Draft:Will Roberts (actor)

User Nihara.widefy was blocked for UPE. --- Possibly ☎ 00:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

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

The subject editor has submitted multiple drafts that are non-neutral and appear written to praise the subject rather than describe them neutrally. The drafts were declined. The subject editor was told both to re-read the neutral point of view guideline and to declare any conflict of interest. They were asked by two reviewers whether they have a conflict of interest, and were told not to resubmit the drafts without answering the question about conflict of interest. Two of the three drafts in question, listed above, have now been resubmitted to AFC without answering the question as to conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I have a "feeling" that there is a COI, but no real evidence. I wondered if we might be able to link the three together through the website, as they had a similar "feel", but the backends are very different, strongly suggesting that there is no link there. Further, two of the three have publicly identified their agents, and they both use different people. The only evidence I could find was in the pictures used; these are attributed as "own work"; while this is a common mistake new uploaders make, I have not been able to find the image of DM anywhere on the internet (the image of WR is on their website) - however, I have been able to find an image I believe is from the same photoshoot on their website. To me, this suggests they were provided with the images.
Nihara.widefy, in addition to making an explicit statement on whether you have COI or not, could you provide us with the reason you chose to create these three articles? The additional information could help us better judge the situation. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not connected with this topic nor I am paid for it I sw one article about him where they mentioned about his 2worlds records and acting job so I thought he can be my first subject for Wikipedia. Nihara.widefy (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

robert McCleon I don't have any conflict of interest with this topic I saw one blog which mentioned about his world records that's why I choose this topic. i am new to Wikipedia that's why by mistakenly it happened. my intention was not to break any rules of Wikipedia. Nihara.widefy (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nihara.widefy: I have removed the two ((COIN-notice)) notices which you placed in this thread. That template is for placing on an editor's user talk page to notify them of a discussion here. Including them here cluttered & confused the display of the thread. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I've also removed the COI template as I don't believe they intended to post that, given the statements they made were contradictory to it. In any case, in regards to this I'm willing to assume good faith and leave it as is for now, as the evidence is weak and this could easily be the case of a new editor making an understandable mistake; in case the consensus goes this way, I will also leave a message on Nihara's talk page, giving suggestions for where they can find topics with more notability and how to determine that. BilledMammal (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Actual order of draft creation was Mannas, Smith, Roberts. David notMD (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Widefy press release cache. --- Possibly ☎ 20:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Slightly embarrassing that I missed that connection, particularily given I thought the look for agency connections between each subject, but not between the subjects and the creator. With the Widefy connection, I would agree that this is very clear, and does not need AGF or ROPE. BilledMammal (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The placing of tags in this forum and on my talk page gives me reason to wonder whether this editor has sufficient competence to edit the English Wikipedia, or whether they need assistance or a mentor. But this is not a competence forum. Possibly has pointed out that this editor has given an evasive answer to the question of whether they have a conflict of interest about Mannas or Smith. The original conflict of interest question by KylieTastic was about Smith, and has not been answered. The less likely reason why that question has not been answered is that the editor doesn't understand it. The more likely reason is what Possibly has deduced, which is that they do have a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Yip, it look like straight up PR agency employees, doing a really bad job. Most definently a UPE. scope_creepTalk 21:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UPE and possible sockpuppetry

Gondulfo Cortesi's sole purpose seems to have been to create and maintain the article on Rohit Ugale and to prevent its deletion. The article has gone through an AfD once with a bunch of IP !votes following them and a suspicious close for keep by an autoconfirmed user Ahsanullah2015, their only involvement in AfD. The article is again on AfD, and is again starting to receive a flurry of !votes including from another autoconfirmed account (Georgetgeorge) and an IP. Note the subject has an extensive non-independent paid news coverage on the net and this might as well be part of that effort. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I have opened an SPI on this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Georgetgeorge. scope_creepTalk 21:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I would note that this wasn't their only involvement at AfD; they previously closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawny Williams and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MEMZ; both appear to be the correct decision, though I would probably have relisted MEMZ one more time, but I'm often overly conservative with these matters.
With that said, that doesn't detract from everything else you have said, and I would consider those closures to be done to add legitimacy to their closure of Rohit - after closing three articles in their first few weeks here, they have closed none in the couple of months since. BilledMammal (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't notice those. I've struck the part about it being their only involvement. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Lucid Nation article COI

The article is about a band. It was created by and maintained by someone who has an obvious COI. It reads as a personally written promotional piece rather than a neutral article. The comments on the edits make it clearly evident that a member of the band is the only substantial contributor to the article and the user makes it a habit to revert edits made by other contributors claiming vandalism or inaccuracies.

The article lacks overall neutrality.

Page is confusing as it appears to be about a band but goes in-depth about film and writings by band members. Those things should be in a separate article as they are not directly related to the subject of the article.

The article contains excessive unrelated details about releases of printed matter and film projects.

I am in no way paid, a contributor to this article, or affiliated with the subject of the article.

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 2601:203:4002:C700:E4C1:2855:353F:64E2 (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

IP, I see no effort at all to initiate a discussion with the user; see the top of this page. You also need to notify them; this is not a private inquisition. See also the top of this page on how to do that. --- Possibly ☎ 20:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
IP I've left a note at @Theinfinite314: page. Next time please, leave a note informing the editors in question. That editor is completly in the dark about what is happening here. It is not cool. scope_creepTalk 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this forum for discussion. I did contribute to this article. I did not create this article. I did not get paid. I am associated with the subject of the page. I did not read the rules when I first contributed. It took many years for an editor to point out my mistake. This is my responsibility and a massive screw up for which I apologize to all you good people who work to make this site dependable. I wish I had known sooner. I will from now on note my association in all communications and will add it to my user page when I finish writing this. I will no longer contribute to this page except by use of Talk.

On the subject of my use of undo when the page was vandalized. Please look at the personal nature of the attacks launched Dec 23, 2016 to Jan 1, 2017. For context this band has suffered trolling, harassment, gaslighting and canceling due to stalkers on other platforms. This is not uncommon among riot grrrl bands. But members of this band have also produced highly controversial documentaries. Tamra Lucid and other participants in the currently screening film End of the Line: The Women of Standing Rock have received death threats and trolling due to the film. It is not unreasonable to expect vandalism on this page. The politics of contributors and editors who delete content could have malicious political motivation inspired by the long history of activism of the band and its members. The abusive posts intended to be harassment have been posted by accounts with little activity anywhere on Wiki except this page. Many of the posts have similar content and syntax. I ask neutral editors to please take a look at them. If there is abuse occurring on the Wikipedia perpetrated by entities with malicious motivations they should not be enabled.

As to Scope Creep's comment about printed matter and film: message boards, zines and film are essential details in the history of riot grrrl bands. Many riot grrrl artists were intentionally multi-media. The content of songs, zines, films are all expressions of the band as a band. Often the activities directly intersect with the band. For example. the riot grrrl message board quote deleted by Possibly today is the same message board the band used to organize a national tour. The band's music is included in the film Exile Nation: The Plastic People. The band appears in the short film Grrrl. The band recorded a cover of the signature song of the band The Gits with the drummer of the Gits while producing a documentary on their murdered singer Mia Zapata. These films are not separate activities with no relation to the band. Songs refer to films. Films further the messages of songs. This is deliberate creative intersectionalism applied to media. The printed matter and films mentioned by Scope Creep are a direct expression of the band's continuing aesthetic and activism.

So to summarize, I am guilty of COI, ignorance is no excuse. I did not intend to promote, but only to update and undo abuse. I do believe the article has been repeatedly vandalized and may be undergoing vandalization now. See COIRobotuser and Queercorefan's recent activity related to the article. I think that the definition of band should not be restricted to corporate constraints that require excluding other media, especially in relation to idiosyncratic and deliberately multi-media subcultures like riot grrrl.

Thank you, editors, for taking the time to read this.Theinfinite314 (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting to the COI on this page and agreeing to not directly editing it in future. The article has been trimmed of 80% of its content and looks reasonably neutral at the moment. It might be that the band is not notable enough for an article; they seem to have done few shows but did have a review in Rolling Stone. Theinfinite314, in future do not leave legalese edit comments like this and this one Wikipedia; they can lead to being blocked for our no legal threats policy. --- Possibly ☎ 20:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you,Possibly I acknowledge and understand about the legal threats and will not do so on Wiki again. May I ask where you got the idea that the band played few shows? Are two west coast tours and one national, not to mention dozens of so cal shows in the 90s, to be defined as few? I cannot speak to the importance required for a wikipedia page but it troubles me that the actual aesthetic of the riot grrrl subculture (as explained above) has been ignored in these edits. My question was also ignored about how to verify band members when recording and video credits on YouTube, Bandcamp etc are not considered good citations. Also band member Tamra's name Tamara was misspelled in the first paragraph as edited by you today. I have noted that on the Talk page for the article. Thank you again for taking the time to explain. As you can see, I don't know my way around here.Theinfinite314 (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for using the talk page. I think all the regular editors editors appreciate when COI editors with a long-running interest in one article restrict their discussions to the article's talk page, rather than consuming time all over the place. Thanks again. --- Possibly ☎ 22:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Bogura Cantonment Public School and College

(non-admin closure) User NiloyBCPSC was blocked for UPE. BilledMammal (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

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

More eyes, please. Judging from the username, NiloyBCPSC is in some way connected to Bogura Cantonment Public School and College. Neither that nor anything else gives him/her the right to add swathes of unsourced promotional content to the page. I've already reverted once. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I would agree; seems to be a SPI with a COI towards BCPSC, and based on their edits, possibly NOTHERE. Incidentally, I'm sure that school meets GNG; I took a look at the sources, and couldn't see any that meet GNG, failing either the "independent" or "significant coverage" pillar. Might be worth bringing to AFD. BilledMammal (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Is that "not sure", then, BilledMammal? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers I'm sure you know this already, but to me it looks to be 100% UPE. The copy they added was elf-promotion, and their username screams paid editing. I see no disclosure. --- Possibly ☎ 13:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the line "I'm sure that school meets GNG" should have read "I'm not sure"; sorry, very misleading typo, thank you for querying. BilledMammal (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
They came back, still haven't disclosed. Looks like paid editing. --- Possibly ☎ 14:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UPE with possible AfC involvement

A prolific German editor of parliament bios seems to have begun creating bios of businesspeople and entertainers. There are German TV and radio stories connecting it to a PR firm. Here is a sampling of what I see on enwp. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Sent Jon Erik Fyrwald back to Afc as it clearly invalid review as the reviewer is blocked. scope_creepTalk 22:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Douglasburton and bruceduffie.com

Douglasburton added a link to an interview at http://www.bruceduffie.com/johnadams.html to an article on modern art music composer John Adams (composer). My interest was piqued because it was added as the first link. Looking at the content, it started with obvious publicity content (as can be seen on https://www.hollywoodbowl.com/musicdb/artists/199/john-adams and other locations). The fluff questions that followed made me question why it was added at all. I removed it. The editor complained on my talk page, which I moved to the article's talk page. It was not until two edits later that it became clear that the editor was also the owner of the website and its only contributor. After a warning about CoI and a request to make it clear that the editor is the owner of that site, the editor has essentially refused. bruceduffie.com HTTPS links HTTP links has at least 500 inclusions on Wikipedia. I spot-checked, and they all appear to be added by Douglasburton.

I would like to make it clear that the content is fairly informative, but it might make more sense to be used as references than ELs.

Questions for this board:

  1. Is this CoI?
  2. Should the editor disclose?
  3. Are the interviews of sufficient value that we should continue to allow Douglasburton to add them where appropriate, or should the editor propose changes on article talk pages?

I am not seeking a block, but would like to gauge the project's temperature on this. Also @Gerda Arendt: who is active on the classical music project for input. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

My temperature is that I'm busy, and not experienced with COI questions, nor the website, see nothing wrong in disclosing, and suggest you post a link to this discussion on project Classical music. Perhaps check if any discussion of this subject can be found in its archives. I don't know if the interviews could be references. I find them informative, so valuable as external links but please not in the top position. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I informed the project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
It may be worth mentioning that in terms of their general behavior, a cursory overview suggests that almost everything they do on Wikipedia is adding and editing the links to their website. BilledMammal (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Based on the below, while WP:NOBLOGS would state that their inclusion is not warranted, WP:IAR could suggest otherwise. If this is the path chosen to take, perhaps to avoid future issues it would be worthwhile for Douglas to add his COI, as well as these two discussions, to his user page for ease of reference. BilledMammal (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I spoke to Douglas earlier this year, and they shared me this screenshot of a past conversation that seemed to show consensus for such links (or at the least, no consensus for their removal?). My only direct experience is the link they put on Anthony Payne while I was working on the article; in this case, the interview seemed interesting and certainly a benefit to readers. Aza24 (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Aza24, the discussion, prolific spammer, was about whether the content constituted SPAM. It does not as the subject is not selling anything and not making money from the website. At best, we could assume search engine optimization. This discussion is about whether Douglasburton is in conflict of interest by directly adding the website to Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I am willing to add a notice on my user page if that would satisfy COI requirements...Douglasburton (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The addition of these interviews has been discussed before, and they were generally considered to add value and satisfy EL. Of course, there may be those that some might regard as "fluffy", but I don't think a general prohibition is warranted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the copyright issues. It seems plausible that Douglasburton does indeed own the copyright to the text, and I'm willing to accept that as a given. I'm somewhat more concerned about the images of album covers that are included on those pages, but I'll leave that to people better versed in copyright issues than I am. For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume there's no copyright problems we need to be concerned about.
That leaves us with the COI question. From my reading of WP:COI, the disclosure on their user page should be required. I also think making edit requests on the article talk pages to add these links, would be a good thing. I don't know that I can argue it should be required, but it would certainly be best practice and would put this controversy to bed. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
FYI, the note about my placing the link first was because the group seemed to be in chronological order. Since my interview was done before the others, that's where it seemed to belong. It that's not correct, I do not care where the link goes. I routinely have put it last on other pages. Douglasburton (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@RoySmith: User:Douglasburton definitely doesn't own the copyright to the album images, but I don't see how that's our problem because he's not putting them on Wikipedia. It would be up to the publisher of the album to send Burton a DMCA; he might be able to make a fair use argument, and it's very unlikely that'd happen anyway. The rules around copyright / fair use are stricter on Wikipedia because we want to be able to say that all content here is free content under CC SA. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
WP:COPYLINKS says, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work (and then goes on to explain why). But, as I said, this is not my area of expertise, so I'll leave it to others to make a more definitive statement. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I do a bi at the EL page and could mention it there.
Douglasburton. One question: why did you reject all of my direct requests to place a notice on your user page and when I brought it here, you decided it was a plausible option? For the record, it still remains an option as you have not followed the advice at DISCLOSE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding copyvio: it seems to be a straightforward conclusion that we should not link to these pages when they include copyvio, per WP:COPYLINKS. This page, for example, appears to have a dozen album covers without copyright tags; the end of the page says © Bruce Duffie. I removed three of the links; COPYLINKS seems very unambiguous on this: the pages I removed are packed with obviously copyvio images, and we should not be linking to them.
Regarding self-promotion: despite all the relevant discussions on this, I think that so many links to one's site, in one's own name, ends up being self-promotion. If I set up JohnAlexanderSmith.com (not my real name) and start linking the crap out of it on wiki, will that be OK? What about the tenth or hundredth person who does that? I don't see why this is OK, when it amounts to being beneficial linking for an editor's personal interest project-- irregardless of good faith intentions. If someone independently links the site, it's not the same as one editor linking it dozens or hundreds of times. I think that previous discussions may have considered financial gain as a motivator when the real COI gain here is a reputational one. Incoming links from Wikipedia boost search results significantly. Editors should not be directly engaging in editing that benefits their reputation off-wiki; editors should not be directly engaging in editing that drives traffic tot their personal web sites, no matter how well-intentioned the effort might be. They should disclose their connection and use talk pages to request edits. --- Possibly ☎ 00:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

First, about the use of album covers. Having been on commercial radio for over 25 years, I know a bit of what's expected. Record companies send promos, and expect them to be used as much as possible. To place them on a website is additional promotion for them, especially when connected to their artist(s). I cannot imagine any record exec would object to this. Second, I am truly sorry some of you can accept the fact that I am NOT looking to promote myself. I have even turned down a couple of requests to add a Wikipedia page about me for that very reason. I know it's unusual, but I am only interested in having these interviews available. It's not about me, it's about them. Finally, in order to end this discussion I'm going to withdraw. I will no longer add any interview links to any Wikipedia pages. I will continue to make corrections, but will add no new links. To those who have made positive statements here (and on other places), I appreciate your comments, and hope you will continue to explore new interviews as they are posted on my site. Goodbye.Douglasburton (talk) 09:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you've missed the the point here. The primary concern is that Douglas Burton and Bruce Duffie do not obviously connect, that is the main reason that DISCLOSEure should happen is so that editors can make that connection. I do think that there is some value in your website, but probably better as a reference than an EL. I still think disclosure would be beneficial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Just so you will know how I have added things in the past, wherever there was a section for Further Reading, I used that. Or, if there was no EL list, I would start a Further Reading section. Here again, my goal was to be as brief and unobtrusive as possible. BTW, thanks for saying there is some value to my website.
Just so I would be clear, is the disclosure you wanted a one-time thing on *my* page, or a statement made with every new link-inclusion? (Please don't send me to any kind of instruction page. Just answer the question. Thanks.) Douglasburton (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
DISCLOSE indicates, "there are three venues to do this". Option 3 is using the ((UserboxCOI)) template on your user page. You could simply use something like ((UserboxCOI|text=I am the writer and maintainer of bruceduffie.com. The interviews posted there are meant to be informative...)) and you can fill that out in whatever way you want, after the text parameter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Just so I'm clear... by putting this brief text on my user page, you're OK with my adding links again just as before? (I will have to start a user page - another indication that I am NOT out for personal gain or recognition.) Douglasburton (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Let's see what others think. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
As I wrote above, whenever I encountered those interviews, I considered them moderately valuable external links, sometimes triggering further searches for reliable sources for certain events first found in those interviews. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I have the sense every single aspect of this has been explained at least three times to user:Douglasburton. Has he even made the miniscule effort to put a disclosure statement on his user page? No. There is some major time-wasting going on here, and it seems like Douglasburton's strategy is to run out the discussion until it goes his way. So, please save us some time and a) place the disclosure on your user page, b) suggest inclusion of the link on relevant talk pages, and c) don't suggest linking to pages that contain images or text for which you do not hold the copyright. These are pretty simple requests. --- Possibly ☎ 19:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI... I contacted the president of one of the record companies whose images I have used, and she said she had no problem, and even offered me more material. That, along with my 25 years in commercial radio, which included dealing with execs and representatives, demonstrates that they are pleased to have their materials used when connected with their artists, which is the case in all of my interviews. Therefore, there is no copyright infringement on my webpages. As to waiting, Walter said to see what others think. If my question had been answered, the disclosure would have been done already. Douglasburton (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

As someone who hasn't been involved in this discussion yet but has read through it all, I'm happy to be one of the "others" Douglasburton and Walter Görlitz are waiting to see what they think. Possibly's suggestions are straightforward and fairly standard:
  1. Post a COI disclosure on your user page
  2. Don't place links to your own website into articles
  3. Use talk pages to suggest inclusion of a link where relevant and let neutral editors respond.
And regarding the copyright issue, it is irrelevant what people have told your for your own site, what is relevant here is wikipedia's policy on copyright. Melcous (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm no lawyer, but I believe that Wikipedia does not like to link to sites with unclear copyright status. I think that if you indemnify yourself by stating that you have made arrangements with the copyright holders to arrange for their display and that the copyright of of those images are held by the original copyright holder. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Melcous has brought up the most important point. Whereas I certainly have complete confidence in my work, I simply cannot absolutely 100% guarantee that every detail meets Wikipedia standards. A couple of days ago I tried to withdraw, but the door was re-opened. This time it shall remain closed. Douglasburton (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
You still need to place a notice on your user page to tell people that you have a COI in regards to bruceduffie.com. That fact has not changed, and you have been COI editing by adding links to that site for a long time, without disclosing it in the required way. It will also help future editors who come across this issue. --- Possibly ☎ 18:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Done. If this is what you want, perhaps you should replace the links you have deleted.......? Douglasburton (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I looked it shortly after you posted it and it looked fine to me—albeit a bit long, which is to be expected from a writer—and I was waiting for others to weigh-in. It seems that there are no objections, so this satisfies the major part of my request.
The next question is of direct editing stand on a case-by-case basis. Some articles likely have few watchers and if you add a request to add your link to the article and no one responds for a week, you could safely add it yourself.
The final question is copyright violations, which as I said, I believe could address with a standard footer on your articles. @RoySmithand: @Psiĥedelisto: were the editors who raised that concern and have yet to weigh-in on my proposed solution. It seems that they meet our WP:FUR requirements and there is no attempt at distributing the images in violation of copyright. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Prix Versailles update

Prix Versailles and related subjects were the subject of a coordinated campaign of promotion, over several years and sixteen languages, involving numerous sock puppets and probably paid editing. Ten active and six older accounts were identified. I would like to report progress to date.

Adding 176.156.227.162 which made three edits relating to Prix Versailles and Purple Economy from 21 to 23 August on en and fr Wikipedias. TSventon (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thanks for the update. This might be better suited to the SPAM board now, since all the COI accounts have been blocked, and the pages mostly deleted. --- Possibly ☎ 13:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Possibly I posted here as an update to pagewatchers here. I hope that loose ends can be tied up fairly soon, allowing the page to be archived. New COI accounts have been opened, e.g.
Also, other editors may wish to take action on remaining pages, e.g.

Organization COI


I believe I've stumbled across a large number of COI's related to the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, starting at the end of 2015 and continuing until today, peaking in 2016 and 2019

The behaviour takes one of two forms:

  1. Developing pages related to the organization, its projects, or its key individuals (see pages above),
  2. Referencing relevant work done by the organization on various pages (diffs for many of these can be provided)

Originally, I believed there was a single, semi-declared conflict of interest by Anassjerjawi, but a recent edit on the page by Emad Shehda, a new editor with three edits, made me wonder. I investigated further, and believe I can connect that individual holds a position within EMHRM, but I won't provide the details as I'm not sure whether WP:OUTING covers information publicly available on the internet, discoverable with information provided on Wikipedia.

I am reasonable confident that the following seven individuals have a COI related to the organization; two have posted information to that effect on wikipedia, though they have not properly declared their COI. Two more I have discovered other information that connects them to the organization, and the final three are merely connected based on their editing pattern.

I also believe there are individuals beyond these seven that I have been unable to discover; as part of a broader post, User:Thomas.W posted the following on Anassjerjawi's page Rules that have been explained to other people in your organisation multiple times, and should come as no surprise to you, and I've only been able to find one of those explanations.

Wikipedian EMHRM Edits Total Edits First Edit Last Edit Notes
Wiki Enriching 7 8 19 July 2019 24 August 2019 8th edit bluelinking a word in an unrelated article
SarahMaro 4 4 20 September 2019 6 January 2020 N/A
MahaHussaini 23 29 9 July 2019 15 July 2019 Very strong evidence exists that they have a conflict of interest beyond editing pattern; not posting due to WP:OUTING concerns
Anassjerjawi ? 129 18 October 2015 16 August 2021 Mentions they have a COI in relation to a warning for previous recreation of the EMHRM article, and off-site evidence also exists; not posting due to WP:OUTING concerns. In the absence of that comment or evidence, I would not have included them in this list; there are other editors with a similar editing pattern that I dismissed as their focus wasn't sufficiently on EMHRM. Was warned about COI editing on the 17th of October, 2016.
Emad Shehda 4 4 17 August 2021 1 September 2021 Evidence exists that they have a conflict of interest beyond editing pattern; not posting due to WP:OUTING concerns. Was partially warned about COI editing on the 21st of August, 2021
Salsabeel Zeineddin 20 25 18 October 2015 25 September 2016 Other 5 edits in user-space, mentions having a relation with EUHRM on their user page, was warned about COI editing on the 26th of October, 2015
NaraForRefugees 5 7 14 May 2016 14 July 2016 Other edits not in article-space
Nesmajaber 3 3 7 September 2021 7 September 2021 Edits involve a project that was a cooperation between EUHRM and ImpACT International. Off wiki evidence strongly suggests they have a paid COI with ImpACT, while their collaboration with EUHRM suggests they have a COI there. This possibility of a COI is enhanced by editor MahaHussaini working for both ImpACT and EUHRM.
31.9.218.220 2 2 3 September 2021 3 September 2021 Removed various article cleanup tags

I left a note about COI editing on Emad Shehda's page, but have not done so with the rest of the editors after discovering the extent of the issue; after a brief discussion with a more experienced editor, I was pointed here as the most appropriate venue to address this. BilledMammal (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

If you suspect sockpuppetry, you should report it at WP:SPI, where the clerk is able to carry out IP checks and can receive outing information through private emails. Otherwise you should not present accusations without any evidence. Before reporting any editor to SPI you need to provide edit differences. I suggest you close this thread and move it there. TFD (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, I wasn't clear. I don't suspect sock-puppetry; I have connected three of the editors to their off-wiki identities, and have no reason to believe the remaining four are sock puppets. Instead, I believe it to be a group of editors with a common purpose and COI, based on their affiliation/employment by the mentioned organization; I believe this is the correct place to raise such concerns? BilledMammal (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I've updated Talk:Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor to list six of them under ((connected contributor)). The remaining one - Salsabeel Zeineddin - I've listed as a disclosed WP:PAID editor as there is sufficient self-disclosure (and off-wiki evidence) to confirm it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the table, as a new SPA turned up. While editing it, I've also added an IP address who recently edited the primary page, and whose only edits anywhere are to remove clean-up tags from said page. Finally, Emad Shehda turned up to do another edit on the 1st of September, so I updated that line. BilledMammal (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Anassjerjawi does communicate a bit, though only in defence of the existence of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor article (and, weirdly, to request extended-confirmed permissions early). Salsabeel Zeineddin did as well, though again only in defence of the existence of said article. The rest don't. BilledMammal (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Nesmajaber just edited again, so I put one of those PCOI notices that you put on Anassjerjawi and MahaHussaini on their page; we'll see if they are interested in communicating. BilledMammal (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I've found off-wiki evidence that Nesmajaber is an UPE; emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. BilledMammal (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Abdulhaseebatd

This user was registered on 2 June 2021, and by 3 June 2021, Abdulhaseebatd was adding more promotional content to a grossly non-notable subject Anqui.[1][2] Praxidicae pointed out that this user "responded to a Freelancer request and were awarded the project" and also left him a warning about his undisclosed WP:COI,[3] to which he responded with the message: "I was asked by a friend to improve this draft".[4] He admits the violation of WP:MEAT. He soon moved this non-notable article into article space.[5]

Even after that, he is engaging in undisclosed COI editing.

By 6 June, he created Zaid Ali T just to get around the salting of Zaid Ali, as seen by Bonadea.[6] As of 25 July, this user was still working on this draft.[7]

On 12 June, he created Sham Idress just to get around the salting of Sham Idrees. He requested the name change when the article was nominated for deletion.[8]

To me, this looks nothing more than a case of an undisclosed COI sock that is here only to create promotional and rejected articles without disclosing the payment details. Editorkamran (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I would also note that the photograph (an headshot that appears professionally taken) is provided with the justification "own work". I can't find the image on the internet, so it seems likely that is provided by the subject. Praxidicae, could you provide evidence of this freelancer request or would that violate WP:OUT? BilledMammal (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: Please clarify which image you're talking about? Up to date I've uploaded 4 images, all downloaded from internet, I can search and provide links of all images as well. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, I was mistaken. I thought it was you who uploaded that image, when it was a another user, who is likely the same user who added it to the article as an IP. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
No problem man, we all humans make mistakes. This isn't something strange to us 🙂. Have a good day. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing suspicious about reporting a COI editor who is breaching community's trust even after having his own talk page piled up with warnings.
Your replies do not give even slightest confidence that you are editing in good faith since you are repeating the same failed creations that were already tried by two of the COI socks I have already named. You misspelt the names of the subject so that you can evade salting and avoid popping up on watchlist of the watchers. This is something others see all the time when it concerns an editor who is not disclosing his COIs. Editorkamran (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
What you just said ? My talk page piled up with warnings. Man, I hope you'll soon come out of daydreaming. Also I don't think it's imp to share my contributions here, anyone can see all of my contributions over there. Let's wait and see what others have to say about both of us. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@Abdulhaseebatd: I also tend to find Editorkamran's report to be a little suspicious as you mention above. But first: could you please fix your signature so that it is just Abdulhaseebatd in this thread? It is really confusing that you have used Abdulhaseebatd and Radioactive as your signatures in the same thread. It's basically disruptive, can you ditch the "Radioactive" tag for just this thread? --- Possibly ☎ 19:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly: Sorry for causing confusion. I never wanted to confuse anyone, as you can see here in summaries of these edits [15] [16], earlier I not only removed "Radioactive" but even mentioned this intent in edit summaries. For now I've removed my signature from account settings (preferences), so ~~~~ will now onward give my original user name.
Also I don't know if it's worthy to mention here or not, my inclusion in this COI notice board was used as an argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 anti-Pakistan protests deletion discussion, in a uncivil way. I'll like to quote that here, 1. "@Abdulhaseebatd:} I am sure an undisclosed paid COI editor like you has no knowledge of the policies you are citing. The subject meets all criteria listed at WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Existence of sources like Al-Jazeera, SCMP, IranIntl, and other thousands of sources providing significant coverage to this subject on frequent basis easily debunks your entirely misleading misrepresentation of sources and policies." Same guy (User AnM2002) even replied to another user (who agreed with me) in this way, 2. "@Ngrewal1: But Radioactive, an undisclosed paid editor, is simply misleading others as clear from his comment." Usage of this notice as an argument in deletion discussions makes it look more dubious. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

ESSEC Business School

Could someone check out this article? Within the past few days, there has suddenly been major contributions by five single purpose accounts, which are either editing only on this very article, or are editing within the same scope of articles (e.g. Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation and King's College London by both Hoba789 and Ganool89), highly hinting at meatpupptery/sockpuppetry. They have tried to remove a COI tag as well. Abonsap1 created Séverine Merle a few days ago, whose alumni was as you guessed it, ESSEC Business School. I have started an SPI, but it has not been concluded just yet. Otterslort (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, those accounts all look like sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Sounds like you have it taken care of with an SPI. --- Possibly ☎ 04:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Daniele, Inc.

Seems pretty obvious. I removed a second external links section and 20-some links from the article. Skyerise (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

User was blocked by admin Skyerise for having a username that implies shared use and is promotional. Thanks for reporting this: they had been editing the page for over ten years! --- Possibly ☎ 21:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Mark Brnovich

These editors all have in common that they add personal details and trivia (often unsourced) about Mark Brnovich, as well as remove reliably sourced content from his page. These are hallmarks of COI editing. I asked 'SamHouston' if they were COI in July 2021 but they didn't respond while continuing to edit the Brnovich page.[17] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

User Explorer1992 looks like a possible sock. They made an edit at exactly the same minute that SamHouston did; both accounts used the word "misleading" in their edit summary. --- Possibly ☎ 00:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

List of news channels in India

Resolved
 – User News24hr India blocked indef by Orangemike BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

User has made several attempts to add India Now 7, which is apparently a TV news channel, to multiple channel lists. Username makes me think a probable COI, possible UPE. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Milt's Stop & Eat

The editor insists on adding promotional content taken straight from the company website at [18]. Why I don't know. I've posted a note. I think they have COI related to the place. scope_creepTalk 10:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I have no COI with this tiny restaurant. I have always declared any COI I have. ––FormalDude talk 14:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Then why adding this promotional content into the article that is straight off the website and going all to preserve the content, particularly when yan editor in good standing, who works in this area told it was promotional. Even the other editor you requested to attend from Discord, stated it was promotional.? scope_creepTalk 17:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The other editor states it could be reworded, not that it should be removed. Just because some of the info is duplicated on the restaurant's website does not mean it is all unacceptable promotional content "straight off the website". What matters is that it is properly sourced, which it is. At this point, I'm mainly objecting on principal that something cannot be removed just because someone has shouted PROMO over and over again. You need to provide valid justification for removal of well sourced content, and your single comment at the article talk page did not do that. ––FormalDude talk 18:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
To me this looks like a content issue, not COI. It's a very new article, so it's not unusual to see the majority of edits from the article creator. --SVTCobra 20:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Agree-- This appears to be content issue rather than a COI issue. --- Possibly ☎ 03:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
The reason I posted because I think it is similar to case 2 or 3 years ago when an editor was asked to create an article on a rucksack/backpack company and admitted coi. This looks similar and the source are more or less PR driven. scope_creepTalk 06:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
In other words, you made a poor assumption. ––FormalDude talk 02:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Swapnil Agarwal

KaryaMarketing began editing Swapnil Agarwal adding huge amounts of completely unreferenced material filled with puffery.[19] After a series of warnings about COI and advertising the account was blocked for the username and promotional edits. The next day Texastrotter showed up making the exact same edits.[20]. I have given them three COI warnings which they ignore and continue to add unreferenced puffery to the article. They are clearly the same user working for a marketing firm to promote the subject of the article but they refuse to disclose or engage in conversation at all. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Vinod G. Khandare

Varunkhandare's edit consist entirely of adding Vinod G. Khandare to articles ([21],[22], [23], [24], [25], [26]) or editing the Vinod G. Khandare article itself ([27], [28]) most of which is completely unreferenced. I gave him a COI warning and tagged the page but instead of acknowledging the warning he deleted the COI tag on the article. I have no idea if this is impersonation or self-promotion. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

They are blocked already. Try Preferences > Gadgets > Appearance > "Strike out usernames that have been blocked". :) --- Possibly ☎ 02:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

They have returned as Fuwimo2021 and still have yet to disclose their WP:COI. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Chevrolet Spin

The IP user attracts my attention since they added unsourced infos and removed a large chunk the article Chevrolet Spin calling it horrible and such. Simply reverting didn't help since they kept reverting back creating an unwanted edit war. This wasn't a vandalism per se, so I initially requested a page protection instead of an IP block and it was declined. The IP claimed to have worked as an engineer of the manufacturer, which is a violation of WP:COI. Andra Febrian (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I added General Motors do Brasil above as it may be a shared COI if the allegations are true. --SVTCobra 18:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Teea Goans

At least sometimes, claims to be the subject of the article; other times, writes in the third person. Throws around their e-mail address, website address, etc. No edits on any other topic(s). --Orange Mike | Talk 23:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment: A rough start, but I think we're now moving in the direction of understanding and agreement. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Andrei Doroshin

22 year old Andrei Doroshin is notable for being the CEO of the controversial Philly Fighting COVID organization. Here are a few articles from local news outlets summarizing his and his organization's notoriety:

Andrei and Philly Fighting COVID are also the subject of a podcast series:

As can be seen and read from the Philly Mag article and from the first revision of the "Andrei Doroshin" article, Andrei has a bulldog named Winston. User talk:Winstonthegrumpy redirects to User_talk:AbsuridyKirk. AbsuridyKirk is the creator of the Andrei Doroshin article, so this article is very likely autobiographical or by someone close to the organization.

This user removes information that is negative, including well cited information, from the article in their edits. See this revision and its diff from the previous revision for an example.

Lowfreqosc (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:GSL Technology Suppressors

This editor openly admits he is the owner of this company. The only other topic he edits on is a company which is a client or customer of his company. Orange Mike | Talk 15:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Have placed a G11 on the article. A major work of advertising. --- Possibly ☎ 15:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

COI by Oz346

Oz346 publically claimed that Many Tamils support Tamil Eelam...I for one support it 100% They have also previously shown support[29]. All of this users contributions are Tamil Eelam related. And, as seen from these edits[30] [31] [32] he has shown an extremely biased, illogical, and sometimes racist attitude about the related articles and Sinhalese people. Amritsvāraya (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User Amritsvaraya (previously known as YaSiRu) is making a slanderous personal attack by saying I am racist to Sinhalese, which is completely unfounded. I have NEVER made any racist comments to Sinhalese people as a whole. I know good hearted Sinhalese people who have supported the rights of Tamil people who face persecution. Everything I have said here is a fact, and not a lie. Tamil Eelam is supported by many Tamils and the references I have added to this page support this, for anyone who checks the references. User Amritsvaraya has already been found guilty of disruptive edits on countless pages relating to human rights abuses against Tamils, and has so far escaped censure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#YaSiRu11_%E2%80%93_POV-pushing_and_other_problems Oz346 (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Oz346 has resorted to harassing me by publically outing my place of residence. I did not make a personal attack. Stating that Tamil Eelam is supported by many Tamils, therefore it is still ongoing is a logical fallacy. You have been warned once [33] for false accusations and personal attacks. Please help to resolve problem rather than deepening it. Amritsvāraya (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This probably isn't the place for your inter-personal dispute. Declaring that you have this or that political allegiance is fine if you only do it on talk pages and keep your editing neutral and unbiased. All of the diffs provided are talk page links. --- Possibly ☎ 15:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Oz346's editing isn't unbiased. He claimed that because he supports Tamil Eelam it still "is" a proposed independent state. This is also true for many of his edits. Amritsvāraya (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Nope. I said it's still supported, because there are references saying it's still supported. Please read the actual references. My opinion is irrelevant. Oz346 (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Jolivette

Newly-created user account exclusively edits Andrew Jolivette article and repeatedly adds the same material that is unencyclopedic and promotional. The text closely duplicates the text from the the article subject's bios at UCSD profile, SpeakOut, SFSU, etc. Wikipedia articles need to be sourced by secondary published sources, not primary sources. Editing differences: Diff 1, Diff 2, and Diff 3. Icecube77 (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Icecube77

Gilles J Guillemin

Looking at this article, it seems to me to have all hallmarks of UPE. Perhaps somebody can have a look (I'm rather busy at the moment in RL). Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment. User Rom0011 appears to be an SPA, editing the article Gilles J Guillemin. They ran the article through AfC, as is proper for someone with the appearance of a close connection to the subject, but have continued to edit it since, adding unsourced information, etc. Currently there is a content dispute going on with user Belbernard, who wants to include information about retraction of an article by Guillemin. I have concerns about whether this information is WP:DUE, as the only discussion I found of the retraction was in a blog post on "forbetterscience.com" (of doubtful reliability, and indeed blacklisted for linking). I will go ahead and move the article to Gilles J. Guillemin, in keeping with MOS:INITS. The article could use some more attention from neutral editors. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Randykitty: Has anyone asked the user Rom0011 if they have a COI? I cannot find any COI notices or a discussion with them on the subject. Their article edits do makes it look like they have a COI, but on the other hand they spent their first 75 edits on the Wikipedia Adventure. --- Possibly ☎ 13:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
The language in the (unsuccessful) request for page protection Rom0011 filed quacks pretty hard. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, they appear to have a clear COI. On the other hand, at the top of this page it says "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period." No one seems to have mentioned the COI issue to them. --- Possibly ☎ 16:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
FYI, Rom0011 submitted the photo currently on the page (GillesGuilleminHeadshot.jpg) to commons, claiming own work. I just submitted a copyvio report, since it's on the homepage of https://pandis.org/, and the metadata says someone named Carmen Lee Platt (Google search says photographer in Sydney) holds the copyright.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Thanks Randykitty for pointing me where to go. I do know Gilles J. Guillemin as an acquaintance. He is well established in the Science community but no one had made a Wikipedia page for him yet so I decided to give it a go. I did my best to research and uses sources and references to remain neutral. I know the rules of Wikipedia are important to maintain unbiased pages, but am still learning how it all works. Apologies if I have done anything wrong. If I should leave the page alone and no longer edit, I can do that.

In regards to the photo, I did contact Gilles Guillemin for some photos as they were the thing I could not find easily/struggled to understand the copyright rules. I had been provided the headshot directly and was told it belonged to Gilles Guillemin. Apologies if that was not the case. I understand if it needs to be removed. Rom0011 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Citadel LLC

I encourage anyone interested to monitor the pages related to Citadel LLC and especially the BLPs associated with this company, including Kenneth C. Griffin and Heath Tarbert, as they seem to be engaging in UPE. This actually makes me pretty sad, because they tried complying with the edit request process, but when they realized that their requests were ignored or denied, they returned to UPE. JBchrch talk 13:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi JBchrch. Would you be able to provide us with the usernames of the editors who you believe are engaged in UPE (please remember to notifying them when doing so with the template listed at the top of this page), as well as some diffs of problematic edits? I'm not really sure where to start looking; they're all extensive articles with a significant number of edits. BilledMammal (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: Yeah, you're probably right. The behavior of now-banned user Trader john1 (talk · contribs) is probably the most damning evidence (see also the COIN discussion). At Heath Tarbert, I have noticed that CommoditiesNerd (talk · contribs) and Texlaxer (talk · contribs) have both been trying to whitewash or remove the negative press coverage of Tarbert's departure to Citadel from the CFTC [34][35], among other questionable edits. This is all more or less connected to a partly denied edit request (on which I had worked) at Talk:Heath Tarbert § CFTC. JBchrch talk 13:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the contributions of the three editors mentioned above, I noticed that both Texlaxer
  • updated to reflect Tarbert's departure from CFTC.
  • Updated to reflect Tarbert's departure.
  • Updated to reflect Tarbert's departure.
  • Updated to reflect Sterling's departure.
and CommoditiesNerd
  • Updated to reflect private sector CV and recent affiliations.
  • Updated to reflect move to private sector.
use strikingly similar phrasing in their edit summaries. House style? Vexations (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
There is also a habit of marking edits as "minor", which Rsjaffe has noticed and warned both accounts about. Should this be brought to SPI? JBchrch talk 01:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely. Be prepared to wait, though. MER-C 09:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Texlaxer. MER-C 16:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This isn't new. Is this Wiki-PR again? MER-C 19:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Most certainly — good ol' corporate UPE. JBchrch talk 20:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The whole article on Kenneth C. Griffin is effectively a moment by moment life movements blog, with lots and lots breathless reporting on what his money does. It is complete trash. scope_creepTalk 07:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
If it's trash it is certainly well-executed trash. It does have a strong odour of paid editing. --- Possibly ☎ 19:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding in AmberStegosaurus as this new account is writing about Citadel LLC as well as other financial companies, with a rather professional style for a new user. Also they have an odd custom of writing out the title of their subpages in the Japanese translation of their subject. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Pirhayati

Please nominate User:Pirhayati for deletion for violating Wikipedia rules. The 3 pages he has recently created (Tofan Pirani, Hamid Reza Hejazi and Keyvan Dehnad), based on WP:PAID. Also in Persian Wikipedia, Tofan Pirani deleted 4 times by WP:N and Keyvan Dehnad just nominated for deletion by a admin. According by WP:DP He can not remove deletion tag as he did twice times. Sincerely. MMA Kid (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if there is any basis to this complaint but MMA Kid has been blocked as a sockpuppet which leads me to believe that this complaint might have some history as a dispute between editors. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

china vs canada

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 70.29.98.44 (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Radovicdarko538 sockfarm

Accounts
Articles

This sockfarm is likely a continuation of Operation Red Card (permalink). They focus in pro-Qatar, anti-UAE, anti-Saudi Arabia content. They are fairly active, however, they use IP editing extensively. This limits the effectiveness of sockpuppet investigations. They use a residential proxy service (see this previous thread about a different sockfarm with the same technique), and rely less and less on registered accounts.

Here's a sample of their IP edits:

Radovicdarko538 IP editing

I think we reached a dead end in terms of admin actions, and probably the only thing we can do is watching more these topics and carefully reviewing them for WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE. You can see a list of articles that have been targeted by this group at User:MarioGom/TOPCOI/E (watch related changes). MarioGom (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Atarhe Okejotor

Virtually every edit that this user has made has included a link to Critical Info, a news source not generally accepted as reliable and a web site for which the user appears to be an editor. The user has been previously blocked in January 2021 for "Using Wikipedia for promotion or advertising purposes" but requested an unblock in February 2021, saying that "I have learnt my lessons and will not do such again". All 15 of the edits above have been made after that statement. White 720 (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Quick google search shows that user has a financial relationship with Critical Info. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 16:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
yes, and according to Draft:News Centric, someone with an identical name to the user, Okejotor Atarhe, is the founder of News Centric. Their original block was only for 31 hours. --- Possibly ☎ 17:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
In at least one instance, he replaced a reliable link with a link to criticalinfo. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I've made a request to add the site to the Wikipedia spam blacklist. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#criticalinfo.com.ng rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 18:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Simeon Dyankov

The Simeon Dyankov article has egregious levels of puffery, which was mostly added by the aforementioned accounts, including the suspiciously named 'Sdjankov'. The accounts do not just add egregious puffery, but also remove reliably sourced content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

References in Blackjack, Card counting, etc. to qfit.com

Forum-shopping, harassment, etc. Filer blocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Aabcxyz (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Objective3000 has inserted multiple references to his self-published commercial websites in numerous articles, including Blackjack. Card counting, Hole carding. Shuffle track, and Martingale (betting system). The main page of the website qfit.com is an advertisement for his Casino Verte software. That Objective3000 and the author of the software are one and the same is established on Objective3000’s talk page, “Author Casino Vérité and some other stuff. Editor here since 2007, if my ancient mind recalls correctly.” [68].

Objective3000 uses Wikipedia for advertising purposes. Qfit.com in particular features two large banner advertisements for his software, endorsements, and other commercial content. The commercial business of Objective3000’s webpage is thereby connected with content in multiple articles. Placing the references in Wikipedia articles advances and promotes Objective3000’s outside business interests. The references to qfit.com should not be allowed under WP:COI.

Objective3000 claims innocence at inserting the references to his self-published webpages. He states “I did not add most of these cites.” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blackjack&diff=1038166808&oldid=1038164371], and “I also don't want to get into the habit of linking to my own sites as I see what I believe are some large abuses of this practice on various BJ [blackjack] related pages.” [69]

These claims of innocence do not survive scrutiny as the histories show. Every reference found to the self-published webpages of Objective3000 was inserted by Objective3000 himself, as the Diffs below demonstrate.

[70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] Aabcxyz (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

This is forum-shopping at best. The filing editor has previously opened threads at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#qfit.com, blackjackincolor.com, blackjack-scams.com and Talk:Blackjack#Informal Motion to Remove All References Placed by Objective3000 in Blackjack, Card counting, and Shuffle track and Wherever They May Also Appear in Wikipedia Articles to His Self-published Commercial Websites qfit and blackjackincolor. Given that this account's activities on enwiki are exclusively dedicated to pursuing this dispute, I've blocked them for harassment and presumed sockpuppetry. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John L. Georgiou

Here since 2015, and has only edited to advance the topic of Georgiou. No UPE disclosure, no participation on talk pages; when I made clean-up efforts recently, she reverted them without explanation. Orange Mike | Talk 13:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I spent too much time actually tracking down and checking sources, as well as figuring out what the "awards" were, but I was able to take a pretty sharp machete to it. His career section needs a rewrite with actual sources, as now it's just bad. Oh, if anyone has access to either an Accounting Today account to look at the back issue, or back issues of Radio magazine, which is no longer in print, we could verify the last couple sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually dug up the Top 100 people list. He's not on it. Also for some reason the font size gets larger and larger and larger each line, so I had to copy and paste the contents into a text editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Magazines are in my possession ScottishFinnishRadish. I could upload them for verification. Susansmythe (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
And now I've put the article up at AFD since when I was looking for sources and trying to verify the sources that were in the article it became obvious there were not nearly enough, if any, to establish notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Very sorry for the lack of diversity on my part, Orange Mike. I aspire to become a Wikipedia editor as yourself but did not want to edit any articles other than one until I became adept at the process. This is why I only worked on one that I have most information on, until I learn the process. I have physical copies of all cite articles that can't be found online. Also, the pictures that were taken down were not photoshopped as I have professional photographer's permission to print and can supply them online.
Every one of those photos you claimed were your "own work"; now you're saying they were by some nameless professional photographer(s), even though they look like bad Photoshop jobs? And you've done nothing to hone your skills, other than watch this one article like a hawk for six years? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Also, definitely not a conflict of interest, other than an avid listener of his show since the beginning on WEVD. Susansmythe (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Susansmythe, and you were around to take and photoshop images of them standing next to celebrities? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
And you maintain that File:Mets_(5.jpg does not have a fake CBS logo added, and File:BRYCE_FINAL_2018-07-16_07-16-38_Moment_-_Copy.jpg is a photograph taken of the two standing beside each other? No image manipulation at File:Georgiou_with_van_Straten.png, just two incredibly blurry people standing in front of a crisp computer generated background? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Look carefully at her hair on the sides of her face. Looks like the Cookie Monster took bites out of the sides. Also his shirt is poorly edited by his left shoulder rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
And just below his belt on his right hip you can see poor blending between him and her. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
At least with the Paul Rudd image is almost passable to casual observation, except for the obvious problems with the background. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm convinced at this point the entire article is hoax. There's no indication this person has any radio show, almost all of the images that were in the article were photoshopped. Anyone else have a similar view? Should I just put it up for speedy, or let the AFD run? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Let the AfD run, I guess. Anybody out there better than me at nominating the faked photos for deletion? I'm just not a Commons whiz. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Orangemike, I don't even know if that's a reason to delete the images at Commons. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Leejmenoutis is also involved. I'm on mobile for a bit so I can't remove the hoax addition to a list of alumni he added Georgiou to, as it's way too long to load well. I should probably open an ANI on the two hoaxing accounts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Here's the faked photo, for discussion purposes. Zoom into the outside edges around the bodies. --- Possibly ☎ 20:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

So, what to do about the images? File:John Georgiou.jpg and File:John L. Georgiou.jpg? --SVTCobra 04:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

SVTCobra I submitted them for deletion at commons. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
BubbaJoe123456, this link has all of the image files I found related. Most have been deleted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
ScottishFinnishRadish I nominated the remaining ones for deletion on commons. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a ton. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Serosoft

User has attempted to create multiple articles for their client. I did a bit of digging on the net and found them to be a digital marketer associated with the tagged article as well as PIBM Guwahati (article attempted multiple times as per user talk page). I've added a COI notice to their talk page as well as on the article (planning to take this to AFD due to multiple issues). Appears like the user is not here to constructively contribute to WP, but satisfy their clients. MT TrainTalk 12:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

International Conference on Climate Change

User Jlakely would appear to be Jim Lakely of the Heartland Institute The Jim Lakely reference was easy to find simply by going to heartland.com and clicking on "About Us" -> "Who we are". Jlakely is editing numerous articles related to the Heartland Institute often with a considerable bias. Example: Revert by Jlakely of Peter Gleick and the revert by Dave souza

  • I've posted a COI warning on their page, one that asks them to not edit until they have responded to it. It seems pretty clear cut that they are acting with a paid conflict of interest, but I want to see if they communicate once it is made explicitly clear that they are expected to. If they don't, then perhaps a ban to get their attention would be in order?
I will mention that it is possible that identifying the editor like this might constitute outing. While that is obviously not your intent, could someone with more experience in this area clarify whether outing applies to such obvious connections (I would find it useful both for this discussion and in general), and if it does constitute outing rev-del the relevant sections? BilledMammal (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Jlakely seems to have been identified or identified himself by early 2013, I had a look at past edits and before getting that far back found self-idenfication when he uploaded this file in April 2019 with the statement "Picture taken by myself (a Heartland Institute employee from 2008 to the present) of the Heartland Institute building in Arlington Heights, Illinois. The photograph was taken from public, not private, property. Author: Jim Lakely (jlakely on wikipedia), Director of Communications at Heartland since 2010." His current user page says "a former print journalist and VP of a nonprofit organization based in Illinois". . . dave souza, talk 15:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

COI at AFD

This relates to Wikimedia movement, which was recently AFD'd with a "no consensus" result, at which I and others raised a COI issue. I do not suggest that anyone participating in the AFD has done anything wrong; rather, the COI issue may be relevant if this article is ever AFD'd again. I don't think there is any existing global consensus about this particular scenario, which is why I raise it here for input. So, here is the multipart question:

  1. Is it a COI for an editor who is a WMF employee to (a) !vote in an AFD about the article "Wikimedia movement", (b) to "keep" based on sources written by WMF employees (themselves or others)?
  2. Same question as #1, but change either instance of WMF employee (obvi paid by WMF) to:
    Same answer or different answer? Note: I am asking to address the various combinations, such as a WMF employee !voting to "keep" based on a source written by a WMF trustee.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Levivich 17:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

For #1, yes, it is, for an employee of an organization to !vote in an AFD related to that organization, as explicitly stated by WP:PAY. This naturally includes WMF employees. Further, how the individual !votes and the arguments they present isn't relevant to whether a COI exists. However, I will note that I wouldn't consider such work to be independent, unless it was written a significant amount of time before the individual began their employment at Wikimedia.
For #2; yes, maybe, and no, in that order.
For #2.1; Board of Trustees is the non-profit equivalent to the Board of Directors, and just as we wouldn't consider a Director to not have COI, we shouldn't consider a Trustee to not have a COI; in this case, the COI would be unpaid, but in many cases it would be paid.
#2.2 is complicated, as while a grant establishes a financial relationship, it doesn't necessarily establish a "close financial relationship". If we consider a general grant, I believe we would consider a paid COI to exist if one of two conditions was met; if the goal of the grant is closely related to the granter, or if the grant makes up a sufficiently significant portion of an grantees income that they can be considered a contractor or employee. The grantees intentions around the grant should also be relevant; if they intend to renew it, then that strengthens any arguments for a COI, as they are to a certain extent beholden to the granters good will. In the case of Wikimedia, I feel only the first of these can be productively discussed in the general, and so I will set aside the later two.
To do this, we need to consider the forms of grants available, but I must profess my ignorance; I have little knowledge of the Wikimedia grant program, and as such I will refrain from extensive comment, leaving that to those better versed in this area.
For #2.3, "no", per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Wikipedians_in_residence,_reward_board.
BilledMammal (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Discussion started in another section

Are Wikimedia Foundation employees required to disclose COI?

In general, I would've thought that if an AfD is made about a corporation's product, or some kind of entity closely connected to a corporation, then employees of that corporation (especially ones that work in communications and would be classified as WP:PAID editors) should either a) not comment in an AfD about that entity; b) if they do, should clearly disclose their status as an employee.

So I'm asking this question for if Wikimedia movement is nominated at AfD in the future... Several WMF employees commented at the AfD without disclosing their employment at the corporation. So I'm wondering, especially given that the phrase has strategic/fundraising value to the WMF and there is a serious dispute whether the subject of the article actually exists independently of the corporation, does WP:COI recommend that any salaried employee (or paid contractor) at the WMF clearly disclose their current (or previous) employment in the AfD? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I guess I should have picked a more descriptive heading for #COI at AFD. :-D Levivich 14:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I won't restate what I previously stated at #COI at AFD, but I do feel that this forum might not be sufficiently broad to properly discuss this topic. Perhaps an RFC would be in order, once we work out how to work it? BilledMammal (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea. Maybe we should merge these two threads and make it an WP:RFCBEFORE discussion? I don't frequent this board so I'm not sure if that's an appropriate thing to do here. Levivich 16:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Yours is more elegant than mine, I just didn’t notice it was there, so I’m happy for this to be merged in as a subsection and collapsed (I’d do it myself but on phone). I’m not sure an RFC is worth it, I mean it won’t create much binding precedent as it’s a very niche case, just a sample of opinions from COIN regulars. Since COI is ‘just a guideline’ and everything in it is just strong encouragements etc because (or so I’m told) the community failed to agree to make it formally binding, I figure it’s best if there’s enough opinions on the issue and then a future XfD could have a warning template at the top advising WMF employees of the results. I’m not sure if a stronger outcome is possible but if it is that would work too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Life settlement COI

Based on their username, contributions, and a Google search, I believe Jhickey94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is affiliated with a life settlement company that is a competitor of those mentioned in the Life settlement article.

Due to the promotional and unflattering tones of the edits, I removed all mentions of specific companies. My recent edits to the Industry challenges section were immediately reverted and said section of the page is currently not up to Wikipedia's standards as a result. I have not received a response from the editor regarding the issue.Heartmusic678 (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Text added to article need not be repeated here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

While the life settlement industry has dramatically cleaned up, there were multiple controversies in the early days. Most notably was the bankruptcy of Life Partners in 2015. Life Partners effectively bought policies off a long life expectancy and re-sold fractional shares to individual retail investors, using a much shorter internally generated life expectancy to justify the significant mark-up.[11] As a result, over 80% of the insured lived past the life expectancy - generating shareholder lawsuits and regulator attention - especially since they were selling to retail investors.[12] However, they were not the only fraudulent life settlement fund. another notable fraudulent fund was A&O Life Policies, which defrauded life settlement investors of over $100M.[20]

The second major scandal was STOLI. STOLI is any act, practice, or arrangement, at or prior to policy issuance, to initiate or facilitate the issuance of a life insurance policy for the intended benefit of a person who, at the time of policy origination, does not have an insurable interest in the life of the insured under the laws of the applicable state.[13] This includes an arrangement or other agreement to transfer the ownership of the policy or the policy benefits to another person.[13] The main characteristic of a STOLI arrangement is that insurance is purchased as an investment vehicle, rather than to provide for the insured's beneficiaries.[14] STOLI arrangements also may be called "zero premium life insurance", "no cost to the insured plans", "new issue life settlements", "high-net-worth settlements", or "non-recourse premium finance transactions".[14]

Prior to 2008, STOLI was popular because investor demand dramatically exceeded supply, and this was a way to manufacture product (albeit illegal) to meet demand. In many ways, it was effectively a victimless crime because everybody benefited in the short term. The investor got to deploy capital, the insured/policy owner made money from selling the policy, the insurance agent got a commission, and the insurance company grew their business. However, this all collapsed in 2008 when funding dried up and regulators took a closer look at the practice. Additionally, STOLI policies turned out to be poor investments, so long-term investor demand dried up.

The third major challenge has been self-dealing by life settlement providers and brokers - to the detriment of policy owners and investors. Most notably, Coventry was fined $12M by the state of New York for deceptive business practices.[15] Coventry also settled a lawsuit with AIG (a large life settlement investor at the time), where Coventry would use multiple shell companies to disguise policy ownership when reselling to AIG to obtain a higher profit.[16] However, these activities are not just limited to Coventry, as other life settlement brokers and providers have engaged in similar activity, albeit on a much smaller scale.Although it has dramatically improved, the life settlement industry faced challenges early on. One challenge is aggressive and deceptive marketing motivated by high sales commissions for providers and brokers. As the market for policies grew more competitive, these intermediaries gained the potential to earn as much as 30 percent of the sale price of a life settlement. This incentivized intermediaries to push life settlement sales in the secondary market, despite policyholders' level of interest in selling, surrendering or lapsing their policies.[21]

In addition, the industry has struggled with false life expectancy evaluations, poor premium reserves that increase investor costs, false promises of high profits with low risk, clean-sheeting (not disclosing a life-threatening illness in a policy application), dirty-sheeting (falsely claiming a life-threatening illness in a policy application).

Life settlement regulations have been adopted across the Unites States to prevent fraud and promote fair practices. As of 2010, 44 U.S. states adopted a form of the model uniform law developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Federal level regulations were developed under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). [21] Sig by 14:49, 23 September 2021 user:Jhickey94. Added by scope_creepTalk 14:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

More