

(We also have many pro-crypto editors, who have realised that actually WP:RS is an excellent way to make our articles good and not suck!)

But literally anything I write will be treated by the firehose of spammers as a list of obstacles to work around to GET THEIR SPAM IN, and it's gonna suuuuuck.

So how should we approach this? I'm the person for this job, and Smallbones has been asking me to do this for months, but it's a tricky one. Should I even do it? General rambling ideas, advice and digressions welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Just be short and sweet. Ever wondered how to get your shitty crypto blah blah onto Wikipedia? Here's a step by step guide by insiders! Step 1.) Don't Step 2.) Turn off your computer. Praxidicae (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Do you think that writing 500-800 words on the 5th paragraph (requiring mainstream RS, things get deleted, etc) would make things worse? Or that combined with explaining/reminding a broad audience why we have GS/Crypto? I mean if they're getting mainstream coverage then they're not really gaming the system if they get their pet crypto in Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorta worried it'll hit the mainstream too. Crypto, Wikipedia, that's headline material maybe!! eegh. I emailed the movecom list too, in case of that danger. Seriously, I say dumb drunken shit in tweets and it makes the papers - and you'd be shocked how little money there turns out to be in that happening - David Gerard (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I would suggest carefully considering your audience. You are writing to editors to help them stay informed as editors. Most editors probably vaguely understand that crypto currency is a thing, but may not understand the context as anything other than normal COI editing. My understanding is that there is a type of Wolf of Wall Street aspect to it, where these people hold the currency they are trying to inflate the value of, and so it can turn into a type of Pump and dump scenario. Maybe that's totally wrong, and so I suppose that would be even more reason to write an article to inform editors on crypto to ensure they are well defended with a level of understanding relevant to function in the area as editors. GMGtalk 22:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Write something that is the modern offshoot. Cryptocurrency is really old antique junk, more than a 10 years old. Find the latest iteration, focus on that. If you can focus on Libra, and all the crap that is coming, splitting bitcoin and some relations to fintech and why its all generic muck but may be important as it will have scale, and it will need articles and how differentiate the generic from the notable. scope_creepTalk 23:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Libra's actually interesting - how to write about vapourware that's notable as vapourware - David Gerard (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
      • It is one area we are likely to get swamped. Do it. scope_creepTalk 23:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
+1 for consider your audience. Trying to write a signpost article asking spammers who deliberately twist what other people say to make it more favorable to themselves to kindly not spam anymore please isn't going to work. Educating editors, the Signpost's target audience, about what cryptocurrencies are, how cryptospam is written, typical tactics (within reason) of cryptospammers, and what to do about it is more likely to be productive. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
One important point to stress is the real-world consequences of cryptocurrency spam not being taken down, both for our readers and our reputation - this is a topic that is almost as sensitive as medicine. You may find [44], [45] and [46] especially helpful (in response to these edits, I applied indefinite ECP to the two articles concerned). MER-C 03:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. From his intro, you can see why I've been bugging David for this - he is the perfect person to write it. But sometimes the perfect person can be too perfect. Well, it won't be in this issue anyway. The thing about the audience is that there are 3 audiences, Wikipedia editors (primary), crytospammers (sure to pick this up) and the mainstream press (I'd actually hope they pick it up) The last 2 have pluses and minuses anyway. I don't think that we need to worry about the cryptospammers getting a check list of how to get an article on Wikipedia.

Although, the following might work

  • Start an exchange with no capital and a convicted felon as a partner
  • After the partner raises cash through an IPO, takes all the cash and leaves
  • Continue the business on your laptop in your girlfriends basement, just taking all the money that comes in.
  • The laptop is encrypted and you don't give anybody the key.
  • Get married in India, then immediately die.

That'll do it every time. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I've got a better idea.
  1. Buy a factory, steal the money, factory goes bankrupt, become a convicted fraudster.
  2. Found a cryptocurrency based on a SQL database blockchain
  3. Devise a multi-level marketing scheme to promote it, host lavish parties.
  4. Develop said MLM scheme such that it becomes a cult.
  5. Raise over $10 billion.
  6. Take the money and launder it.
  7. Ghost everyone before you have to deliver on any of your promises, answer difficult questions from pesky journalists and to avoid the Feds. MER-C 05:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I threw a draft into my sandbox, after I realised I'd basically drafted the article above. Ran it past a crypto journalist friend who made useful suggestions for non-Wikipedian humans. I don't think I've misstated anything that isn't clearly opinion ... suggestions welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Gib Carter[edit]

I feel like the name closely relates to the subject of the article. Also notability and the references should be a factor when looked at. Idan (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like an autobio, sourced to youtube and to google shortlinks that I'm not going to click...if it ever makes it out of draftspace it'll probably get the WP:A7 treatment in short order. I wouldn't worry too much about this, we know how to deal with autobiographies. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 14:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I took the bait and clicked... (on a VM) it's just google searches and his social media profiles. Idan (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Lee Jina[edit]

Promotional article for "49th best DJ in Asia" and a ONE Championship associate refunded after soft delete at AfD. Shortly after restoration, the article was kicked back to Draft space, whereupon ONEEliteAgency resumed editing the draft. As ONEEliteAgency is literally the name of the promotional arm of ONE Championship, I reported to UAA, and that editor was soft-blocked. Then new editor Sarahswj appeared and resumed editing the draft. It's not wrong to start a new account with a compliant name immediately after a corporate name is blocked, but is against policy to edit on behalf of an employer without disclosing that affiliation, so I dropped a UPE tag on Sarahswj's talk page asking them to respond before resuming editing. They waited about ten days, and have now resumed editing on the (promotional) draft, without disclosure or any response at all. More eyes on this would be appreciated, particularly since there are other accounts on ONE Championship articles that could plausibly be either UPE or just really enthusiastic fans. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Alison Jones[edit]

Adding unsourced and promotional content into biographical article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 23:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Peter Carey (historian)[edit]

Adding unsourced and promotional content into biographical article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 07:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)::

I have been trying to get the editor to read his messages, and I believe this is somewhat impatient for somebody who has no idea what is happening. Some patience is required, please JarrahTree 07:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Cameron Cornelius (Basketball)[edit]

Autobiography, isn't notable. Idan (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Jacy Reese[edit]

Lockedinthebox (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I am concerned about the Jacy Reese Wikipedia page (, and a user called Bodole. It seems likely that Bodole might be Jacy, one of Jacy's friends or loved ones, or someone paid by Jacy.

My concern is that the Jacy Reese Wikipedia page seems to be used as a method of disinformation--as a method of hiding true information--rather than being used to spread true information. Specifically, the page seems to be treated as a diversion so that, if someone tries to research Jacy, they won't be able to find information about his past.

This is because the user called Bodole goes to a great deal of effort to stop Jacy's original name (Anthis) and school (Brown) from ever appearing on the Wikipedia page. He seems to have an alert set to remove this factual information any time it appears.

Jacy's original name was Jacy Anthis and he originally went to Brown University. Jacy's original name is easily demonstrated from many, many sources. To share a few: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) (photograph of Jacy Reese labeled as Jacy Anthis), (6) And Jacy's original school can be found from sources such as this school paper photograph:

Jacy ended up graduating from a different school, though, and recently started going by Jacy Reese. After that, he seems to have started doing a lot of things with the goal of making himself well-known under this new name, and his Wikipedia page appeared. Presumably, the goal of the name change was to avoid people researching information about Jacy's past that Jacy would prefer to keep quiet.

I understand that Wikipedia isn't a place to spread negative rumors about a living person. But it also shouldn't be a tool that a living person can use to (1) promote himself and (2) prevent the world from accurately researching him. In other words, without this Wikipedia page, it would be that much easier for someone to Google Jacy and find his original last name or school. And that would lead them to other factual, accurate information, which would be useful for them to know. The Wikipedia page, as currently designed, helps blot out that kind of information.

As a result, multiple different users have added information to Jacy Reese's Wikipedia page stating his original name (Anthis) and school (Brown). Each time, the user called Bodole removes that information. Bodole gave lots of reasons for removing the information, but the reasons never really made sense. He would say the info needed a source and state, blanketly, that none of the sources were good enough. But he wouldn't engage with the individual sources to explain why they were deficient. Worse yet, the user Bodole himself has added information to this very same Jacy Reese Wikipedia page which was poorly sourced, such as citing to Jacy Reese's personal website,, or Jacy Reese's Facebook page. Additionally, there is plenty of other information on the Jacy Reese Wikipedia page which lacks any source at all. But Bodole hasn't removed that information--He only removes Jacy's original name (Anthis) and School (Brown).

What's the evidence that Bodole is Jacy, or an agent of Jacy? My main reason is that a huge portion of Bodole's editing is focused on (1) the Jacy Reese page, (2) the Sentience Institute page (a group started by Jacy and his romantic partner), and (3) the End of Animal Farming page (a book written by Jacy). My other reason is that Bodole is dedicated to removing Jacy's old name or school from the page.

Seeing all this concerned me. I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor. This experience is teaching me about the power and importance of editing Wikipedia. Until recently, I just read Wikipedia. But when I read the Jacy Reese Wikipedia page, I knew something was wrong. That caused me to dig into the information I'm explaining above. And I also started trying to re-add Jacy's old name (Anthis) and school (Brown) myself. Bodole again removed them. Bodole's explanation was that all my six sources can't possibly show Jacy's "birth" name--They just show that, at some point, he went by another name. True. So I made another edit where I said that Jacy Anthis was Jacy's previous name--But didn't use the word "birth." Bodole still reverted it, and then commented on my user page saying that I'm edit warring.

Bodole also hasn't given a real explanation for why Brown University can't be listed. At first, University of Texas was listed without a citation, so I added Brown, also without a citation. He removed it. Since I pointed out that U of T didn't have a citation, he added a citation to Jacy Reese's personal website. So I added Brown back in, with a citation this time to the Brown school paper, which is surely a better source than But he removed it again.

I feel stressed and anxious and I don't know what to do. I am reaching out to you all for help. I don't care if this Wikipedia page exists. I am fine with it being taken down entirely. But I can't stand to live in a world where this page exists just to affirmatively hide the truth. There are good reasons why people should have the ability to research someone's past before they choose to engage with that person, introduce that person to others, or give that person a platform. Thank you all for your help.

Lockedinthebox (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I started editing Wikipedia last year intending to provide improvements where I could given the subjects I know and don't know about. There has been several people pushing for what I see as inappropriate or misleading edits on Jacy Reese and related pages so I have ended up making many of my edits on those pages. I am not editing with any agenda except the improvement of Wikipedia according to its goals therein, and I do not have any conflict of interest regarding these pages. It appears to me that most of Lockedinthebox's concerns listed here are about specific issues with the Jacy Reese page. If you look at the Talk page, you will see that I have responded to their comments thoroughly and provided reasoning for my viewpoints on the page itself. I am happy to continue discussing these substantive topics on the Talk page in an effort to reach consensus, and I will avoid repeating myself unduly on this page. Bodole (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Onix Audio[edit]

I just did a big trim on the article for Onix Audio, which formerly featured a mountain of unsourced trivia and an incoherent lead full of inline external links. Tonyb1961 (who I believe is the Tony Brady referenced in his preferred version of the article) has reverted me, accusing me of 'Vandalsim', and remarking on my talk page that englsih is not you native langauge. Would appreciate a few more eyes on this. MrOllie (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, This.. feels like Tonyb is bordering on violating WP:PERSONAL to me, if he has not already done so. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to add on, Tonyb is asking for my help on the same article, see my talkpage. My views are as per MrOllie that he is the same Tony Brady of Onix Audio. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The user has since also been reported at AN3 for edit warring on this article. –Erakura(talk) 03:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 24 hours at WP:AN3. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Per Moonythedwarf, the user was indeed blocked 24 hours by Bradv; however, a cursory look at the user's contributions indicates they are a 7-year old single-purpose account with an obvious COI with regards to Onix Audio. Hopefully their COI editing ceases after the block expires, but I am doubtful. –Erakura(talk) 04:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
An SPA with one edit reverted the article back to Tonyb's version with the comment "Restoirng information that was remoevd by based editor". Sounds like a sock.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Soaveidea  Blocked and tagged and Tonyb1961's block extended — JJMC89(T·C) 07:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


The new user is using their sandbox to make an autobiography. Idan (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Zvikorn, tagged for deletion as misuse of userspace (not a plausible draft). creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Music Academy of the West[edit]

Music Academy of the West got promotional edits by user MusicAcademyW on 22 October 2019. I asked them to disclose COI. They didn't, but stopped editing. Shortly after, user ArmenianHoosier started editing in similar fashion, I asked them to disclose COI, they didn't either. Today, ArmenianHoosier came back for a good faith edit. I don't know how to handle this, since the proof of COI could potentialy out them. Help? --OrestesLebt (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Edits by IP in 2007 seem to have been made from a device controlled by the Music Academy of the West.[47] --OrestesLebt (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I've started a SPI investigation. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Veerabrahmam nakka[edit]

Appears to have created an autobiography draft at Draft:Veerabrahmam nakka film director. Hog Farm (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


Using user page solely to self promote and user is managed by multiple people Idan (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey I am using the page as a professional to contribute to the WikiArt community. I will remove the InfoBox on my page if that is what is being considered "Self Promotion" I am here to help. Sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused. Manufacturedstudios (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, Manufacturedstusios seems to be an account representing an art gallery. I looked at the public web site for Manufactured Studios and it would appear they are in a different kind of art business than the kind that tries to sell old paintings. Additionally the account is only editing the draft above. Things seem to all be in good faith here. Just to be sure though, @Manufacturedstudios: could you confirm that you do not have a commercial interest in creating the Elizabeth Searcy draft? I think the only problem here is probably your choice of a username, as it represents a business. See WP:USERNAME for how to change that, and welcome to Wikipedia. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Searcy is of no connection to me. I looked to the Brooks Art Museum in Memphis at the female artist they have and she was the only one without a Wiki page. After learning she did work for the President I considered creating her page. I do not wish to promote anyone only to help drive forward Wikipedia’s Art information. I am affiliated with the online gallery website but after realizing linking it was promotional I quickly took it down. Manufactured Studios represents work from mainly none notable artist. I personally just love art history and would like to do my part in contribution. I apologize again for any wrong doings as I am still new to the wiki world. Manufacturedstudios (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Well that all sounds good, and thanks for explaining! Also welcome! We can use more editors with your interests. I think you might be smart to change your username. See Wikipedia:Changing_username, which is actually he correct link to do so. If you have any questions or need help on articles, drop me a line on my talk page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Manufacturedstudios/ArtWorldEditor has been blocked as confirmed to a promotional sockfarm, along with User:FadedOrange. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FadedOrange. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, some of the stuff on that Manufactured Studios website makes my eyebrow raise. He created Manufactured Studios Inc. to provide independent artist access to the gate kept privileges only available to gallery artist... Manufactured Studios Inc. was founded on the principal that independent artist deserve access to the gate kept luxuries only galleries have access to. Offering insider information and advice for younger artist the Independent Gallery is redefining what it means to be a fine artist in the internet era. Maybe I'm paranoid, but that sort of sounds like an advertisement for PR and/or paid editing. Might want to keep an eye out to see if articles on this gallery's artists pop up in the future. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Add another one to the list of times I have been taken in by a convincing sock. Not so many on that list, but there are a few.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Newport Life Magazine[edit]

An IP has been editing a newspaper supplement's article over a period of hours. The article has been tagged as a COI problem for years. I have left three messages asking them to disclose their paid status but they have not responded. Ifnord (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Wendy Mayer[edit]

New editor who has updated the page with what I perceived to be resume like content and non-independent sources, and said it is the only article they intend to edit [48]. I asked the editor if they have a conflict of interest but they did not respond. They have instead continued the same kinds of edits and asked many questions reflecting what I believe is a misunderstanding of the issues, but then asked me not to correspond with them further [49] (also making an editorial comment about me within the article [50]). Requesting some other editors look at the potential COI and other issues. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Could be, but what makes you think he or she has a conflict of interest? Maybe this person is just not used to the way we do things. Also, it's best if you don't make comments in the Edit summaries. You can use the Talk page for that. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
BeenAroundAWhile the question about conflict of interest seems to be a pretty usual one to ask of WP:SPA editors who add unsourced details/personal information and other resume like content, I'm not sure why it strikes you as odd to ask? Melcous (talk)`
Hm. Well, all the info here seems to be sourced. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Alfred-Maurice de Zayas[edit]

WP:SPAs with a similar writing style (excluding Rebussicstantibus2018, which didn't edit talk pages or use edit summaries) that have only been used to edit the Alfred-Maurice de Zayas article, though never at the same time. Might be related to the Swiss residential and United Nations IPs that were editing the article before the accounts were created. The article has had a COI tag since November 2016. Hegsareta (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Checking de Zayas' blog, it might be the result of WP:MEAT or WP:CAN. He has made three blog posts about his Wikipedia articles:

  • Wikipedia disinformation (May 2018, Spanish Wikipedia, "Maybe someone should write to the administrators urging them to clean up the article and rely instead on the 14 reports of the independent expert and his dozens of press releases in")
  • DISINFORMATION IN THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON ALFRED DE ZAYAS (April 2019, "Some of you may want to go on the “talk” page of the wikipedia article on Alfred de Zayas and express your opinion on the controversy over the controversies.")
  • Wikipedia is not all that neutral or objective (May 2019, "Please go on the “talk” page and try to explain why the current version is unbalanced here two paragraphs that were deleted, allegedly for “conflict of interests“???").

Hegsareta (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)