Open main menu

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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

Additional notes:
  • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
  • Be careful not to out other editors 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 What is a conflict of interest? list. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, MiszaBot II will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 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:


Singapore Management UniversityEdit

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

Iridium CommunicationsEdit

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

FOI Online AwardsEdit

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

The issue with the article is that many prominent celebs and some movie articles have this award listed in their awards section, some of them being added by people who edited FOI awards articles. It might be better if we remove all such occurrences of this non-notable award. Daiyusha (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll start deleting removing it from those pages. Might take a while. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It might be helpful to treat this as possible spamming as well. In that regard, I'll list other editors that have added it as I help with cleanup. --Ronz (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz:,@BubbaJoe123456: If you intend to start on removing this spam, please look for the text "FOI" and "Films of India Online" when searching for it. Thanks for the response Daiyusha (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Daiyusha: Thanks for the heads-up. I've been going through, think I'm over halfway done. FYI, should also look for "Films of India Online." Just doing FOI as a search term picks up a lot of cruft (Freedom of Information, mainly), but doing "FOI Online" works well. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, are "News18 Reel Movie Awards" and "Bollywood Film Journalists Awards" similar? --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • To help find them Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advancedCOIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain: • Live link: --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This is disgusting. Like tell me, who are you people to decide whether its notable or not? Your job is to gather facts, not judge notability. Almost all of the film-industry accepted their results with happiness. First, you deleted the article three years ago saying "If known actors receive awards, it doesn't make the award known." They accepted it and moved on. Now you are deleting it from the Wikepedia page of actors an artists itself. This is the problem with accolades and their unfairness in industry, for India especially. Those who actually deserve and get some due, you take it away from them. When the actors themselves have accepted these awards, who gives you the right to remove it from the their achievement logs? You bunch of computer savy coders are going to decide what was a good achievement, and what not? May be, FOI would now need more time to get a public name, but this move won't hurt their intention, they'll continue with it anyway. Deleting their separate article was fair, but this movement of removing their traces form actors log is wrong to the artists itself. You are hurting the artist by removing a recognition they earned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A21F:9C4B:4051:C28:2E84:7360 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia editors are tasked with assessing whether content is relevant enough for Wikipedia's purposes to be mentioned in an article as well as whether something is Wikipedia notable enough for an article to be created about it. An editor's job is not to gather facts like a reporter, but only to seek out article content which accurately reflects what reliable sources (preferably independent and secondary) are saying/writing about something and then try to figure out a way to incorporate this content into the article in neutrally worded and balanced manner. When there are disagreements over things such as this, editors then follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and try to establish a consensus one way or another. You're more than welcome to participate in that discussion, but you'd be better off trying to show how mentioning the FOI awards is in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines than commenting on other editors. Moreover, the awards not being mentioned in actor WP:BLPs is not going to mean that the actor didn't receive the award and it won't harm the actor's career simply because the purpose of a Wikipedia article is not to promote the actor's career or to be a alternative profile page for the actor in the first place. The actor is free to post whatever they want about themselves or promote themselves however they like on their own personal websites or social media pages, etc., and FOI is free to promote the awards it gives out on its own websites and social media accounts, etc. regardless of whether any of this information is mentioned on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
      • How is the Official website not a reliable source? And how is this even a case of conflict of interest? References are not made to support FOI's article, they are referenced to support facts on actors page. And someone above talks, there is no organisation named on the website, forgetting FOI Online Awards itself is the organisation (read their About us). NO doubt Wikipedia itself isn't a notable source for information, thanks to those illiterate editors. Do whatever you feel like in your world. I won't interfere anymore. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A708:7AE6:4051:C28:2E84:7360 (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
        • The website is a WP:PRIMARY source. Notability for Wikipedia's purposes is determined by mentions in WP:SECONDARY sources. MarnetteD|Talk 03:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
          • @MarnetteD: It would've been a primary source, if the article was about the FOI itself. Here you are talking about artists' page, the information is not being referenced from Actors personal website (primary for this case), it's about sourcing it from website of award the artist earned, which is a secondary material for artist page.
            You want to discuss it in civil manner. Then let's start. Tell me why is it not notable. The very first line of discussion says "There is almost no mention of the organization at all, except for a few sketchy sites." This is so wrong, and manipulated information, and you have based the whole discussion on this basis. FOI Online Awards itself is the name of the organisation. About Us page on their website clearly mentions (if you can read) "FOI Online Awards (itself acting as a non-profit organisation) is an annual online poll, researched and organized by an anonymous team of film enthusiasts and cinema lovers, honouring the artists for their artworks." If you would have researched a little more, you'll find their is a reason why they are anonymous (read the Rules & Guidelines). Also, you have put this discussion under Conflict of Interest page. How is this even a case of conflict of interest? References are not made to support FOI's article, they are referenced to support facts on actors page. It's reasonable that they don't have sources to have their own article on Wikipedia, but its valid to quote them as sources to mention achievement of artists page. Think before you act! This whole discussion is based on the wrong statement quoted above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A708:7AE6:4051:C28:2E84:7360 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
            • So when you wrote "I won't interfere anymore" you didn't really mean it did you. MarnetteD|Talk 03:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
              • @MarnetteD: So this isn't an insult? Respond to the explanations I gave instead.
                To the ip: Please stop wasting our time with personal opinions and worse. Provide independent sources. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 03:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:a708:7ae6:4051:c28:2e84:7360 (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
              • @Ronz: You need independent sources if you were fighting for FOI's aticle. Here you are talking about artist's page, award's website, itself becomes a secondary and independent source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:a708:7ae6:4051:c28:2e84:7360 (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia articles aren’t considered reliable sources for any purpose as explained in WP:WPNOTRS, except in rare cases where the subject is Wikipedia itself. Moreover, the burden rest upon those wanting to add content to an article to establish a consensus that it should be added, not the other way around. You’re involved in a content dispute with other editors and when that happens you should follow WP:DR. The best way to go about doing this is to convince others that adding it is in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, not by insulting them. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
              • @Marchjuly: May be you are right about my tone. I apologize, but I am giving reasons too. Read them above. 1) The very first line of this discussion and the basis is wrong, which says the website don't give out the name of the organisation. FOI Online Awards itself is the name of the organisation. 2) Also, you have put this discussion under Conflict of Interest page. How is this even a case of conflict of interest? References are not made to support FOI's article, they are referenced to support facts on actors page. This is wrong to artists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:a708:7ae6:4051:c28:2e84:7360 (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                • If you feel that the reliability of the FOI’s official website is sufficient for citing a particular artist receiving one of its awards and others disagree, you can always seek additional input at WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. Those two noticeboards may actually be better suited for the direction this discussion seems to be heading. I didn’t put the discussion here; I just responded to something you posted. However, as I posted above, Wikipedia articles about artists aren’t written for the benefit of the artist; so, not including content about the awards an artist might have received cannot be wrong for the artist. Your argument rather should be whether including the content is appropriate for Wikipedia and it’s readers and not a case of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. While WP:NNC is true when it comes to article content, the notability of the FOI awards does come into play when deciding whether it’s worth mentioning and the general consensus with respect to articles like this seems to be to limit inclusion to only Wikipedia notable entries.
                  Finally, please try to WP:SIGN your posts since it will make the discussion easier to follow. Another reason to sign your posts is that WP:PINGs don’t work for unsigned posts. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                  • @Marchjuly: @MarnetteD: @BubbaJoe123456: @Ronz: I apologize if I was rude, before. I understand Wikipedia has such policies, which restrict this particular subject’s inclusion. (1) I will try finding reliable sources for FOI's inclusion, but it won’t be of any use. Media houses have been deliberately ignoring the community of FOI Online Awards, because of their format, that has no monetary advantages. Their anonymity also have a reason, it’s not to create an ambiguity. In a way, you are working for those money-hungry media houses. You are definitely not working for something good, you are in fact a part of the bad politics yourself. (2) Another sad story is, our film industry still takes in Wikipedia profile (if we are lucky to have one or one related) as source of credibility. I am not related to the FOI community. FOI community actually detests Wikipedia as reliable source. I am one of the winners in one of the technical categories and also a part of a film which didn’t garner the deserved attention from the public. But FOI honoured our efforts, and now its removal from Wikipedia is actually a loss to my credibility in finding more work. It’s literally a loss to my resume. (3) Some of you even termed it as spam. No, it’s not a spam; we are contributing to mention something we earned, from hard-work. (4) It’s not even conflict of interest, we didn’t honour this to ourselves, FOI did. (5) We know Wikipedia isn’t a trusted source of gathering facts, but it itself doesn’t have that image in public. Whatever the topic is, a common internet surfer would firstly go to Wikipedia for information. (6) Even after giving this much explanation, I still stand by my point that this discussion is wrongly framed. The subject of this discussion is wrong. FOI Online Awards is a non-profit organisation and has a name. You cannot say, “the website didn’t give a name of the organisation.” And now if you are removing FOI’s traces based on a wrong-framed subject of a discussion, then the action is wrong too, and may I add, “a sign of illiterate and one lacking logic.” (7) We artists, from technicians to actors, have accepted it very much. If you editors think you all have higher precedence in writing our stories by pressing some buttons of your keyboard on Wikipedia, even higher than that of our hard-work we do on film sets, we stand with FOI and completely detest Wikipedia. You can’t be a source of information for our identity and work. Be happy working for it, anyway. (8) This is not a concluding statement. This doesn’t mean I will stop fighting for its inclusion. If in future, it eventually generates the ‘notability’ you are talking and are a self-proclaimed judge of, I won’t refrain from mentioning it here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                  • You want to use wikipedia to promote your organization, it doesn't matter how hard you work for it, advertising it for your own personal gain is completely against the spirit of wikipedia. THe film industry may be corrupt, but there is a reason why it considers wikipedia a reliable source, its because there are people who discuss and remove non-notable sources. I know its unfair, but unless your organization is mentioned in news articles, sponsored and conducts "events where people actually come and take the award" it cannot be considered to be on wikipedia. This is not a place for emerging artists to promote themselves, use youtube or linkedin for that. Daiyusha (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                    • @Daiyusha: "You want to use wikipedia to promote your organization, it doesn't matter how hard you work for it, advertising it for your own personal gain is completely against the spirit of wikipedia." Why did you say this? That's the problem, you are not interpreting it positively. When did I promote FOI? I am not promoting FOI, I am not a part of it. I am speaking on behalf of all the artist including me, who have earned this recognition. We are not promoting anyone, we want a mention that we have already earned. Don't make a separate page for FOI, but atleast give us artist their credit. And if you say only an event where people come and receive their award is a qualifying parameter, you are quite a part of the politics of being the unfair here. There are so many polls who have a mention on Wikipedia. Also, don't post such big shot remarks such as "This is not a place for emerging artists to promote themselves", we don't need promotion for ourselves, we have already earned recognition and we asking for its mention. You are probably too low on hierarchy to understand the film industry. And quite disrespectful talking to an artist about taking away its credit, with unreasonable remarks. You need secondary resources to create Wikipedia page, I also know that. If it was for creating an article for FOI, Official website won't be considered as a resource, fair. But it's about crediting the award at artists or films page, in those cases, official website of the award is definitely a secondary and valid resource. I have said this so many times above, don't you get this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:a708:7ae6:a5f1:347d:7d63:378a (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                      • You guys know what? I contacted FOI Online Awards themselves few hour ago, and they quite convinced me how Wikipedia (and equally its self-proclaimed editors) is media oriented platform, and not logic or knowledge oriented. They already have plans for something big, and after which they say even if they get good media presence they would strive to remove all its mention from Wikipedia. They simply believe Wikipedia is as misguided as the Indian media. We were told not to seek notability for mention on a platform that itself has no factual credibility. So I guess, I will stand proudly with my art and hard work, and the recognition I received with it. After all, who are you guys to tell me my worth. In return to pseudo-disturbance (as you may call it) to your mass movement of removing "non-notable" information (I am laughing), I will help you guys :) This is isn't said with any hard feelings, I am genuinely coming on board to improve Wikipedia get rid information as vague as the subject of this discussion. Watch out this space for next few months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A708:7AE6:A5F1:347D:7D63:378A (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                      • There were still traces of this 'non-notable' award on the epic platform of Wikipedia, under the article of Rajkummar Rao, Ranveer Singh, Monali Thakur and Harshdeep Kaur. Removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A708:7AE6:A5F1:347D:7D63:378A (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                        • You know what, today I'm launching the Daiyusha awards, and the first recipient is you. And to give you credit I'll create an article for it. Your argument is just as vague as this. Daiyusha (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                          • @Daiyusha: But I am a nobody to accept it, I never did anything, by giving this analogy, you are basically saying all the recipients of this subject are vague, they also didn't do anything. I thought I offered an apology above and mended the rude tone, but I guess you yourself proved that you don't care and understand worth. You are basically not elligible to participate in discussions including notability and credibility. You define Wikipedia. Also, that's not how you talk to co-editors on Wikipedia, that's rude. You are about to get some more. Watch out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:a708:7ae6:a5f1:347d:7d63:378a (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                          • @Daiyusha: I think by this logic, go to Filmfare Awards 2019 wiki page and remove all references and information sourced from and Times of India (who owns Filmfare). That's blatant Conflict of Interest and article simply based on primary source. I didn't know about this clause on Wiki, there are many more. I can help you rectify them and make Wiki a better place.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:a708:7ae6:756a:9449:ae4d:66e7 (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                              • Every single recipient of the "FOI award" has also won something that is actually notable as well, and fyi atleast one person goes and collect their awards, or atleast tweets about it thanking them. Daiyusha (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
                                • @Daiyusha: If it's about tweeting to thank, I can present many tweets of celebrities thanking FOI for the honour. Apart from that I was talking about Filmfare's referencing on Wiki, its mainly primary sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:a708:7ae6:756a:9449:ae4d:66e7 (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: @Daiyusha and 2405:204:a708:7ae6:a5f1:347d:7d63:378a: I suggest you both stop going back and forth at each other and go walk the dog. Trying to one up the other is not going to solve this dispute, but may lead to one of you posting something that you're going to end up regretting. This is not how disputes are resolved on Wikipedia. The longer this thread keeps getting, the closer it starts to move into WP:TLDR which means others are just going to just keep away instead of trying to figure out what you two are going on about. If there are no more COI issues to resolve, then let the thread die a natural death. If you want to discuss the reliability of the FOI website, then do so at WP:RSN. If you want to discuss each others behavior, then do so at WP:ANI.
    @2405:204:a708:7ae6:756a:9449:ae4d:66e7: Please start signing your posts. If you're not sure how to do that, then read WP:TILDE. As I posted above, you can't WP:PING other editors if you don't sign your posts. In addition, if possible try to use the same IP address when posting or even better consider creating an WP:ACCOUNT. FWIW, an IP account is actually less anonymous that a registered account since an IP address can usually geo-located. Another nice thing about a registered account other editors can WP:PING you (IP accounts cannot be pinged) and other editors will pretty much always know it's you they are addressing and not somebody else you just happened to log in from the same IP address. Finally, please carefully read through Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point because this is one of the fastest ways to end up being WP:BLOCKed by an administrator
    @Daiyusha: Please be careful not WP:BITE no matter how right you might be; after all, Wikipedia is not about WP:WINning.
    -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Marchjuly: Thankyou for the advice. I am still learning, I'll create an account soon. I just wanted help this issue if somehow I can. If its about wrong usage of primary sources in articles I wanted to help highlight many more such articles, one I quoted above was for Filmfare Awards, which is simply referencing articles from Filmfare and Times of India (who owns Filmfare). That's blatant conflict of interest. 378a and Daiyusha were in a heated arguement, and none of them looked wrong so I came in. They should discuss it, one of them came to giving rude remarks too, that was wrong.
      @Daiyusha: I was talking if Tweets from artists thanking FOI may prove as supporting notability, then I can provide many of them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:a708:7ae6:756a:9449:ae4d:66e7 (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
      • No tweets won't be good enough for establishing notability, reliable sources are more likely to be news articles. I agree that things like filmfare are covered widely by Times group and other newspapers. But there would be atleast one news article in any one newspaper about FOI, that would be helpful. Daiyusha (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
        • @Marchjuly: I actually ended the discussion, and resorted to no more confrontation. I contacted FOI, and they said they had absolutely no interest in being mentioned on Wikipedia. Hence, I in fact even deleted some left out references to FOI on articles mentioned above (articles of Ranveer, Harshdeep, Monali and Rajkummar). The next comment that Daiyusha posted, was irrelevant with no explanation or debating confrontation. In fact it was quite rude and plain offensive, and made me question the actual intention of editors here. That's it.
          @Daiyusha: As an artist and winner of FOI myself, its hurtful that you don't think its worthy to be mentioned in related articles. But that comment you posted, made me realise I actually don't deserve to be mentioned here.
          @2405:204:a708:7ae6:756a:9449:ae4d:66e7: I am glad you came out in support. Yes, there are many celeb tweets that directly thank FOI for the honour and proves it has been acknowledged in the industry. Literally, that defines notability, I don't know about the Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:a708:7ae6:a5f1:347d:7d63:378a (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
        • @Daiyusha: Google news shows one result, which quotes one of the winners of FOI. For Filmfare I was saying, we need to change the references, because Times of India solely owns Filmfare, sourcing it is Conflict of Interest. I am sure we can find other sources too. We should do it before someone challenges it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:a708:7ae6:756a:9449:ae4d:66e7 (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Not really sure if COI applies to sources as well, it usually applies to editors. Because almost all company articles, including articles about Google, Microsoft etc will have their own sources. You can have primary references, the problem is you should not have "only" primary references, atleast one independent reliable source is needed, others can be primary sources. Daiyusha (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
To the person responding about this - please be aware that none of your pings have worked. As has been mentioned above by Marchjuly you must sign your post with four tildes ~~~~ at the time you make the edit for editors to receive your ping. MarnetteD|Talk 00:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @IP 2405:204:a708:7ae6:a5f1:347d:7d63:378a and IP 2405:204:a708:7ae6:756a:9449:ae4d:66e7: If you're the same person trying to use multiple IP address to try and create the impression that you position is supported by multiple editors, or two different people trying to coordinate your edits to support the same position, then please stop doing this asap per WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. I'm not posting this because your IP addresses are similar, and because both accounts seem to be unable to understand WP:SIGN, but because of these five consecutive edits within a span of a few minutes: #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5. There generally has to be a really good policy-based or guideline-based reason for one editor to edit/remove another editor's posts, but this really looks like someone was trying to hop from one IP to another to make it seems as if they were more than one person, getting confused about which account they were using, and then going back to fix things so as to continue the charade. The kind of behavior is not allowed at all; so, if that's what you've been doing, you need to stop it right away. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Marchjuly: That's quite premature of you tell me that I am playing the dirty plot you've posted above. You should write thrillers! Never the less it's rude too. No, I didn't do it, and your logic of "five consecutive edits within a span of of a few minutes" makes no sense. There, I didn't sign it again! You may get me blocked, would love having peace in silence. RIP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:a117:2c2a:d5d5:7272:a945:3abf (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
      • The only person who can really "get you blocked" is you. Editors don't get blocked because of what others say about them; they get blocked for their behavior or doing things which aren't otherwise in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you keep logging in and editing with a different IP each time (like you did with your last post above), others are not going to know for sure that it's the same person making the edits, which might in turn be mistaken as it not the being same person or the same person trying to appear to be someone else. It's not rude to point this out to you and show you how diffs can be used to find such behavior or even be mistaken for something inappropriate.
        As for signing your posts, it's not hard to click on ~~~~ in the task bar above the edit summary window after you finish your post and before you click "Publish changes". It makes things easier and not doing so just because you don't want to do so seems a bit WP:POINTy to me. Moreover, {{ping}} will not work if you don't sign your posts, and others will not be notified that you've responded to whatever is being discussed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikibaji sockfarmEdit

articles (partial)
sockfarm (partial)

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

Additional spammers:

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

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

Sockfarm still active. New drawer of socks was just CU confirmed. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Just blocked:
See [1].
See Adel Sajan/Draft:Adel Sajan.
as suspected sockpuppets. MER-C 10:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Bridge Back to LifeEdit

Hello. Please refer to [2] and [3]. This is a recreation of a salted article under a different name. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I cut it from 17K to 4.3K. I am not really sure what is goign on there-- the article was a coatrack to discredit the DR. mentioned, or a promotional vehicle? I would have nominated it for Afd, but it has a few good refs.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Sent to AFD. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Seeing is believing. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Per that RfC, no, being an acupuncturist does not create a COI for acupuncture (and so on for other alt-meds). But yes, I'd say it's as impossible for an acu'ist to have a COI for acu as it is for a psychologist to have one for psychology, isn't it? As the RfC closers noted, WP doesn't recognize COI for "broad areas of interest or general competence. Thus, the proposal to single out alt-med practitioners in policy as having a COI is opposed."
I am about to ask the RfC closers for clarification, and I hope this won't take up any more (nor any less) time than it needs to. Happy editing. --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 00:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC); added to quote 01:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC); update: closing admins notified [4] (one is on vacation and won't be able to comment for awhile) 01:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • no it is not impossible. However a change in policy is not necessary. Guidelines such as WP:COISOURCE provide advice for editing contributions, which may originate from from biased editors. If an editor cherry picks RS to push unduly positive info then that’s biased/POV editing. If an editor inserts links which promote specific practices or products then this is COI editing. A good example from my experience is having to shoot down the addition of fairly innocuous pieces of text which are sourced from obvious commercial sites in the article on interior design. These are added by editors who use link spam to describe interior design using arguably encyclopedic text while employing dubious sourcing techniques. Anyone frequently exhibiting this kind of behavior ought to be declaring a COI as their commercial aims are influencing their editing practices. This ought not to be mandatory however. I am an interior designer and wouldn’t dream of adding my company’s website address into the encyclopedia. Discretion is advised and current policies and guidelines would seem to be sufficient in this case. Edaham (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Fully agree with the spirit of your comment, but it's based on a common misconception of COI. Promotional/biased edits don't cause COI; off-wiki connections do: see WP:COINOTBIAS. It has to do with how closely/specifically an editor is connected to the topic, so e.g. you'd have a COI for an article about your own business but not interior design generally -- no matter how you edited. --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 04:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I think you didn't read what I wrote. I specifically highlighted the difference between bias and COI. Someone with the inclination and/or motivation to use the encyclopedia for promotional purposes because of their affiliation with an off-wiki entity has a COI on any article where their off-wiki objectives might influence their editing practices. If I, as an employee of foo-software add content to an article on foo-software, I have a COI. If I add link spam directing people to foo-software on an article about software in general, I have a COI. The differentiation between COI, bias and advocacy doesn't place any limitation on which areas of the encyclopedia the issue occurs, be it an article about foo or the subject to which your foo belongs. Edaham (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Edaham: I believe you're right; I was thrown by your opening sentence. If you mean that one can have a COI for one's foo but not the non-foo aspects of their field, fully agree with that and the rest of what you said. --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 17:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I am a former employee of Mattel, and I still consult for pretty much all of the major toy manufacturers. I have a COI, and do not edit the Mattel page. It turns out that engineers who have hands-on experience with producing electronics product at a rate of over 100,000 per hour 24/7 are hard to find. If I make each one a penny cheaper or more expensive that's $24,000 a day.
Not only do I not edit the Mattel page or the pages of any toy manufacturers I have worked for, if -- as is the case with Middle 8's and acupuncture -- our article on Toys said things that would lead a reasonable person to never buy a toy again, I would not edit that page, and I certainly would not edit the page to portray toys more favorably. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Specific edits for examples of such edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Guy M: I understand your point about financial connection, but I don't think you're taking into account that such connections can be tenuous enough to not rise to the level of a Wikipedia COI (potential conflict being a continuum, unlike say pregnancy). Ernst thinks that the financial COI for alt-meders tends to be small, and substantially outweighed by what he calls "quasi-evangelical convictions" that amount to a sort of idealogical COI, which of course on WP we call TE, advocacy et cetera.
Like your argument, that point was made in the pertinent RfC (see my !vote for example, and comment starting with the words "Ernst's concept"). Lots of arguments were made, and as you know, the "No" arguments prevailed, and I don't understand why you're making the "Yes" ones again when they're not specific to my case. You should be trying to argue why I have a greater financial interest than alt-meders in general, since the latter was already considered by the RfC. Are you going to do that, or just keep repeating general alt-med criticisms at the wrong forum for this? --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 17:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not quite sure why have the RfC closers singled out, we do not have any special knowledge which would be useful here. The result of the RfC was that an alt-med practitioner does not have a COI just because of the fact of them being an alt-med practitioner. They could still have a million of other reasons to have COI, or edit disruptively without having COI. (Not to be interpreted as judgement on the specific case, which I did not look into).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Ymblanter -- that's helpful. Since Guy Macon wanted input from "admins" I figured you three were good choices to interpret your own RfC closing statement. :-)
Two more questions if I may:
1) I think it follows that if an alt-med practitioner somehow does have a COI for content in their field, it's not because of their simply being an acupuncturist. Do you agree? (This is actually not obvious to all editors.)
2) Some are arguing that the RfC's finding is only a "general" one, and that just being an alt-med practitioner is still reason to accuse specific editors of COI. (Some are even justifying this stance with arguments that didn't prevail in the RfC, e.g. that alt-med practitioners should be singled out and treated differently). This strikes me as inappropriate -- effectively an attempt to bypass/ignore the RfC -- but what do you think?
Thanks again, Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 08:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry but I do not think I can say more than what I have already said.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, we'll wait for others to comment. I'll add here that if, somehow, something besides having a profession can cause a COI for acupuncture or anything else, I stand corrected. My bigger concerns are those in my preceding comment, esp. bullet point #2. This thread should really be called "does Middle 6 have a COI" since Guy Macon is attempting to use AN/I to settle that [5] when this (if anywhere) is the proper place.--Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 09:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC); added last sentence 09:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC); ce 09:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
If you wanted this discussion to be about ""does Middle 8 have a COI" you should have made the claim that you have no COI. You did not. You claimed "it's not possible for an acu'ist to have a COI for acupuncture".[6] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Of course I claim I have no COI, because of the "No" finding of the RfC you started because of me. As one of the closers put it above, "An alt-med practitioner does not have a COI just because of the fact of them being an alt-med practitioner." Unless Aristotle was wrong, that major premise extends to acupuncturists, and hence to me. So I do not have a COI for acupuncture, (unless there's some other way to have one for a whole field, which I honestly can't imagine, can you? The same goes for any other acu'ist, but as much as you're focused on that "not possible" soundbite, it's rather a red herring.)
It shouldn't take multiple noticeboards and even ArbCom to grok this logic, should it?
Still waiting for you to explain why I might/should be an exception to that RFC. --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 02:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC); minor add'n 02:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC), clarify improbable hypothetical 05:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that Guy M or anyone else said that you were an exception. This whole discussion came about because you removed the COI note from the Acupuncture talk page, and then asserted that it's not possible for an acupuncturist to have a COI in the area - I think this discussion is aimed at clarifying that point.
The RFC concluded that alt med practitioners don't automatically have a COI covering their field, but the closing statement also said that Existing policy, including WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:COI are sufficient to handle disruptive editing in this topic (emphasis mine) - so, the closers explicitly accepted that COI policy is relevant in this topic area. They went on to remind editors that any role or relationship outside of Wikipedia may undermine their primary role here of furthering the interests of the encyclopaedia and that editing articles directly in such situations is strongly discouraged. - so, COI may be a particular concern in this area. It is not the case that an acupuncturist will always have a COI with regards to all areas of acupuncture, but it is possible that they may have one in particular areas, and so should be cautious when editing about their field. It seems to me that the COI banner on the talk page is appropriate, in the light of the RfC closure.
My own professions (I've had two) create the potential for conflicts of interest. As a geophysicist, I used to work for a company that develops high-resolution 3D imaging sonars, competing with underwater video systems and diver inspections. I would feel quite comfortable contributing material to sonar articles in general, but I would stay well away from writing about the relative efficacy of sonar systems compared to other methodologies - I have a clear COI in that area. These days as a teacher, I work in an independent school - I wouldn't be worried about contributing to articles on education in general, but I would definitely avoid writing about any potential benefits of private versus state-funded education, no matter how reliable my sourcing was, because I recognise that I have a conflict of interest in that particular area. I think that would apply to anyone - including, but certainly not limited to, alt med practitioners - if your livelihood depends on people trusting in the efficacy of anything, I can't see how you could avoid having a conflict of interest when writing about that efficacy. GirthSummit (blether) 10:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Great comments. Several points, replying in reverse order:
  • First, re: "...if your livelihood depends on people trusting in the efficacy of anything, I can't see how you could avoid having a conflict of interest when writing about that efficacy": Of course there's a financial connection (much discussed in the RfC), and it tends to be stronger for alt-med, but is it strong/specific enough to create a COI on WP? Per the RfC it's got to come from something other than simply being a practitioner.
  • Next, on what I really mean: I wish the editor who opened this thread had titled it differently, because I've made clear that by "not possible to have COI" I mean "not possible by virtue of being an acu'ist", and that I know other factors still create COI. This could've been established at user talk, hence no reason for this post imo. (Also this, re the tag.)
  • Finally, re me and COI: it seems clear that Guy in fact is suggesting I could be an exception to the RfC when he says this (yet provides no fresh arguments). I've intentionally kept the discussion focused on acu'ists generally, but FWIW, due to heavy and unfortunate factors quite beyond my control, I haven't been able to practice for years (cf. my comments in userspace dating to 2015[7][8] and recently on this board[9]). I've never had the time to build a practice that turned a net profit, and the possibility of that ever happening keeps receding. If I'm honest with myself, it's realistically about zero.
Happy editing. --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 06:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC); ce for clarity 00:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Venous leakEdit

Despite Orangelioncat has declared conflicts of interests that they are associated with Geng Long Hsu, Orangelioncat has been inserting links to Geng Long Hsu's article on the Encyclopedia of Reproduction into on assertions that are not supported by the sources at all. For example, "Vascular Surgery for Erectile Dysfunction" is cited in Venous leak three times yet none of the assertions can be supported by it. Considering that Orangelioncat has prominently mentioned Hsu's contribution that does not exist in the source (e.g. [10], [11]), I found it difficult to believe that those edits are to "disseminate the verifiable knowledge". Mys_721tx (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The COI has also been noted by User:Flyer22 Reborn in January. -Mys_721tx (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Orangelioncat has a clear COI. And I alerted WP:Med to it. Doc James edited the Venous leak article a bit after I noted the COI stuff. I've been over matters with Orangelioncat on my talk page. But today, I see that the editor is still spamming penile articles with Geng Long Hsu material and that there is a Genglonghsu (talk · contribs) account adding Geng Long Hsu material. I can be seen reverting that account here, for example, stating "Revert WP:COI material. See User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#Penile articles. Get it published in independent sources first." I noted on my talk page that the "os analog" aspect typically isn't mentioned in the human penis literature. I wanted to point out that anatomy literature can differ and we need to take care in such cases. When something is only or mostly being stated by one researcher, it is likely best to use WP:In-text attribution and note that it's that researcher (or that researcher and his group) stating that. It's that case for other subjects as well, not just anatomy. This is where the WP:Due weight policy is useful. I told Orangelioncat that I wouldn't object to Orangelioncat adding that Long Hsu (or someone else) states so and so about the os analog. I also noted that, as for Long Hsu's expertise, I do see that in the Wikipedia article Orangelioncat created on him, it states that he claimed to "know the penis more than anyone else in the world." He can claim that, but we shouldn't just go by his word on penile matters. The rest of the literature should be in agreement with him if we are to take everything he states as fact. Otherwise, if he states something that conflicts with the rest of the literature, we should give the matter in-text attribution. I don't like going by single studies for anything. Studies with results that that have been replicated are more reliable. I also pointed Orangelioncat to WP:MEDRS. A source can be WP:MEDRS-compliant and still out of step with what the literature generally reports. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Edits mentioned are definitely UNDUE, and Geng Long Hsu certainly has a COI for citing their own work. Whether Orangelioncat has a close enough connection to Geng Long Hsu to create a COI isn't clear to me (but if not, non-COI protocols should be adequate AFAIK). --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 09:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


Yes, as stated in my conversation with Flyer22 Reborn, I respect the consensus and rules in the Wiki community. It's my pleasure to engage in this discussion. On my part, the extent of COI, although minor, is present, and it's stated at the beginning.

Here, I do try to use as many secondary sources as possible, and that's why the Encyclopedia of Reproduction is applied. Otherwise, there are indeed some news articles that can be used, but some of them need to be translated. The aim is definitely not to spam these articles. Those references, directly or indirectly, serve as support to the statements. In examination over the comments made here, I would re-visit and modify in accordance with what's considered appropriate.

In regard to the questioning over the belief to distribute "verifiable knowledge," I wish to talk a bit more about the images themselves that were used. Of course, I also make edits on other topics, but with respect to GL and penile anatomy, the verifiable knowledge is the presence of more than the DDV between the Buck's and the tunica albuginea, and the elaboration of the 3-D structure of the tunica albuginea.

The associated diagram was published long before the Encyclopedia of Reproduction, although a version of it was shared with the publisher. The right to the images is released by the right-holder to the Wiki Commons, not any other third-party.

Flyer22 Reborn stated prior to my involvement in the project that there's a lack of information on the male reproductive system, and I am glad to have made some contribution.

Orangelioncat (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I noticed some images uploaded by User:Genglonghsu are marked for deletion. For right issue with respect to the images, consider this:

Four years ago, the right to a similar version of the image was already released under CC, and even prior to that, the original creator of the image gave permission for publication in a journal. Mys_721tx, anatomical knowledge is verifiable.

Orangelioncat (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Citing the source on assertions that cannot be supported by the source is extremely inappropriate. Unless the assertion is very generic, there will not be a source that magically supports all existing claims in an article. Furthermore, Journal of Andrology is a subscription-based journal and upon publication the authors have transferred copyright to the American Society of Andrology. You cannot release figures under CC license when it is not yours anymore. -Mys_721tx (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Admin reviewEdit

Okay so we are looking at this edit by User:Orangelioncat.[12]

They cited this source to support the following text:

"Common complaints include a chronic soft erection insufficient for sexual intercourse, position-dependent erectile rigidity, difficulty achieving erections, difficulty maintaining erections without constant manual stimulation, loss of penile length and girth, and a soft glans of the penis during erection that is not fully engorged."

Orange can you provide below the exact text within the publication that you feel supports this? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The text should come from p.390 in the chapter "Male Reproductive Tract - Erection Abnormality." That could be found here: [13]- "...symptoms include insufficient rigidity, early detumescence, loss of morning erection, position dependent impotence, soft glans syndrome and gradual onset of early ejaculation." I do agree that citation needs to be precise. The medref box states that more medical references are needed, and I made my edits under the impression that the more the better without citing the exact texts and sources. My mistake. Thank you for point it out.
Orangelioncat (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Orangelioncat, I want to know if you understand what I mean by being cautious of something that is only or mostly being stated by one researcher and that "we shouldn't just go by his word on penile matters," and "if he states something that conflicts with the rest of the literature, we should give the matter in-text attribution." WP:MEDRS is not the only thing to follow; so is WP:Due weight. Like I noted on my talk page to you, we, for example, give different reports on the urogenital diaphragm in the Urogenital diaphragm article because the literature is not consistent on it. We mention the dispute regarding the limbic system in the Limbic system article. I was concerned that you were prioritizing Long Hsu's and his colleagues' work over what the literature generally states. And I see that you and the Genglonghsu account are doing just that. You are only concerned with adding work and images by that researcher and his team. So you are definitely a WP:Single purpose account. You are not looking at what the rest of the literature might state on the matter. For example, what other source or sources state what Doc James cited above? If you don't see any other source stating that, it is best to directly attribute that text to the specific researcher(s) you are citing. And by that, I mean WP:In-text attribution. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, Doc James, Mys_721tx,

I receive no financial or academic benefit from doing all these. Since my first edit's (which was one or two months ago, the issue of COI was already concluded), my edits were reactive in regard to the penile articles and GL. The GL page was inserted with an orphan tag, then considering your comment on the In-Text attribution, I then applied that policy to the article, by making links to that page. Also, the med ref box stated that more reference was needed. Then, I tried to put the the references (although some of them turned out to be inaccurate). Not just GL, I have also made citation on Culley C Carson's prosthesis article.

I will stop my editing on the penile articles for now, but I do demand fairness and respect, especially to those (including myself) new to Wikipedia editing. And Flyer22 Reborn: yes, your in-text attribution came from the issue of the "os analog." Albeit that it really just refers to the hard structure inside the glans, and which contributes to the rigidity and shape of an erect penis. It's not a theory but just a fact. If, like many other literature states, penile erection only relies on only the erectile tissue, sexual intercourse would not have been achieved so easily - the pointed and relatively hard structure/ the end of the distal ligament is important, and that has a great resemblance to the os penis (found in most other species but not us). Why make the conveyance of such a concept so difficult? Putting this consensus thing aside, Flyer22 Reborn, I am contributing to the content in this area, and a lack of that was supposed to be an issue to resolve?

Of the copy-right issue, I am aware that GL has declared on his website that all those images are licensed under CC. Just scroll down to the the very end of the page: [14].

As far as I know, the concept of the erection-related veins was first reported in a world meeting in Japan, and it's done by GL. The identification of those veins was mentioned in an Asian journal that no longer existed (called the New Taipei something), but that journal did not have all those detailed diagrams from GL's website. Also, the corresponding author knew little about the research, and became that because of his position in the institute; which is really not the point here. There was even fabrication on the date of reception.

I do not know if GL and others signed the right-release agreement to that ghost publisher. It's gone now anyway, so who does the right to that knowledge belong? If one can sort this out, I'm sure it'd be easier to know where to ask for permission if we are to disseminate this knowledge. If Hsu Androlgy can put all those images on their website and claims that their rights are released under CC, perhaps they already had it sorted out? If there is any issue, should you not direct the question to them, but not to this meow meow.

The Andrology article is an outcome report on the surgery, but not the anatomical concept, and the later mentioned article is not the original article/speech on the anatomical concept, either. With the open access journal (and for many other journals now), right is not as strict a matter, as sharing can be done when permission is granted, or when significant modification is done on an image.

I will stay away on the penile matter and GL, but keep an eye on how things develop.

Thanks so much.

Orangelioncat (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Potential COI editing by several (related) IPsEdit

These IPs have recently been making several edits to New Zealand and Pacific Island-related pages, mostly to add a reference to a single recently-published book. At first glance (not having read the book), the reference appears to be at least somewhat relevant, but it seems likely that the IP editors are closely associated with the book in some way - e.g., its author or publisher. I have left a note about this on each of the IPs' Talk pages, but they have not responded. Ross Finlayson (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Another IP:
Ross Finlayson (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • One of the most important things is to mention the articles in which you believe is to be COI with editors. Graywalls (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It's almost every article that these 3 IPs have been editing They're too numerous too list. Ross Finlayson (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rsfinlayson:, I see what's going on now. This is bad. There might be a way to get the two links blacklisted so they can't keep getting added. I don't know if they can specify it past the top domain (in this case try asking the Helk Desk if there's a way to request specific URLs to be added to spam list. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

and... more (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Graywalls (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Outside In (organization)Edit

  • The user just updated his user page on 6 Aug 2006 which included inserting "Clinic Shifts at Outside In and NHC6 Aug 2006
  • Series of edits involving substantial contents change between 26 May 2011 and 1 June 2011 between accounts Travis.Thurston, Oivolunteer and IP that occurred around here. To be on the safe side of WP:OUTING policy, I would not elaborate the data found however to those familiar, there's a sufficient indication to show that signed edit occurred at the organization. The user name OIVolunteer is quite obvious and self-explanatory.
  • Edits by (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) on 19 Feb 2016, and at the time of occurrence, there's a good likelihood of correlation between the organization and the edit source. Didn't post notice on that IP's talk, because there's a newer edit to it and there's likely no correlation between organization and that IP now. diff
  • Relatively recent edit by JayHedegard on 12 Oct 2018. For privacy policy, specifics are omitted but this edit appears to have been done for the organization.

An editor who is currently engaged with editing expressed discontent with the COI tag remaining on the page and wants it gone and he's asking what contents should be changed for the tag to go away. I'm uncertain about the accepted norm here regarding how long they should remain on. I expressed my view that my concern isn't necessarily the sourcing. My concern is that since the article was built from the ground up by someone likely acting on behalf of the organization likely with substantial input and possibly under the direction and supervision of the organization, the outline of categories and contents on which contents are expanded upon may contain deeply entrenched bias that tends to define what contents to include and not include. A comment was inserted by yet another IP editor relating to unionization. This content was removed by an account which I have a good reason to believe it is related to the organization. That account has only been used for edits relating to this organization and the edit summary for removing unionization was that it's "inaccurate". This occurred within the last 6 months. I have researched the contents that was removed and the information appears to be accurate. I believe that current COI still exists after observing that edit on the union matter that seems to indicate PR engagement by organization to manage contents about the organization. I think resolving it is a little more than complicated than simply improving contents. As long as the outline of the original apge creation remains, there's likely an implicit bias that moderates what contents get built up or contents remaining that would not have been entered without any input from involved editors. The COI concern will remain as long as organization continues to monitor and actively engage in contents management. Graywalls (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I attempted to remove some of the primary sourcing, among other edits, but my work was reverted by Graywalls. I think this should just be reduced to an appropriate stub, if NPOV is a concern. Let's not make this more work than needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you care so much now to clear the tag expeditiously but didn't even bat an eye about the COI editing itself. Graywalls (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Undisclosed COI editing can be concerning, but I'm more focused on getting the current article's contents Wikipedia-compliant, instead of focusing who added what and when. I'd like to see editors remove problematic content so the tag can be removed, what's wrong with that? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
These two points in time makes a great example of a deeply entrenched bias. This content was originally inserted, unsourced, from the organization's IP. initially. The statement became referenced through sources coalescing around the statement inserted by the organization's IP. Despite having the appearance of being well sourced, bias was introduced from someone at the organization inserting what wants to be presented in the article on them. Suspected edits originating at the organization or accounts associated with it occurred in August 2006, Jay-June 2011, Feb 2016 and most recently (that I am aware of) in October 2018. I argue that this is one of the articles that needs to be on a long term watch and it's not just a matter of neutralizing it now and be done with due to sufficient evidence of chronic undisclosed, direct PR engagement from the organization. The most recent suspected COI editor responded and commented he was not compensated or was directed by the organization; although evidence supports the account was essentially SPA, and other edits on this organization clearly shows there's a pattern of edits being made to article about them from their IP. Graywalls (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't have an objection with this specific edit but it's interesting that this content whose inclusion decision was made by an Outside In connected contributor was brought back up soon after it was removed. When the article subject takes the initiative to insert contents, contents can coagulate around the outline or contents left in edit history. Analogously, I tore off the pavement that wasn't supposed to be put in the first place. It was paved, but paving followed the shadows left behind, thus retaining the planning bias (caused by connected contributor that chose where to freshly lay the roads). Hopefully this helps explain the concern I have expressed about the issue of deep entrenched COI that becomes woven into the fabric of an article. Graywalls (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply from JayHedegardEdit

As it appears on his talk page: Graywalls (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Drm310. Sorry, I'm not sure if I am replying to this correctly. I have not been compensated in any way for the edits I made to the Outside In page nor was I directed to do so by the organization. Thanks. Jay

Allen Blakemore (political consultant) ‎Edit

I noticed that the user Redwhiteandboujee was inserting the following (unsourced) sentence into a number of articles: " with Allen Blakemore to effectively plan and execute political strategy." See, for example, here and here. When I looked into the user's contribution history, I noticed they had created the article Allen Blakemore (political consultant). This looks like a probable case of self-promotion. Marquardtika (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd guess that it's WP:UPE. Regardless, it's blatant promotion. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Definitely blatant promotion,I'm inclined to believe he's edit his clients' articles to give himself more name recognition than being paid to edit. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


Etherweave is a business offering "services include marketing strategy, Web design and development, copywriting, editorial services, integrated e-mail campaigns and a range of other services" [15]. All of the authors listed above are or were clients of theirs. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


This user's only editing has been to add content from VentureBeat to other articles, usually written in a somewhat promotional style. Have reverted many of the recent additions, but they are extensive, and there may be other accounts involved. Edwardx (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Inquiry on current best practiceEdit

As background, please read the note I left on the talk page of Yana Peel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Yana is a friend who very keenly wishes that all proper procedure at Wikipedia be followed, and who is also keen to see some updates to her Wikipedia entry. Her page was tagged a few years ago with a conflict of interest editing tag - I don't have any direct knowledge of whether that was correct, but I think we can assume that it was correct at the time.

It is a common thing that someone edits Wikipedia with a COI, but more or less innocently just trying to help. Even in cases where the edits are a bit too promotional, I believe that this is also often (but not always) "innocent" in the sense that people are naturally prone to speak in a positive way about things they've achieved or done in their lives.

When something like this happens, the result is often an extended "punishment" (although nothing in Wikipedia should ever be punishment!) of a tag on the top of an article which languishes for years.

So here's my inquiry: what is best practice for someone who has a COI tag but wants to do the right thing, in terms of getting that tag removed and getting further edits done to an article?

I'm well aware that there are persistently annoying people who exhaust our patience with repeated efforts to "puff" their entries. That's also an interesting case, but it's not the sort of case I'm asking about right now! I'm talking about nice people.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: I would suggest it is you who have the conflict of interest. As you are aware, there is no punishment on Wikipedia, only prevention. Those COI tags help prevent disruptive editing and, for that reason, should remain there forever. We also don't have rules that apply to "persistently annoying people" but not "nice people". Such value judgments are subjective and suspect. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
How do I have a conflict of interest on the general topic? I think there is no evidence to suggest that such tags "should remain there forever". That's just an obviously wrong position that only makes sense in a "life sentence punitive" way of thinking.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The COI tags help warn readers of problems with the neutrality of the article. If they want changes made, they should submit them on the talkpage thru the edit request system. COI punishments are preventative because they prevent the article from becoming promotional. We don’t give exceptions to the rules for “nice people”. End of discussion. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
No, we don't give exceptions to the rules for nice people, but neither do we seek to punish people for mistakes. You may have heard the expession "Assume good faith" - it's a core value of the Wikipedia movement.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Standard procedure is to use the talk page and propose changes. As for when 'removal' of a COI tag is warranted, it's when a consensus of editors agree that the current version of the page is fair and balanced, and that the edits from the person who was suspected to have a COI were reviewed as non-problematic, or when the problematic parts of those edits were expunged. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd recommend that editor begin a discussion in the article's Talk page. If no one responds, post a note in the Talk page of one or more relevant Wikiprojects. If that doesn't work, drop a note here.
The template shouldn't be used as a badge of shame or punishment; if another editor has reviewed the edits and made the appropriate changes - perhaps none - then the template should be removed. ElKevbo (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Before we rush to do favors for "nice people", could someone please look into whether the following editors were coordinating their efforts to promote content related to Yana Peel?
  • User:Serpentine_gallery_press_dept (pre-dates Peel's tenure, but establishes a pattern)
  • User:Newcombe45 (seems keenly interested in Mr. and Mrs. Peel and Intelligence Squared, the company she helped purchase, which is headquartered in Newcombe House, at 45 Notting Hill Gate)
  • (edits only about Outset Contemporary Art Fund, co-founded by Yana Peel)
  • User:JLMLand (edits only about the artistic director under Yana Peel at Serpentine Galleries)
  • User:Vennietweek (edits only about Para Site, co-chaired by Yana Peel from 2010 to 2015)
  • User:Varez33 (edits only about Stephen Peel)
  • User:Natalia_Cherenkova (strangely only edits about an art collector, Faberge art, and TPG Capital -- Mr. Peel's firm)
And lastly, there is this. Does the fact that the Peels have donated at least $10,000 (perhaps $30,000) to the Wikimedia Foundation influence whether Wikipedians do a favor and remove from her biography a conflict of interest notice to readers and other editors? If so, which way does that influence go? Considering the various mysterious editors above, are we certain there is no further risk in seeing conflict of interest on the biographical article? - Wacomshera (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
There is absolutely no reason why someone's donation history should ever matter to Wikipedia editing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think the donation matters, unless they get preferential treatment. And they are not getting preferential treatment, as is seen in the article. All Jimbo is asking is if someone can explain the current policy, and a request edit on the talk page. Seems pretty free of influence to me.

People are allowed to have friends. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
(arbitrary break)

Jimbo, thanks for asking the question here. It doesn't seem like you got a succinct reply. I think the answer is "This tag may be removed by editors who do not have a conflict of interest after the problem is resolved...", from Template:COI#When to remove. That textbook answer does seem to be aligned with my experience of how things work. Hope this helps. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Per Bri's comment, and as a completely uninvolved party here in my living room far from the art world or Wiki headquarters, I made a dozen or so edits to reduce the promotional nature of the article. The tags are still there as they are valid. The article is still promotional and could use the eye of a more experienced editor. I don't see an issue with fixing an article in order to remove a tag and improve wiki qaulity, assuming notability, irregardless of where the request comes from.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm wondering about sort of the same thing. Unlike other noticeboards, I see a lot of entries left open and hanging. A case I created , Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Outside_In_(organization) involves an organization that shows signs of a long-term (over a period of years), direct PR engagement by people with affiliation. I'm not sure how long the COI template should remain, but even after neutralization, I feel like this is one of those where something needs to remain on the long term. The latest edit was a reference to unionization being removed by an account that appears to be related to the organization even though the account owner said he was not "paid" or "directed" to make the edit. Basically, I think employees/interns/volunteers who edit on the company's computer or making the edits with consent of management ought to be considered "work related" activity and ought to subject to mandatory disclosure. If the edits are made by salaried staff, it's all too easy to claim they weren't paid "for editing wikipedia" but if that conduct is deemed acceptable work related use of time, then it would be within part of their job. Graywalls (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but we are not here to punish system abusers; we're here to build a good encyclopedia. If a tagged article can be turned into a good, neutral article by editing, that is the optimal outcome. Think of any family or organization. Sh*t happens, but you move towards the main goal of your family or organization; you don't spend years punishing the kids or your employees. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
And we also can, and should, make a nuanced distinction between "system abusers" (who absolutely do exist) and people who have make mistakes in the past but now want to walk away with dignity.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
If article subject company has a tendency to do direct PR editing over a long time, a notice would serve to help readers informed to check edit history and be advised that changes made by the organization itself may continue to occur. It isn't "punishing" the organization. It's keeping readers informed. Graywalls (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
If someone in your family has a history of violating your family's rules, sometimes an honest intervention is helpful before you naively accept an endorsement from their "friend" that they (and their spouse and their corporations that have also been violating the family's rules) are a "nice person" now. - Wacomshera (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I see your point but watchlists do that in the background. PR edits, we revert. Leaving tags on purpose for months or years and focusing on the abusers rather than article improvement is counterproductive. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Are you, or have you ever been, paid by anyone to edit wikipedia? Thanks! (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello Ohio! The answer is no and no. Did you forget to log in?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Nope! Ohio, huh. Man, I get around. (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The matter of connected and paid editing seems more pervasive than I was expecting. When I discovered connected editing at Outside In (organization), I thought it was a relatively isolated issue. Then, I found the same issue at Pride Northwest involving executive staff editing the page. As I click around categories, pages for my area, pages for local papers referenced within articles and mostly from just poking around, more such issues surfaced. Special interest group and an alternative newspaper publisher Street_Roots was added by the account named with its own own; and that of the executive editor (who is identified within cited sources). Then, I've found edits to an article from an IP originating in the article's company that was helping themselves to the article and adding things into the project list; formatting the layout in the way they want it laid out. That is one of the largest privately held company in Oregon Hoffman Construction Company. Are we to simply neutralize things and let it go on as if nothing happened whenever it happens? On Street Roots, the talk page already had a "connected contributor" tag, but people don't really look there. This is a great example of delayed discovery. I added this template since after reviewing evidence present, I had good faith reason to suspect UDPE. The template was met with resistance from another editor within hours who wanted the article sanitized and wanted the "branding" gone yesterday. Is it the current best practice to just wipe off contentious contents and let the template come down immediately? There seems to be no deterrent to this behavior as promotional contents would stay until caught, and if caught, all they have to do would be remove the contents and any marking of such attempt just vanish into the thin air for all practice purposes as people don't generally bother go digging in the edit history. Graywalls (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Maya StovallEdit

The article was a stub a few days ago when I created it. A very savvy editor with a new account showed up and added many, many refs (in one case they had ten refs in a row). And I just noticed that new savvy editors marks all edits as "m" for minor. Seems like obvious COI and/or UPE editing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

So, they are helping to improve the article by adding reference links, and you're calling notice to this as a problem? - Wacomshera (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
It's clearly professional paid editing or COI-- only pros mark all the edits "M" to try to hide them. The account's first edit added ten properly formatted references with cite web, marked "minor". Does that not sound fishy to you? Calling out such obvious COI or UPE is appropriate here to alert the editor that we are suspicious of their neutrality. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, no -- I don't find the addition of properly formatted references (something that Wikipedians beg people to do at meetups and workshops) to an article that you created (and then complained about all of these reference citations being added to it) to be "obvious COI" or "suspicious". Frankly, your complaint strikes me as the more suspicious activity. - Wacomshera (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Gotta stick up for Montreal here, this article is a straight up resume/autobio and he has good experience cleaning this garbage up. Refspam is an exceedingly common UPE tactic designed to trick less experienced editors into thinking an article is well sourced, when most of those sources are misleading or purely WP:ROUTINE. For example, the first three sources comprise: 2 interviews (vice and detroit news) and 1 article written by the subject. These cannot be used to establish notability or describe her work. There doesn't appear to be enough quality sources to establish notability, so I think taking this to AfD is warranted, searching for sources online finds some run of the mill stuff and articles about two different athletes with the same name. SWL36 (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Not much point for AfD as she meets WP:ARTIST 4) d.: In multiple museum collections. I wholeheartedly agree on the tactics of UPE editors, which was the point of posting here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Silverback BikesEdit

Hello. The user said they had a COI here. They were asked to formally disclose it here. The draft was rejected twice. And the article has now been created twice. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Sami YusufEdit

The user's talk page calls Sami Yusuf "our artist", evidently the user is one of Yusuf's agents. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they have already said they represent Yusuf's management at their talk page, and they're currently indef blocked for edit warring, block evasion and legal threats. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
This editor has unambiguously edited contrary to the COI guidelines, despite warnings. If this person returns to editing, either via more block-evasion or via an unblock, and the same pattern continues, I will be willing to take further action, but at present, in view of the block that Boing! said Zebedee has mentioned, there is nothing more to be done. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Two more of Yusuf's representatives have been added. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Apparently there's been socking too – Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mjahangir777. Bri.public (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Fabrizio BoccardiEdit

This editor has made a large amount of edits to the article in the past months, including adding excessive refs (one sentence has nearly 50). A connection seems likely. I have made no conclusions about the neutrality of the article, but 314 refs in such a short article is certainly suspicious. MB 05:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


The username implies that the user works at Guru Studio. If that's true, this is a serious violation of WP:COI. The user edited the Guru Studio article for most times. The user also edited True and the Rainbow Kingdom article (the subject of which was produced by Guru Studio.) two times. The changes made by the user were already reverted. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 08:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The user's last edit so far was on 12 April 2019, and I left a {{uw-paid1}} notice on 17 April 2019. Their next edits will determine any future action. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Something to keep you busy over the long weekendEdit

Batch ending 19 AprilEdit

Happy Easter, from the spammers. MER-C 10:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello. You have drafted HealthPocket, Inc, but now there are 2 drafts for the same subject: Draft:HealthPocket and Draft:HealthPocket, Inc. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I've history merged those two since Tramontinaberbera created one as a cut and paste move. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
That draft is all the more interesting given this unblock request. MER-C 08:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Admins have been amenable to speedy deletion criteria G11 (promotion) and G5s (creation by blocked/banned, e.g. Wikibaji) in many cases. I didn't notice before, but at least one was eligible for G4, recreation of deleted article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulugbekhon Maksumov). Based on who did the moving perhaps the drafts are retained as honeypots? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
That, and to minimise the amount of community time dealing with the trash. MER-C 09:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Steuart Pittman paid editingEdit

Could an admin look at Draft:Steuart Pittman? I think it was deleted as copyvio then recreated and moved to mainspace. Bri.public (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It was. Even worse, the whole thing was a repeat performance: the first version had been created as a draft and then moved to mainspace without a proper AFC review, so I moved it back to draftspace and reviewed it to go over the reasons why it wasn't approvable in its original form (although I didn't notice the copyvio issue itself, there were still problems with the sourcing and with his basic notability claim not cleanly passing our inclusion criteria in the first place.) Then somebody else noticed the copyvio and deleted it afterward — but then the creator recreated it, used OTRS to cover off the copyright problem while still not actually addressing the basic notability issue at all, and then proceeded to ignore what I had already told them about "you don't get the privilege of moving the article into mainspace yourself without an AFC review" by doing exactly that again. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
That editor I believe is in politician's employment and I have notified them of paid editing requirements. They partially self-outed as a county employee on the article's talkpage (now deleted) and are listed in this exec staff directory. We had an additional problem that they were personally attesting that the copyvio contributions made on taxpayer time were released by the county government. I'm not sure if that's allowed. Bri.public (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


User made promotional/BLP edits on their own User page, which I have nominated for Speedy Deletion. By the looks of it, this may be a promotional account. IanDBeacon (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Blues AmericaEdit

Hello. Some context: Blues America is a radio series produced and hosted by Drew Verbis. The article Blues America was created on 15 April by User:OU133. It contained sentences such as "richly textured nonfiction narrative that delves deeply into the human experience" and loads of sources that supported very little of the article content. It was deleted yesterday, and just a few hours later, the article Drew Verbis was created by User:DrumSalad. This new article contains a section titled "Blues America" which is basically a copy/paste from the deleted article and loads of sources that support very little of the article content. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I know Drew personally and posted this article for him since I know about Wikipedia and have been doing it for some time now. I made sure to review it for promotional language and the like so that it would meet Wikipedia standards. I did not know that he had tried to have it posted before, so I wanted to know what I should do to be transparent about this issue and also what I can do in the future to let the Wikipedia community know that there is a COI. Im happy to answer any questions! Thanks! DrumSalad (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I cut some bits out of Drew Verbis that were promotional. Short story: don;t write articles for your firends. This one is very promotional.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
As a rule, your best bet is to simply avoid making any edits at all on topics where you have a COI — but that said, we do recognize that it's impossible for us to prevent people from trying. So you do also have the option of going through draftspace and submitting your draft for an AFC review, so that you'll get feedback from established Wikipedians on what kind of improvements might be necessary to make an article more neutrally worded and better-sourced. People with COIs aren't entirely forbidden from editing the article at all — for example, even Drew Verbis himself would be allowed to edit his article to correct a purely factual error — it just means that you have to be really careful not to step over the line into promotionalism, or adding personal information you know about him personally but can't reference to published sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Monica HelmsEdit

Given the username and the fact this user has been primarly editing this article I suspect the account could be the subject herself. User has not responded to COI warning I placed on the user's talk page and continues editing. I have placed COI templates on article has the account has extensively edited it. funplussmart (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Ricardo Costa (filmmaker)Edit

I have reason to suspect that Tertulius, a banned user who was the creator of all of the film articles listed above and has been a significant editor (although not the original creator) of the filmmaker's BLP, may have a direct conflict of interest with regard to these topics. The film articles are all basically advertisements rather than encyclopedia articles, and are referenced overwhelmingly to primary sources rather than reliable source media coverage — and the BLP is also referenced much more heavily to his own self-published content about himself rather than to reliable source coverage or analysis, and features significant passages of total flaming incoherence. ("In some way moved by the idea that explains one sentence of Marcel Mauss, a well-known French sociologist and anthropologist, ("There is more poetry in a grain of reality than in the brain of a poet"), certain Portuguese film-makers, especially after the Carnation Revolution, traveled around their country, from one end to another, camera in hand. With state funds or in co-production with the national broadcast TV station, the RTP, some made "engaged films" (cinéma engagé, i.e. political cinema), but never with lack of charm. Others make films in which reality, as an expression of actual events, appears with that poetical charge, as Mauss refers. Films shot with low budgets but in full liberty. Films portraying reality, a genre to which all those productions fit, would last for a few years and would generate important or even remarkable works, some of which were forgotten.")

I can also provide additional evidence — but I want to be careful about the outing rule, so I'll provide it separately and/or privately if needed rather than addressing it directly here.

I can see a plausible basis for notability here, so I don't want to just rush the articles straight to AFD if somebody's willing to work on cleaning them up, but as things stand the articles are too heavily advertorialized, and not reliably sourced nearly well enough, to just ignore — they need to be addressed, and either fixed or deleted, fairly urgently. Bearcat (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Bearcat, all of them can be safely deleted as a combination of G11 + G12.
There is conclusive evidence about COI, in light of socks, web-hosting and other off-wiki evidence. WBGconverse 15:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Bearcat, also, there's a ptwiki CU match to RCfilms. You can easily detail the COI aspects without breaching the Outing guidelines. WBGconverse 15:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay. The other evidence I was cautious about disclosing here was basically the same stuff I listed in the SPI request: the attempt to smuggle Tertilius' past original research about "hybridity in docufiction" back into the docufiction article by means of an external link to a self-published "appendage" PDF stored in Ricardo Costa's website, which was literally word-for-word the exact same content. Clearly you're already aware of that, however, so I have nothing further to add beyond that. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


Amandadoyle543, previously known as Birchmierassociates, appears to be an undeclared paid editor. Her articles are pure PR for often non notable subjects. Some come with official photos complete with OTRS permission from the clients supplied by her. They appear ready made adverts bombarded with usually bad sources. They exaggerate minor aspects and are commonly full of info not supported by the sources. Above is just a random sample of her spam.

Some with pics, Amy Dean Hoff [16] [17]m, Hoax (band), Katherine Taylor [18], Richard Ludlow [19], Matthew Carl Earl [20]. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Presley Massara, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presley Massara
Glory (2007 film), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glory (2007 film)
Natalie Marie Ames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Marie Ames
Mercy Malick, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercy Malick
Richie Stephens (actor), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richie Stephens (actor)
Minerva Vier, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minerva Vier
Some spam sent to afd. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


The user claims themself to be from the "marketing team at NGS". NGS is an abbreviation of the National Geographic Society, and 1888 is the year the society was founded. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 14:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This looks to me like someone attempting to disclose a COI and cooperate transparently with Wikipedia on improving their article. That said they should be informed that they should not make direct edits and rather discuss their edits on the talk page. El komodos drago (talk to me) 09:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Diabetes Digital MediaEdit

Today, User:Jhrastafari moved Arjun Panesar from draft space. It was created on 1 April by User:ContributingWikiUser. It had been deleted in September 2017, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjun Panesar. Yesterday, User:Jhrastafari created Diabetes Digital Media, the parent company of, which he created in March 2014‎. Arjun Panesar is a co-founder of both. Seems reasonable to infer that User:Jhrastafari and User:ContributingWikiUser are the same editor and that there is a conflict of interest. Edwardx (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Responsive computer-aided designEdit

All of this user's edits have centered around a single researcher, and have included references (including a PhD thesis) to that individual. The two articles created by this editor may be original research as well. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)