Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use ((subst:coin-notice)) ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series ((Uw-paid1)) through ((Uw-paid4)). Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with ((Connected contributor)), the article page may be tagged with ((COI)), and/or the user may be warned via ((subst:uw-coi|Article)). 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

• Iridium Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 128.177.26.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Rossy Evelin Lima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Grldpadilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Moriba Jah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Moribajah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 128.62.208.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.155.109.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Aidepikiw9102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• LadyDuck06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

I noticed some promotional and copyright violations made by single purpose accounts at Semtech and LoRa. LadyDuck06 failed to interact using talk pages and sometimes edit warred. Suddenly, their edits stop and a new single purpose account takes over. More eyes welcome. —PaleoNeonate – 01:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: Hi editor, is it a conflict of interest if these are factual additions to the aforementioned page (and backed by credible sources)? Please let me know, thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidepikiw9102 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never noticed the above message before, since it was unsigned, WP:PING did not work. In any case, I'm writing here as an update: editing has resumed at LoRa. —PaleoNeonate – 19:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aidepikiw9102 and LadyDuck06: if you are working for a company to edit Wikipedia, there are clear policies about mandatory disclosure (please see WP:PAID for details). Policies also don't forbid, but strongly discourage editing related articles, but to instead propose changes at the article's talk page (WP:COI for more information). I am not the best person to help with COI, but this is a noticeboard where others can notice to help and/or apply sanctions if necessary. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: confirmed as sockpuppets and blocked. —PaleoNeonate – 22:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SPI link to close the loop: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LadyDuck06.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you search - within Wikipedia - for "Pathway of the Birds", you'll see multiple recent references to a single book: "Crowe, Andrew (2018). Pathway of the Birds: The Voyaging Achievements of Māori and their Polynesian Ancestors". All of these references were added - within the last few months - by IPs beginning with "118.93" (in New Zealand). There's clearly some sort of COI going on here, but, despite several requests on the IPs' talk pages, the editor(s) have not explained themselves.

I have reverted several of the most blatant reference spams - e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4]. However, I left several references to this book 'as is', because they appear to add useful information, and - if not for the apparent COI - appear to be legitimate references; e.g., [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].

I'm wondering what we should do about this. On the one hand, some of the references do indeed seem to be useful. On the other hand, the integrity of this encyclopedia is being compromised by this blatant spamming, and the clear, though unexplained COI. Should we be removing all references to this book - or only the most blatant examples of 'reference spam'? Ross Finlayson (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the fact that the edits can be traced to Vodafone New Zealand, a major NZ ISP, (hardly surprising for a NZ publication on a NZ subject, added to articles about NZ and NZ-regional topics), what is your evidence for asserting a COI? Your edit summaries refer to it being "your [the anon editor's] book"; please explain this assumption. In this edit, for example, you removed the fact that the Kapingamarangi language is related to Maori. How does that help the encyclopedia, and its readers? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One would rather expect a book about New Zealand, written by a New Zealander, and published in New Zealand, to be most commonly read, and referred to by, editors in New Zealand. DuncanHill (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rsfinlayson, when I get a new reference from the library for an article I'm working on, it isn't uncommon for me to see if there are other articles that would benefit from that source. It could be completely innocent that this book is being used as a reference on multiple articles in a very short period. If the sourcing is helpful, it's not spam. If it's being shoehorned into barely-related articles, that would be a problem. --valereee (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One would have to be extremely naive to assume that adding the same reference to dozens of different articles (sometimes more than once) is "completely innocent". Ross Finlayson (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't an important question be whether Andrew Crowe is a credible expert on the subject? All his other books seem to be about birds, insects and edible plants. --SVTCobra (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off-topic for COIN, but I agree with SVTCobra's comment. Crowe's bio can be seen here: childrens books, popular science, travel and nature books. No mention of academic or professional scientific credentials. This aspect should be clarified, before such sources are used for scientific facts about migration, archaeology and other complex topics. And I doubt, that the systematic addition in several dozens articles is coincidence. A COI is atleast likely. GermanJoe (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the book. Crowe's a good popular science writer, and it's an excellent summary of recent research into Polynesian voyaging. It's blurbed by the main names in the field. There hasn't been an overview of the field like this published for many years. The content is relevant to numerous articles, and I was going to go through it myself and do something like this; glad to see someone's doing it for me. It's perfectly possible that someone's just bought a copy of the book and is going through it methodically. To me it's irrelevant who's adding the content, me or an anonymous IP. All that matters is whether it's directly relevant to the article and improving the encyclopedia; perhaps we should look at the edits on a case-by-case basis and see whether they're improving each article. What Rsfinlayson calls a "blatant reference spam" ([10]), for example, is actually laudable: replacing a general fact taken from a Fodors travel guide with more specific information from a well-researched book. Why would we revert that? —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blurbs are usually just brief endorsements. Even from prominent names, they are usually not thorough in-depth reviews and shouldn't be treated as such. But to clarify my stance a bit more: Crowe could occasionally be used by uninvolved editors as source for uncontroversial common information ("bird X lives in Y" or similar details, that any knowledgeable lay author could provide). Uninvolved editors are welcome to add or keep such a reference on a case by case base, agree. But he should not be used for complex scientific information (historical research, archaeology, linguistics, and similar topics). As far as I know - please correct me if I am wrong - he has no scholarly or professional scientific expertise in these topics. Where he faithfully summarizes existing scholarly literature, these scholarly sources should be used as sources instead. GermanJoe (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why Andrew Crowe has to be any sort of expert on the subject, he can still meet WP:RS despite. This is a trade called "journalism", for one thing, the ability to take information from other expert sources and to report it accurately, without also needing to become equally expert. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remember when we thought adding references to articles was a good thing? Gamaliel (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm appalled by blocks and treatment like this Special:Contributions/118.93.145.132 (and came here to raise it). Comments like "rmv - book spam, scientific content based on speculating non-expert source". Sorry @GermanJoe:, but had you even read the book, or studied the bona fides of Andrew Crowe before you wrote it off as non-expert speculation? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't read his books. Yes, I carefully read his bios and other credentials (as far as they are available online). In fact, I was the one who linked the information to his credentials in this discussion (see above). Maybe read the entire thread, before posting borderline-insulting personal allegations. Aside from personal opinion, I haven't seen a single piece of verifiable evidence that this author is a topic expert for complex scientific information. Reliability is not a matter of good faith or of like vs. dislike, but of verifiable evidence. What's really troubling in this case are regular, respected editors defending systematic book spam (several dozen edits in quick succession by multiple dynamic IPs) with a negligent laissez-faire approach. Any form of advertisement is not only against Wikipedia's fundamental principles, but also undermines the project's credibility as trustworthy source of information. GermanJoe (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to start throwing divine policy at us, I think you need to start with AGF. Also it would be good for you to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a training school for hall monitors. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although I increasingly wonder if I might just be wrong on that last one. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsfinlayson: Thank you for pointing out this problem. I have cleaned up a few more problematic instances, but kept ca. 20 added references for this book intact (where uncontroversial information was covered or the reference might be useful to look for better sources). I don't dislike the author or his book, but popular science publications without evidence of scholarly expertise should not be used for complex scientific theories and analysis. Of course any good-faith editor is welcome to disagree or discuss specific cases to find the best solution. GermanJoe (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a bit strange that this has gone from a suspected COI case – still without any hard evidence that the author or publisher is involved – to an attack on the accuracy of a secondary source that none of the attackers has even read. I haven't read the whole thing, and my expertise is NZ palaeontology not archaeology, but what I saw looked fine. The book's been well-reviewed in the Listener and the Weekend Herald and has the OK from experts in Pacific archaeology like Pat Kirch and Lisa Matisoo-Smith, and that's good enough for me. It's perfectly appropriate to reference it extensively in Wikipedia, the same way I'd cite books by science journalists like Carl Zimmer and Ed Yong; Carl Zimmer's book Parasite Rex is cited extensively in Wikipedia; and you wouldn't replace all those refs with links to the primary literature, as Wikipedia is supposed to be summarising secondary sources. So can people stop attacking the work of a writer they've never read, and concentrate on determining whether this is case of excessive self-promotion by the writer or his publisher? —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example: GermanJoe removed information about long-tailed cuckoo migration being used by the ancestors of Māori to find NZ (the standard view, by the way, in the scientific literature on Polynesian migration) as rmv - speculation based on non-expert source. How does he know it's speculation? How does he know Crowe, who has apparently been researching this book for 15 years, is not an expert? How does he know the book is not WP:RELIABLE? He's never even seen it. I undid the reversion and added another reference to back it up; I could have added half a dozen. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But GermanJoe is a logged-in account, therefore considered to be omniscient unless proven otherwise. The refs were added by an IP editor, so are treated badly, as a matter of course. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the diffs presented above, I think it is the same editor adding the references due to the precisely identical way of filling in the citation template. The url is always pointing to Goodreads (not Google books or other) and the Auckland location of publication is always included (a parameter which is often skipped). Does that make for COI? It could easily just be someone reading the book and cross-referencing with Wikipedia. --SVTCobra (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user reporting this supposed conflict of interest is ideologically opposed to anonymous editing(see e.g. [11]) That, rather than any actual evidence, seems to be informing their approach here.146.198.193.63 (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I'm not the reporter but I'm "ideologically opposed to anonymous editing", if by "anonymous" you mean IP editing without accounts (which is actually quite a different thing). But in the meantime, such IP editing is permitted, and so it's quite wrong to judge any contributions on that basis, and I try hard not to. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are. You've undone edits of mine in the past for no reason other than their being from an IP address. This is thus pure hypocrisy. If you're ideologically opposed to people without accounts, you and the reporting user should not be wasting your time at an encyclopaedia that does not require registration to contribute; it will only make you unhappy and leads to timewasting like this report, and like your undoing of productive edits for no reason. 146.198.193.63 (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to accuse other editors of being hypocrites, then post diffs. And ideally in a thread somewhere else, it doesn't belong here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No clear evidence of a COI has been presented and, in any case, wholesale removal of suspected COI contributions is not the appropriate response. Repeating the edit summary "Please stop spamming your book (across multiple Wikipedia articles, by multiple (though related) anonymous IP addresses). You clearly have a conflict of interest here; you need to report it" in this context shows an unacceptable lack of AGF. –dlthewave ☎ 12:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: this approach seems like a very effective way to reject new users' useful contributions and put them off improving Wikipedia permanently. There are many reason John Cummings (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: As the author of Pathway of the Birds, I have just stumbled across this page. Wow! I had no idea all this was going on. Many of these contributions could indeed be from me, but I have contributed much other material to Wikimedia for which I quote other references. The book is a peer-reviewed summary that took 15 years to research and write and is endorsed with a Foreword from Pacific expert Patrick V. Kirch (Chancellor's Professor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley) as a 'scholarly synthesis'. From Wikipedia's guidelines I understood that using material I have written or published is OK if it is relevant, but that it should not be excessive. It pains me to learn that so much time spent on improving the quality of information available on this subject is being treated as mere 'reference spam' and being deleted. Surely any test for 'disruptive editing' should hinge on whether information is being added gratuitously - ie without making any material improvement to the encyclopedia. That is the test I apply to myself.118.93.22.58 (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

118.93.22.58, thank you for responding to the discussion. Wikipedia's guidance tries to balance achieving a neutral point of view and not discouraging editors. As you wrote, the Citing yourself guidance allows using material you have written or published if it is relevant, however "adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming". I looked at the larger edits of one of the IP accounts mentioned earlier and saw over twenty references to "Pathway of the Birds" and none to other works, so it not surprising that some editors thought it looked like spamming, even though that was not your intention. The guidance on citing yourself is part of Conflict of interest guidance, which recommends that all conflicts of interest should be disclosed. I think that this discussion shows that is better to disclose any conflict of interest in advance, than leave it to the reader to speculate.TSventon (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TSventon for taking the trouble to explain. Hopefully others will take up the challenge of improving Pacific coverage. For most entries, the history starts and ends with the arrival of a European, and, if Polynesians are mentioned at all, it is in connection with an early carbon date that has long since been discounted for sound technical reasons. That said, I am more than happy to give my corrections a break for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.129.228 (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

118.93.129.228 Thanks for encouraging me to read some more Polynesian Wikipedia articles. I forgot to mention the best way of avoiding reference spamming, which is to reference your peers' work as well as your own.TSventon (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Kate Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Davidwarner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Till date the user had been repeatedly recreating pages about not-so-notable bengalis, I posted a UPE notice, he replied its for his personal interest,he's not being paid. But the new bio-page created now doesn't follow the trend of bengalis, and I suspect false UPE declaration. Daiyusha (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak to the deleted pages, but of all the ones that are still up, the common thread seems to be cinema from the sub-continent, not just Bengalis. For a relative newcomer to create pages for actors of whom they are a fan and feel deserve a Wikipedia article is quite normal. I feel the suggestion that it is WP:PAID or WP:COI is unwarranted. Is there any reason this can't be handled through the normal channels of nominating for deletion on notability grounds when applicable? If previously deleted pages are recreated over and over again, it is disruptive editing and should be punished according to those guidelines. --SVTCobra (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra: I would argue that it spans outside cinema, and its unlikely that a single person would be a fan of an upcoming director in kolkata(sandip pal), a very remote actress from mumbai highly unlikely to have fans at this stage of her career(Kate Sharma), a celebrity dermatologist(supratim paul). Amrita chattopadhyay is the only one with credible claim of significance. IMO these are the kinds of people who pay to get their articles written. Heck, even I would do the same if I were in their place. Daiyusha (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an Admin, so I can't see the deleted Sandip Pal article, but are you sure it wasn't about the film director from Kolkata? As far as Dr. Supratim Paul is concerned, he seems to get a lot of press in India for his work according to his Instagram in Bollywood. Kate Sharma is verified on Instagram with over 400 thousand followers. I am sure she has fans that are willing to steal a photo from her Instagram and create a Wikipedia page for her. She's been the star of a TV show even if her film career is not yet a reality. I am not saying she is notable, just that I don't see evidence for COI or PAID. Also, what are the deleted pages which were supposedly recreated? I haven't seen any. And who would pay someone who is unskilled at editing Wikipedia without delivering a polished product? If it was a source of income, I doubt a person would limit themselves to a few edits a day on only a few days a week (with the exception of April 23). Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandip Pal was about a journalist turned film director from Kolkata. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, it was about the director. Its just that there is no correlation between the people who have articles written about, they are too remote to have fans enough to write articles, and too varied to have a common fan. Daiyusha (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that, but all of them seem to be quite popular. They all seem to have achieved a level of success which isn't going to be helped by having a Wikipedia article about them. You also say they are not connected to each other in any way. So ask yourself, which is the more likely scenario: All of these unconnected people somehow contacted the same editor and offered to pay them for creating articles? Or: Some random film fan thought these people deserved Wikipedia articles? --SVTCobra (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We would need a 3rd person to comment on this with his views, both of us have stated our opinions. That said, I've reported users before as being a case of UPE and quite a few of them turned out to either be socks or some other editor found webpages linking the reported person to a "digital marketing agency". That experience makes me biased towards similar users being guilty. And his talk page indicates he was recreating deleted pages Daiyusha (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree a third opinion or even a checkuser could be useful, but I do disagree the talk page shows any history of recreation. [[Sandip Pal] was only deleted once. It was nominated, but not deleted on a speedy criteria, but subsequently deleted on a DR. On the other hand, the user has not edited in three weeks. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nathan Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Diaozhadelaowai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

 – The more appropriate board and the one better able to assess whether this has crossed the outing like Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I have noticed an article, talking about a YouTuber called Nathan Rich. I read this article, its talk page and its history. According to the user name and REMOVED provided by User:Trufeseeker, I think that User:Diaozhadelaowai is Nathan itself, which is very WP:NOTHERE. It's kinda of non-revealed self-promotion issue. Also, no sufficient 2nd-hand sources are listed, most of which are BBS threads, Podcast programmes and YouTube videos, some of them are even link farms, eg East Day, Daily News, China.com, etc. Hoping that the problem could be solved. --Cameoskulk (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

REMOVED --Cameoskulk (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious why you and Trufeseeker have only ever edited or commented on Nathan Rich. Is it possible that you also have a COI? Beach drifter (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Then? Appeal to motive? Or Ad hominem? No way can I know Trufeseeker. I just watched a video made by Nathan Rich. The story he told makes me feel weird, so I created an account to try to find out something. And here it is. --Cameoskulk (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have the tags and the db spam added to the article, I would think that would be plenty for now, or you could try at the COI board. From the top of this page: This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Beach drifter (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not WP:OUTING? Also, OP failed to notify the reported user on their talk page. This could easily have been taken care of with a COI notice on the user's talk page or at the COI noticeboard first, not here. But now that the issue has been raised, I find Trufeseeker's edits on the page to be more problematic, including PROD'ing it multiple times. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I share CaptainEek's concerns that some of the above posts may have crossed the OUTING line. However I'm not experienced enough to say so hopefully people here at COIN (where I moved it) can better comment. I've also informed Trufeseeker of our PROD policy and informed User:Diaozhadelaowai of this discussion especially since as mentioned above no one informed them of the ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to identify a user on Wikipedia by full legal name is against the policies of Wikipedia, and attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block. See also WP:PRIVACY.

As the page in question is that of a political commentator and the users have no other edits, it's likely political or other opposition, in my opinion. Recommendation for me is "do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information," as it encourages outing, so I will do neither. An article on an individual with Associated Press, CNN, Hollywood Reporter, Huffington Post, etc does not seem to fit the description you lay out. If you feel the article is lacking, edit per Wikipedia policy. I've temporarily "REMOVED" the attempts at outing in an edit, as I'm not sure about undoing an entire COI thread. However, the policy does say: "Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently." Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have fully protected the page due to the edit warring over the last few days. Diaozhadelaowai, Trufeseeker and Cameoskulk - you all need to learn to be civil and focus on the content of the page and sort it out on the talk page. You are all on thin ice in my books. Sasquatch t|c 03:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sasquatch have blocked both users involved in this edit war. Rockstonetalk to me! 21:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• LAKBURN123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Originally reported at WP:UAA but directed here. This user is WP:NOTHERE, instead trying to promote themselves rather blatantly as shown by the fact that all of their contribs are to their Sandbox which is talking about a non-notable DJ. CTB TripleThree (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted their promotional draft, and warned them about autobiographical edits(in case it is the user). I'm not ready to say they are NOTHERE yet, though it may end up that way. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Louis B. Rosenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 47.47.72.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also Zoe Rosenberg (who I believe is Louis's daughter). The IP seems to be closely associated, but has not declared a COI. Ross Finlayson (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have trimmed some content from both articles to hopefully make more neutral and encyclopaedic. Melcous (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Center for Immigration Studies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are weird things going on at Center for Immigration Studies. Multiple editors have repeatedly edit-warred out content from the lede of CIS which a a Nov 2018 RfC concluded should be in the lede (one account going so far as to repeatedly violate 3RR to keep the content out). I've checked these editors and pretty much all these accounts are accounts whose first edits to Wikipedia where to CIS or CIS's founder Mark Krikorian, and whose editing careers have mostly revolved around CIS:

• Darryl.jensen
• ModerateMikayla555
• Griffy013
• Jsalzillo1

It's also worth noting that both Darryl Jensen and ModerateMikayla (the two most active of these accounts) demonstrated familiarity with Wikipedia policies and practices in their early editing. 20 minutes after ModerateMikayla555 gets warned about violating 3RR, suddenly the SPA Griffy013 shows up for the first time in three months to continue the edit-warring where ModerateMikayla left off. To me, this seems weird. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely suspicious. Might be worth opening a sockpuppet investigation as well. Toa Nidhiki05 17:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't plan on spending much time on CIS, but repeated disruptive edits from Snoogansnoogans have repeatedly drawn me back to the page, among a range of other areas I've edited. I have no conflict of interest and nothing to hide, and resent the accusation that I'm acting in bad faith. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Being clear, the edit warring seems to involve moving the anti-immigration statements lower in the lede section, after delineating the Center's expressed position (low-immigration rather than anti-immigration). However this does seem like an attempt to circumvent the RfC in spirit if not in practice. It should be noted that this is a fringe political group and thus, we should treat it as per WP:FRINGE WRT to assigning due weight to the organization's statements about themselves. All that said, this particular nativist group has long been a hot-spot; but I'm not sure whether CoI/N is the right place or if it's more appropriate for WP:AN - to get it on some mop-wielding watchlists. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking to move it lower--they were trying to move it higher. The longstanding version--for the past few months--has been to have the phrase "anti immigration" in the second paragraph. That was the case all way up until Aquillon made an edit here adding the phrase to the lede in an additional place (the first sentence) three days ago. If you look at any version prior to his edit then, anti-immigration was indeed in the lede--it was just only in the second paragraph, rather than in both the second paragraph AND the first. I was just trying to restore it to the consensus, longstanding version that's been there for months, ever since the RfC ended, before Aquillon's edit. The RfC didn't specify *where* in the lede the phrase should go, so I just kept it where it's been. The short version is that I'm not the one trying to change the lede, I just simply want to keep it how it's been for months. Regardless, I appreciate your input and objectivity on the issue, which I know has gotten unduly heated, partially my own fault. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Related discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 256 § Influencewatch and onenewsnow.com. ModerateMikayla555, who previously had the username ModerateMike729, attempted to discredit the American Immigration Council with a George Soros conspiracy theory at Special:Diff/878896738: "The organization is partially funded by George Soros, although it asserts that it is an independent organization." — Newslinger talk 05:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Snooganssnoogans, User:Toa Nidhiki05, Simonm223, y'all should definitely open up an SPI, if only so these now-blocked accounts can be tagged properly. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do it at the moment. I strongly encourage someone else to do it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm trying to be on Wikipedia less, but that looked like a righteous SPI in retrospect. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XLinkBot has been shut down by its operator. More spam may be getting through as a result. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dave Joerger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2601:204:c400:cd20:216:cbff:fe8d:d555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the diff linked below, we can see that this IP is claiming to be a manager and friend of the article topic. I don't know if this is allowed or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Joerger&curid=39649637&diff=903580977&oldid=892198501 TitanSymphony (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TitanSymphony: No, it is not allowed. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. I have reverted the edit. Whether there is actual WP:COI is almost secondary as it is WP:OR even in the best of scenarios. It is also highly inappropriate for this to be in the lede of an article which is completely devoid of anything about his personal life. --SVTCobra 16:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Louise Robey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 195.194.187.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ladyhoney24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Ladyhoney24 (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC) My name is Louise Robey. I have briefly edited my page. I realize that there might be a COI however I do not know why a malicious source in 2017 has been able to add inaccuracies and they stay on my page. Some of you leapt to my defense earlier this year which helped a bit however so much else is simply wrong or left out. I have only begun with the top 2 paragraphs to tweak. As the timeline is all wrong and much is left out what would you suggest? Please may I have some help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyhoney24 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for coming to the COI notice board. The most helpful step is always to WP:DISCLOSE when a COI exists. Then we can focus on mitigating the situation rather than worrying about establishing COI. I see that 195.194.187.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has identified as Louise Robey in edit summaries, if not elsewhere. Are you Ladyhoney24 declaring that not only are you Louise Robey, but you also made the edits from the IP 195.194.187.132? It may seem pedantic, but it is important to establish if we have two editors claiming to be the subject of an article, or just one. Cheers, --SVTCobra 11:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Touro College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lillibetsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Perhaps it's my fault, but efforts to communicate with Lillibetsy have so far failed. Touro College has a fairly extensive history of WP:COI editing, and this appear to be more of the same – insistent addition of non-neutral content showing every sign of having been copied from somewhere, though I can't identify the source. However, COI is denied. Would someone else care to take a look? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi--you don't know me and your accusation that I have a conflict of interest is completely unfounded, as is your accusation of plagiarism. My changes are not copied from anywhere; all content is written by me and is unbiased and in line with Wikipedia standards. Your behavior on the Touro College page, along with JesseRafe's, is not in the spirit of making the page better. If you have constructive edits or additions to make, please feel free. In the meantime, please stop reverting changes and putting up maintenance tags. Also please stop threatening and harassing me, thanks! Lillibetsy (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted Lillibetsy's last change which involved the large-scale removal of sourced content. Chetsford (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that there appears to be something going on here. I'm especially concerned about the whitewashing of the article - referenced information about the 2007 bribery scandal was removed for no apparent reason, and a quick Google search reveals that the scandal was covered by multiple reliable sources. Additionally, Lillibetsy has only edited about Touro College since the account was created five days ago, and several editors have tried to communicate with her with no success. I'll keep an eye on this article too. Aspening (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lilibetsy has removed the 'multiple issues' template from the article five times since 23 June. Since there is disagreement on whether the article issues have been fixed, this removal should wait for consensus. The five reverts take us into the realm of the edit warring policy, even though Lillibetsy did not break WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The title is only a play on words - of course there will be false positives.

Guess what time it is? It's quarantine time! MER-C 14:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MER-C. Is Donald Burns (businessman) not a re-creation of the Donald Burns that was deleted G5 by JzG in 2016? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same subject, vastly different content. MER-C 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Azusa Pacific University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• AbigailReed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User appears to be a paid public relations employee of the university linked above.^[1] The editor has not disclosed this information.

Philistene94 (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Philistene94[reply]

• Haiying123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Immigration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Immigrant syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The editor Haiying123 appears to be adding his own self-published research into articles, even going as far as a to create an entire article which just summarizes one of his papers. The editor has also violated 3RR on Immigration where he's adding his self-published research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

e-print archives (RSP entry) are generally not reliable sources either. -Mys_721tx (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have two users who work for the same company and edit in very similar ways. You can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Appiah Akoto their actions. Pambelle12 has had a huge history with deletions and seems to know quite a bit about the person who is being Nominated for deletion. Benebiankie Works for the same company as Pambelle and edited in a similar style. Note how they both used a bullet point with out a "Keep" or "Delete" comment. They made the same mistake. It seems suspicious and there is no COI tag either. Could someone please assist me in investigating?

Thank you AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: I'm not convinced that there's sockpuppetry going on with these two accounts. Using the editor interaction analyzer tool [12], I see minimal subject editing overlap. This doesn't discount the possibility of WP:MEAT, however. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drm310: If a sock is not very possible to occur, I feel that WP:MEAT and a general COI search are the way to go. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rick L. Danheiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• RLDassistant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ranielledandall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Left a COI template several weeks ago, and then left a another message, asking if their being paid, but the editor doesn't want to reply. scope_creep^Talk 21:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a COI maintenance template to the article and remove some unsourced content. Melcous (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Username is itself a problem; reported them to WP:UAA. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First user blocked; adding another who appears to have undisclosed paid edits to this and other articles. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Common Good (non-profit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zeenafrances (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lilyakaye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thecommongoodus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article has had three single-purpose editors pop up in the past week, all of whom have exclusively edited about this organization. The pattern here seems consistent with undisclosed conflict of interest editing, so I'm requesting additional eyes on it. Aspening (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding usernames and yes, COI/undisclosed paid editing is obvious. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sharon Palmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sharonpalmerrd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Seattlemvp95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Josephnavarro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Josephnavarro3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Joseph.navarro1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article Sharon Palmer is highly promotional, full of puffery, and written entirely by editors/socks with an apparent conflict of interest. One editor has a username that matches the subject's name. Three are apparenly socks of each other. All are single-purpose promotion-only accounts. Is the subject of this biography sufficiently notable to warrant an article in the first place? Peacock (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've toned down the puffery, but there are still serious sourcing and notability concerns. Melcous (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PCock: I would start an WP:SPI for at least the three Joseph Navarro accounts, if not all five. --SVTCobra 13:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, but two of the Navarro accounts haven't edited in several years, so they are definitely too old for SPI. Both Sharonpalmerrd and Seattlemvp95 edited in April - I'm not sure if they will fall within the range of what a checkuser can investigate. I'll look into it. Peacock (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and filed a request at SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sharonpalmerrd. Peacock (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are some copyright concerns, too - a large portion of the article as it stands is copied almost verbatim from another website. The Earwig tool is coming up at 47.6%, but from closer examination it does not appear to be a legitimate duplication. I also checked the diff where the problematic text was originally inserted and that is coming up at 88.5%, so what likely happened here is a succession of edits that changed the text ever so slightly but did not resolve the copyright problem. I'm going to revert the article back to the last clean version and tag the article accordingly. Aspening (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Sharon Palmer, I don't think she is notable at all. Publishing one book doesn't do the trick for me or WP:BIO. Diet blogs are not significant or reliable secondary sources. Perhaps, WP:DELETION is the appropriate course of action here.--SVTCobra 18:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Article has been WP:PROD'd by Hut 8.5, so let's see how that goes. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Gerard Lyons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sighsbolt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Abigswin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 81.98.75.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amloveg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 62.255.225.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gbafl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Long term abuse of this article by many SPAs, some IPs and all COIs (by nature of behaviour) going way back to 2016. This article is shamelessly self-promoting. We do not need 32 previous roles listed (only 7 referenced, some of significantly un-encyclopaedic quality). Similar issues exist throughout the entire article. I have grappled with the COI issues a little over the past 3 years but can't quite trace my actions at the various times this article has flagged up on my watchlist. I'm happy to trim down the article, but with this not being my area of expertise, I'm unsure without a great degree of effort which parts are notable and which are promotional. And of course any edits will undoubtedly attract once again the attention of the PR machine working in the shadows, so I thought best to refer it up to the COI board for a more focused fix. Rayman60 (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Liam Halligan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mikrofilm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Liam halligan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 213.120.99.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The state of this article is near comical. Self-promotion of an extreme degree by clearly non-standard SPAs who care little for format or guidelines. The absolute detail of the subject's career is excessive, obsessive and clearly not notable/encyclopaedic. The article is poorly sourced. It was started in 2006 by the subject himself, and has since then, almost all content has been added by one IP in one edit (20% of content) and one SPA (whose entire 71 mainspace edits have been on this article, adding 65% in a flurry of edits in Jan 2014). The article is so poor, I just don't know where to swing this particular axe, but I feel those more used to such profiles and articles would more effectively be able to judge just what's actually notable and worthy of salvaging. Rayman60 (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On first glance at the article I couldn't see what you were talking about Rayman60 .... kudos to Viewmont Viking for having already come in and swung the axe, still some issues but so much better. Melcous (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Matty Cardarople (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MonicaG1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vangogha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MattyCardarople (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor is apparently subject's publicist, and has made edits "per subject's request", originally under a spamusername. Even after being warned about undisclosed paid editing, she has not made any disclosure. Orange Mike | Talk 01:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Vangogha (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as a sock. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listing blocked sock as well as MattyCardarople, who identifies at the article's subject in the edit summary here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Matt Mason (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 71.177.145.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PatJParsons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xknmx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.75.16.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A very poor article. Standing at over 23,000 bytes, all edits of any significance have come from 4 SPAs, 2 of which are IPs. The article is excessively positive, promotional, like an extended resume that employs weasels and shuns NPOV. Again, I don't feel like I know the subject or their area sufficiently well to cut this article down to just the notable/encyclopaedic stuff, and would really be looking more towards the WP:TNT end of the spectrum unless someone else would like to have an attempt? Also note copyvio from linkedin profile Rayman60 (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Baby Meenakshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Meenari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2401:4900:315c:27b2:a1aa:9e5a:9054:c2b4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SPA with no edits outside "Baby Meenakshi". The user was asked to disclose COI, but has yet replied. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• High Point University‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bandwidth47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has exclusively edited the university's article and a few others directly related to it but has refused to answer direct questions about his or her relationship with the university. The detailed and promotional nature of his or her edits makes it natural to suspect that he or she has a COI. ElKevbo (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sukavich Rangsitpol‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There were previous related threads at WP:BLPN and WP:ANI that are now archived (1, 2, 3, 3 seems COI-only). Editing and spamming the talk page by likely-COI single purpose accounts and sockpuppets is a long term issue at this article (what can be seen at the recently archived second talk page are deduplicated instances of what is commonly posted, which archive page one also shows instances of). One related sockpuppet investigations page that I know of is this one (latest report inconclusive). There currently is an interesting recent "fake-consensus" at the talk page, competing against a legitimate ongoing RFC above. It's always urgent to whitewash, it seems. Since it needs more long-term attention, maybe this noticeboard is more adequate, unsure. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Rubettes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Barbara Sobel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Massapequa4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We are dealing with a number of promotional edits at the article by Massapequa4. This image file appears to identify the file creator as Barbara Sobel , whose business website Sobel Promotions identifies "The Rubettes ft. John, Mick and Steve" as their clients. Some of the edits by Massapequa4 at the article - now reverted or at least amended - were a total copy of material at that website. The question also arises of the content, and notability, of the article on Barbara Sobel herself (created by SPA PeachesCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Any advice? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm barely finding any sources on Barbara Sobel that are not self-published or passing mentions. I'm going to nominate the page for deletion. As for The Rubettes, I think that the page should be monitored and potentially protected if this behavior continues. I'm going to keep an eye on it for now and encourage others to do the same. Aspening (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another note - now that I've nominated the article, it appears the article was deleted once before in 2010 for the exact same issues. Aspening (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Alvey Reels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Allan alvey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alveyreels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)