Avrett Free Ginsberg

COI/SPA editors piling on their employer's website. Afgwiki is a self-declared corp officer [1]. Attempt via WP:UAA to block username as a role account failed, perplexingly. The IP is from FCB, a company also owned by Interpublic Group. These PR companies are an alphabet soup. More Interpublic Group shenanigans are in the archive from a recent, fairly major socking/COI incident. These repeated indications of real black-hat stuff associated with this place are troubling. — Brianhe (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@ any admin (JzG ?) recommend blocking 170.200.144.19 immediately. Just look at their talkpage. — Brianhe (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking that Interpublic had probably signed up at Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms but can't see it now. But if anybody can go thru the alphabet soup and find it, I'd appreciate it. Which brings up the thought - why don't we invite them to join that group? This would be a constructive way to address the problem. I don't see any rules that would prevent any editor from making such an invitation, but it's clear that doing it badly would cause difficulties. Let me know what you think on this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The article has now been restored after discussion with the deleting admin. at [2]. If anyone wants to proceed further, the proper course is AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks User:DGG, can you (or somebody) please re-incarnate the Talk:Avrett Free Ginsberg page as well, it was WP:CSD#G8'd. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Alvartvnews

Sockpuppets or meatpuppets likely at work...geographic dispersal suggests job boarding. Sandbox interactions we've seen in UPE cases before when dispersed editors want a clandestine means of communication.

Alvartvnews connections

Note - ALVA RTV is the company name, it's headquartered in Ireland. IP editor has stated Ange Luzitu was a founder.

Harkennen

Harkennen has been creating and editing a bunch of business/CEO articles since mid-August:

— Brianhe (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

all or almost all of Harkennan's contributions have been helpful. The only one he created himself is an American football player, not a businessman. (Tho I think non-notable -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Buttles (2nd nomination). DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Benjamin Genocchio

There have been long-running COI problems at Benjamin Genocchio, which I had thought were pretty much under control. Bgenocchio created Melissa Chiu in 2010. Melissa Chiu is married to Benjamin Genocchio. Bgenocchio has said (if I understand him correctly) on his talk page that I and another editor, Bangabandhu, have an agenda in regard to these two articles and have made "unscrupulous" edits. I'd be grateful if someone else would take a look and check whether any inappropriate edits have in fact been made – and if so, rectify them. Note: Bgenocchio and 1artlovernewyork have been found to be the same user; Artmaven77 is apparently not linked to them. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


What long-running COI problems are you referring to? An independent Wikipedia editor just added to the talk page that i had not touched it since 2013 aside from minor edits? They even asked you to calm down (talk) . What is factual is that beginning in august this year you and the user Bangabandhu began inserting entirely negative commentary into the wikipedia entry for Melissa Chiu, my wife. The record shows this. Every time anyone tried to modify or adjust it in some way you guys rejected and restated all of their edits, even ones where there were factual errors. Because of this we made a complaint to wikpiedia and in turn (talk) moved immediately to block me as a user citing a conflict of interest. You accused me of sock-puupetry even though i am not using more than one account. I use one wikipedia login and it is under my name and have done this for many years. i am not anonymous. i am not the same user as 1artlovernewyork-- that account belongs to someone else even though some entries from the ip address are the same. i will not tell you who this account belongs to for reasons that i will outline below. i have no idea who any of the other users are. i don't use wikipedia often and i regret having got involved here to protect my wife.

I thought this matter was at an end, that Melissa Chiu's account would be properly revised and edit made by these two users reviewed by others with no agenda. In fact i would note that their original edits have either been removed or modified by other editors. Then came September 6-7, both the same users started to modify my personal wikipedia account. that seemed suspicious. This is what i consider to be unscrupulous because it was done while I was blocked as a user, by them, and clearly in retaliation for making a complaint about these users. Frankly given the negative entries that (talk) and Bangabandhu have been invoked in inserting on my wife's page, plus the fact that he is the one who moved to block my access, that would count him out as somebody who could edit my wikipedia entry--doesn't he also have a conflict of interest here?

i would note that i have not touched either my wikipedia entry nor that of melissa chiu since this issue began (initiated by their actions, i would add), while both parties are continuing to edit my wikipedia page. in fact they have just introduced two factual errors which i have noted on the talk page of the entry and requested they be independently reviewed. i am a public individual, i do not hide behind anonymous user names, and frankly i do not want to be having to respond to these constant negative changes, so i welcome independent review of both these entires. but i would request please that given the pattern of negative commentary on entries for a married couple that both these users and their connected associates be prevented from making any further changes to them and their edits be reviewed. i am not adept at using wikipedia or familiar with its rules but it seems to me that if i can't edit these accounts as a person with a conflict of interest, which is fair enough, then others who have demonstrated a pattern of bias should not be able to edit them either. on this final issue, it is clear that they have gone into my wikipedia entry as a consequence of me getting involved in my wife's entry. I would tell you who 1artlovernewyork is (it is not me) but i am afraid that they will also be subjected to the same kind of vendetta by these individuals.

User:Justlettersandnumbers and his associate Bangabandhu have accused me of everything under the sun, COi, Sock-puppetry etc etc. but the question remains why both of them have been so obsessed with and controlling of our wikipedia entries? please explain talk) what is motivating your behavior? Why is constantly inserting negative commentary that is really opinion here so important to you? Benjamin Genocchio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgenocchio (talk • contribs)

One Little Indian artists

Joewood91 (talk · contribs) and Trincres17 (talk · contribs) (who are likely the same person, at least an edit of Trincres17 to my talk page strongly indicates this, and also seems to admit the COI) are single-purpose accounts promoting artists represented by One Little Indian. Examples are God Damn (band), Wild Palms (band), Olga Bell, Fufanu (band) and various deleted articles (plus various likely copyvio images on Commons). My instincts tell me "block and delete all", but they are writing about possibly notable bands, so I would like some advice here before I do anything more drastic than putting COI tags everywhere. Any suggestions? —Kusma (t·c) 14:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If you are not going to allow these band Wikipedia profiles, and I must mention these are all credible bands receiving national radio airplay, and in order for them to have active and proper BBC Music Pages, they must have Wikipedia pages, how can we possibly allow them to have active Wikipedia profiles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joewood91 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not disallowing the bands to have Wikipedia profiles, I have asked you not to create articles about them. In my experience, notable bands will eventually have somebody writing about them. —Kusma (t·c) 14:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Joewood91: - We are very interested in notable bands having articles - see WP:BAND for the inclusion criteria. Your assertion that they have received national attention is not directly cited in the article itself, which is what detracts from its credibility as a band which should receive a WP article. Take a look at that BAND article and fixup the page as necessary. However, the concern that Kusma brought up was regarding a potential for you to have a Conflict of Interest in this subject and the possibility that you might be introducing WP:SPAM into the article. In general, if you have any official connection with these bands, you should not edit them. Fans of bands are the next group of people which often have problems creating or editing articles because they don't provide information in an encyclopedic way. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Let's just note that God Damn (band) are unquestionably notable. Coverage in The Guardian: [9], regular mentions in Kerrang, NME, etc. Same for Wild Palms: [10]. [11] Let's also note that even if Joewood91 were an agent for the bands in question or their record company, there is nothing in current policy forbidding him to edit, provided he openly discloses any paid relationship in line with the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use. Andreas JN466 16:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Per this, I am certain the user is an agent of the record company. Unfortunately my interactions with the user go like this (paraphrase; look at their and my talk page for the full story): me: "hey, please familiarise yourself with our policies" they: "what do I need to do to have an article about this band?" me: "please look at our conflict of interest policy and follow it" they: "what do I need to do to create an article about this band?". Apparently I am unable to talk to them, which is why I am posting here asking for help. —Kusma (t·c) 18:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the background. I'd say the first step should be compliance with the terms of use, e.g. by a note on the (as yet uncreated) Joewood91 user page that makes clear Joe works for One Little Indian Records. He's willingly disclosed this in his discussion with you, so it's pretty clear it's just ignorance that he did not disclose it on his user page or in any of the other ways envisaged by the terms of use. (Also, Joe, please only use one account.)
As for the content, the God Damn article looked okayish and factual to me, while Wild Palms has too much uncited material. Now Joe may think, 'Why is that a problem? I know the stuff is true.'
Joe, this is not a question of not believing you that you're telling the truth, but a question of making sure the material is verifiable against an external source to begin with, so it doesn't morph out of shape over time as people play around with it. (See I accidentally started a Wikipedia hoax, How pranks, hoaxes and manipulation undermine the reliability of Wikipedia and Guilt by Wikipedia for examples of how this can happen.) Citing sources does not make it impossible for such problems to occur, but it makes it somewhat less likely. Ultimately you don't want Wikipedia to tell people plausible nonsense about your artists a few months or years down the line. Andreas JN466 23:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for the advice. As Andreas mentioned, God Damn (band) are clearly credible and worthy of a page, I have updated the Wild Palms (band) with further references, and will do so for further entries. In regards to openly disclosing any paid relationships, what is the best practice for doing this? Thanks, Joe Wood Trincres17 (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trincres17 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Note that Trincres17 has created another article, Fufanu, and I have asked him to comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and threatened a block. —Kusma (t·c) 14:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have attempted to add the ((connected contributor (paid))) template at the top of the Fufanu Wikipedia page, but I have possible done it incorrectly, can you assist me in anyway? Before just deleting the page!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trincres17 (talk • contribs) 15:37, September 21, 2015 (UTC)

Saks Fifth Avenue marketing team

This IP has also edited various financially connected articles, e.g. Richard A. Baker (businessman) (chairman of HBC) and extensively:

The edit pattern resembles that of some other IPs active in the same area, e.g.

There are probably far more related edits that deserve scrutiny as well.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI:
I am the "experienced editor" HaeB is referring to. I semi-automatically filed an AIV report already with huggle. While I wasn't involved with HaeBs' decision to come here, this forum may, in fact, be more appropriate. I dream of horses (T) @ 05:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The IP geolocates to what appears to be a home cable provider in upstate New York. It might be true, but I'd not accept the claim of their representing Saks on its face. — Brianhe (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Amusingly, this COI editor is annoyed that the history of the predecessor company is mentioned. Over at GM, there's a COI editor who is annoyed that the predecessor company (General Motors Corporation, then Motors Liquidation Corp.) and the current smaller company (General Motors Company, which bought the better assets and the brand but not a lot of old plants and failing brands) aren't treated as a single company. John Nagle (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Lovely. Have set up iplinks above. The last unpolluted rev of Lord & Taylor seems to be 5 July. That's more than a rollback, it's a revert, which anybody can do. — Brianhe (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Novofibre and Oriented structural straw board

Articles have been deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novofibre Brianhe (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2015 (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.

articles
editors

I'm suspicious about these two related articles. They were both recently created by new users whose sole edit was to produce these fully-formed, perfectly formatted, nicely wikified articles. They are both promotional in tone. This makes me think that there were created through paid editing. Can someone with experience in these matters please have a look? Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Presumably, oriented structural straw board was created only because Novofibre is the "world’s first manufacturer of oriented structural straw board". Deli nk (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
This reminds me of the cardboard company article I saw a while back... here it is U.S. Corrugated, was created by an editor whose named popped up here. Brianhe (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Should a report be filed to see if these two editors are in the same group of socks? Deli nk (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Not telling you not to, but my personal batting average at SPI is around 0.02. The old group is probably too stale to check by now, too. — Brianhe (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Just to make the connection between the two editors clear, some of the images added to Novofibre by Charming Dryad were uploaded by Emily in Beijing. Deli nk (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
They edited Novofibre within 30 minutes of one another, too. And it's kind of unusual to have two Chinese-fluent eds at this noticeboard. Brianhe (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a variation on engineered wood. There's something called Eco-Board [12] which seems to be roughly the same thing as this product. There's oriented strand board, which is the same concept using wood strands. There's board made from bagasse, the leftover part of sugar cane. Fiberboard is sometimes made from straw by grinding it down to a powder and then running it through something like a paper machine, resulting in straw board, a form of medium density fiberboard. There's ordinary particle board. This shouldn't be presented as a new concept, but as yet another product in the large family of "little pieces of cellulose stuck together with glue" product lines. I'd suggest moving the better parts of the product article to a subhead in engineered wood, and deleting the product article. John Nagle (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I am here to confess, Emily in Beijing and Charming Dryad are actually the same person. I am interested in environmental protection materials and company. I got to know oriented structural straw board from a close friend who decorated her new home with this material, and start to look into this material. Oriented structural straw board is manufactured from splitting wheat straw, which is a kind of agricultural residues and is usually burned away by farmers. It can replace oriented strand board in house construction, furniture and interior decoration. The only company that manufactured oriented structural straw board is Novofibre. I thought it would be good to put oriented structural straw board and Novofibre on Wikipedia to let more people know about this wonderful material and the company that manufactured it. If any of the contents violate the rules of Wikipedia, please tell me how to improve them. Thanks a lot! Emily in Beijng (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Emily in Beijng, could you post the same statement, but from your Dryad account, so we know you are the same person? Thanks!New Media Theorist (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi New Media Theorist, I am here to confess, Emily in Beijing and Charming Dryad are actually the same person. I am interested in environmental protection materials and company. I got to know oriented structural straw board from a close friend who decorated her new home with this material, and start to look into this material. Oriented structural straw board is manufactured from splitting wheat straw, which is a kind of agricultural residues and is usually burned away by farmers. It can replace oriented strand board in house construction, furniture and interior decoration. The only company that manufactured oriented structural straw board is Novofibre. I thought it would be good to put oriented structural straw board and Novofibre on Wikipedia to let more people know about this wonderful material and the company that manufactured it. If any of the contents violate the rules of Wikipedia, please tell me how to improve them. Thanks a lot! Charming Dryad (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
"If any of the contents violate the rules of Wikipedia, please tell me how to improve them" sounds like an invitation to help you BOGO. Which isn't really very charming. @Emily in Beijng and Charming Dryad:, would you mind answering this: did you create the Oriented structural straw board or Novofibre article for any kind of compensation? In other words, are you being paid to edit Wikipedia? — Brianhe (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Emily! I thought the articles were well written, although we are a bit concerned about the advertising aspect. As Brianhe says, maybe you could tell us if you had to work with the company to write them? The photography was really great too, it looks like it came from the company web site, so we were just wondering about the connection.New Media Theorist (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, I think @Drmies: will be able to press the proper buttons to fix the two accounts you describe above as being the ones you used to write the articles.You saved us some time trying to figure things out. Since you confirmed above that Charming Dryad and Emily in Beijng are the same user by posting the same message from the two accounts, this saves a lot of time and now Drmies will know what to do. New Media Theorist (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Brianhe and New Media Theorist, I wrote these two articles on my own and out of my personal interest, and no one had pushed me to write this or paying me for this. However, I have to admit that some of the photos did come from the company website, while some came from other internet sources. I now realize uploading those photos on wikipedia and stating they are my own work violates copyright, and I will figure out how to delete all the photos that were updated by me. Please give me some time. And Brianhe, I am sorry that I said "If any of the contents violate the rules of Wikipedia, please tell me how to improve them", if I may take back those words, I will definitely take them back. I am a new learner of wikipedia editing, and I will learn how to improve my work by myself. Thank you all. Charming Dryad (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
having two accounts and editing related articles with them is about the worst thing you can do on Wikipedia, as it breaks community trust. Have a look at WP:SOCK. New Media Theorist (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi New Media Theorist,thanks for your reminding. I have read the introduction of sock puppetry thoroughly, and I am now aware how bad it is for me to violate this important rule. I would never do this if I study the rules of wikipedia more deeply, and I feel very sorry for my actions.I fully understand your maintance of wikipedia's guiding rules to make it a better place, and will be fine if you block any of my two accounts. At last, I have a request, would you mind keeping the account Emily in Beijing for me? I know I have too much to learn to be a qualified Wikipedian, please give me a chance to correct my bad actions. Thanks!Emily in Beijng (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi New Media Theorist andJohn Nagle, I'd like to explain the difference between Oriented strand board and Oriented structural straw board here. The main difference is that, Oriented strand board is made of wood strand, while Oriented structural straw board is made of wheat straw, which is more eco-friendly as it reduces deforestation. The two kinds of boards are so different that I suggest that you do not merge oriented structural straw board with oriented strand board. And as oriented structural straw board is made of wheat straw, it is not wood products, so it may cause confusion if you move oriented structural straw board to a subhead in engineered wood. Thanks. Emily in Beijng (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi New Media Theorist, I have removed the contents that seem promotional in both Oriented structural straw board and Novofibre, and have linked my two accounts in my user page. If you still think it's not appropriate to have the two articles on Wikipedia, then feel free to delete them. Thanks.Emily in Beijng (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I added a brief section on oriented strand board from straw at Oriented strand board#Related products That should cover it. John Nagle (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2015 (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.

Hogan's Heroes (band)

Disruptive/NOTHERE editor indeffed by Berean Hunter. – Brianhe (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2015 (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.


CombatMarshmallow and various New Jersey IPs (especially 73.193.195.69 from Toms River) have been pushing the importance of the hardcore punk band Hogan's Heroes, formed in 1984 in Toms River, New Jersey. CombatMarshmallow admits that he also edits logged out from 73.193.195.69, saying "When Im at my GF house Ive been signed out without signing out... Also, if Ive been signed out and did some editing, to reply I Have to sign out willingly on my own to reply so people know who is replying. Not trying to show her IP, really simple stuff."

The conflict of interest arises from the persistent addition of YouTube links of band music. The links were seen as a copyright violation by myself, several other editors, and a bot. CombatMarshmallow said that the links were allowed because the band's approval was given.

For instance, at Hogan's Heroes (album) a YouTube link was added on July 28 by an IP6 address from the general area of Dover, New Jersey, the link called "backing tracks", uploaded to YouTube by hardcoremetalglobal, the video having since been removed from YouTube. Then, the link URL was changed by IP 73.193.195.69 on September 19, again uploaded by hardcoremetalglobal, again called "backing track", taken from the 1989 self-titled album Hogan's Heroes. Credited on the YouTube track is George Barberio on guitar, and John Cuccinello on bass (no credit given to the drummer). Note that this track was never published in this form; it's just a partial studio mix of the song, with the vocals removed. Only someone in the band or in the studio would have access to this partial mix.

Since late September 22, the YouTube "About" page of hardcoremetalglobal says "THIS IS AN OFFICIAL BAND PAGE RUN AND ALL CONTENT UPLOADED BY HOGAN'S HEROES as per wikipedia Request". This was in response to CombatMarshmallow being told that the YouTube page must be an official band page or else it's a copyright violation. CombatMarshmallow came back to Wikipedia early on September 23 to say that the official band page requirement has been met.

Unfortunately, CombatMarshmallow says in his edit summary that he does not have a conflict of interest: "No Conflict of anything". I would like folks here to look at the situation and weigh in. Binksternet (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not realize that the IP and CombatMarshmallow were one and the same. That's good to know, as the IP has received multiple blocks from me in regards to edit warring and other disruptive activities. I personally don't know if their activities listed here are due to s COI, or just fanboyish POV pushing, but the IP (and thus, CM) are about one one disruptive edit away from a very long block for their disruptiveness... Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Look how long and friendly the tonality is above on 99% of every reply what I had happen. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Metal_Music_Archives.Also, helpful. and I have to have binksternet and sergecross follow my edits and page around. Do you know how big this webspace is. I like people who show helpfulness and are positive people. I don't want this to be a negative experience here at wikipedia. I have a brain and I am going to share it. Wow. I feel like throwing the computer through the wall. Out of all places I thought I could at least deal with some nice unbiased people here. Then I have to of course see a "familiar" name and not in a good helpful familiar. Someone who seems to assume Im some sort of "bad guy". I know my stuff and am very well versed if that aggravates some people, its not my fault debating or working together on something means the best ideas must rise to the surface. It doesn't mean I should be followed around the web. It says at wikipedia people aren't supposed to make good editors not want to contribute anymore due to basically harassment. "You'll get a block with no warning". This should be a no "politics" kind of environment but thats exactly what it is sometimes, "you aggravated my friend because you're smart and now Im going to aggravate you back". Thats not a Professional environment. Just seeing that name is aggravating. Good Administrators and Editors are Helpful and TEACH. They don't THREATEN and Assume. Its just not good. Sorry. Thats what I know. I haven't seen any good experiences with sergecross. Nothing personal, also Im not a "kid" I grew out of that stuff decades ago. In in real life am an old soul, mature, light, helpful, knowledgeable. Wow. Same thing with binksternet, hands out more warnings to me in one week then Ive had in about 7 or 8 years. Doesn't work together. If he gets out debated about a topic tries to "get you back". Really. Lets not forget, Professional Before Feelings. Some have it, some don't. I have that ability. I don't hold "grudges" I'm not a kid. I ran a 5million dollar DVP account and had accounts at 7 of the Biggest Brokerage firms in the world. I know what professional is and the environment of. This emailing and getting people to basically harass when it happens doesn't reflect on me it reflects on the Administrators and Editors who engage, in it. When an editor comes across an Administrator who is nice , helpful and doesn't seem to let web-friendship with other editors or administrators affect the way a person is treated that administrator is treated like gold because they are one of the Good ONES. Anyhow its no mirror. Ill just add it like every one else who used the source, they weren't victim to "politics" if it gets removed It can go to content dispute. have a nice night. Thats what I typed, the person who was supposed to be "helping" co-incidentally did all this. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hogan%27s_Heroes_(band)&action=history Politics ruins his website. By the way I don't live in "Dover" thats written so poorly up there at first I though well, obviously the uploader at youtube must live in Dover. Then I realized binksternet thought I live in Dover. No I wouldn't commute like an hour and a half to my GF house. Plus they signed me out on purpose while I was editing. Getting notification is simple. There are hardcore pages on FB. I go to some of them. Ive seen hogan's heroes posted on them with either pictures or photos and sometimes the page puts the members names in blue. I asked someone at the page, ask them if the youtube is their page and if it is can they put a message on it, I write their page and I need to use the tracks for the article as it helps define the article.

Im glad serge has been following me around on wikipedia for about 2 years now. Such a great experience when types "You'll get blocked with no warning". Also I was blocked by serge I think once. Nice exaggeration. When I get signed out the 79. ip shows. I only live in the next town from her. I don't "commute" probably about 120 miles to have a gf. Anyhow good faith and other things. Who really practices them, the contributors who don't use wikipedia to feel "powerful". Yeah sure. A "fanboy". Oh boy you tried to "hurter" my feelings. How Professional. Wow you don't work with others and just like to block people, thats real "helpful". Anyhow. the night is young and the coffee is warm. Good night. Remember, Assume Good Faith. Im sure there are plenty of people with an agenda or out to harm the wiki. Im not one of them. I wish I could just make "sergecross" and "binksternet" invisible to me and all their web-friends. Look at this person currently, guess he got "mad" at my honesty. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hogan%27s_Heroes_(band)&action=historyIs that the best of their ability to help and teach. No. Its not actually. Sorry to any of the good administrators who should read this stuff its beneath me too.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record, here is the IPs public block log. I have no agenda against him, other than he continually breaks policy. If the IP and CM are the same, then we can probably add a new one on there too - block evasion. (Which is all but confirmed, since this is my first interaction that I ever recall from CM. The IP, on the other hand, I've warned and blocked numerous times. Only the IP would say that I've followed him for years, yet that came from CM's post. Also, I am not "following the IP or CM around, considering 1) Neither had edited here yet when I first commented here, and 2) I was only here because I was pinged about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Pixel_Press below... Sergecross73 msg me 11:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I asked @CombatMarshmallow: this very question on here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heavy_metal_music#Metalcore_dispute "You have written most of their article and took a blurry photo of them, then installed it on here where it currently appears in four articles. What is your involvement with this little known band?" The user has accused just about everyone of edit warring with him/her and having some sort of beef with them. I could care less about any specific band. I myself followed my own brothers heavy metal/hard rock band around Ireland and I am very much for all bands that perform and tour as it is not as easy as it appears. The issue here is the users closeness to the subject, not just on wikipedia but all the other sites online he/she has edited. As Binksternet stated the references used by CombatMarshmallow are WP:Circular in that they have the same material uploaded on here. CombatMarshmallow has edited other sites, such as MTV.com, and tried to use it as a reference as seen in the heavy metal talk page. I don't see ANY shred of notability with Hogan's Heroes and I don't believe they warrant any mention on here. The tiny little mention on some obscure site does not mean they should be on here. There are thousands of bands who don't appear on here that has done more notable stuff. CombatMarshmallow is clearly a devotee of the band and has connections in some form, as I am with a few local bands in my area. He/she shouldn't take anything personal.RyanTQuinn (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see where he ever answers the question. If he hasn't answered this somewhere already, it will be required here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The location of Dover, New Jersey, is not necessarily where the person was when the IP6 address was assigned. Instead, Dover is probably a central office that assigns IP6 addresses for a much larger region. I have seen the same thing in North Carolina where Raleigh covers a huge part of the state's IP6 addresses. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Some of Combat's IPs

This list may be used to hunt down poorly sourced edits and false claims. The self-aggrandizing self-promotion is ridiculous. Hogan's Heroes were quite far down the totem pole back in their heyday (one step above the run-of-the-mill bar metal band) and are virtually non-existant to metal fans...then and now. Someone is trying to change history and give themselves a much greater role than what actually happened. FOS. If they were more than a regional minor band back when then they would have ended up in something like Hit Parader, Circus (magazine), Kerrang, etc. CombatMarshmallow has been trying to blow smoke up people's derrières.

Too much deception and wasting our time. They are not here to help build WP and their "contributions" amount to disruptive editing. Semi-protection on certain key articles for a few months will be likely based on various comments that I have seen that they won't stop. Please file at SPI when you see him. The list above is correctly formatted for pasting into the report for back history.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that research and for blocking. The block was probably merited for several reasons, including excessive combativeness and an apparent problem with writing intelligible talk page posts. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh man, thanks for going through that. I noticed he was trying to get Hogan's Heroes onto the main Heavy Metal article as an influential band with broken links and phonolog listings as sources, which was already pretty ridiculous, but he was going crazy preventing edits to that high-priority page as well and it was just a nightmare. I actually stopped challenging because I didn't want him to start disrupting things I edit more frequently as well. Vortiene (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2015 (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.

Hema Hattangady

Nominated for speedy deletion by DGG and subsequently deleted. Brianhe (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2015 (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.

Request second opinion on this advertising agency exec/CEO biog. May have been created by GF editor, but reads like a resume. Brianhe (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I tagged for deletion as G11, promotional. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 29 September 2015 (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.

Paul Mc Kevitt

I have userfied the autobiography and removed mentions added to other articles by the subject. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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

I came across this article when I was looking through Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements]. Immediate warning flags went off when I noticed that the person who created the article had the same name as the subject. Even his user page admits it. But while that's an obvious COI, I'm not so sure about the other two IPs. Both have done a fair amount of editing on the page. 86.41.222.175 has edited Paul McKevitt's page primarily while 193.61.184.132 has edited that page and others like Magee College, where the professor currently teaches. Just something that might need to be checked. GamerPro64 15:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

We are happy to edit anything which is considered promotional or non neutral on this page; at present we believe it is a truthful and honest representation of a Living Person (Professor) which has citations and references as back-up. 86.41.222.175 (talk)

What do you mean by "we"? GamerPro64 22:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"We" means the University (Magee) or the Professor (Paul Mc Kevitt) or members of his Department; if there is anything non-neutral or non-truthful it can be edited Paulmckevitt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

So basically this is an admission to a conflict of interest. Guess the honestly is worth some merit. However, in terms of COI, you're not supposed to edit things like this to begin with. GamerPro64 14:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

point taken, but looking at lots of examples of biographical data on wikipedia subjects of the biographical data and their associated organisations are editing them all the time....86.41.222.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well that should be checked into more. There could be possible undisclosed paid editing with these COIs. A lot of us don't want another OrangeMoody to happen here. GamerPro64 23:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

no paid editing in this case; don't know who OrangeMoody is; must check into that 86.41.222.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

There's been a bunch more COI editing on Paul Mc Kevitt, which has been AfD'ed, and an SPI opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulmckevitt. — Brianhe (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
SPI is now closed. Paulmckevitt (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2015 (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.

Jorge Horacio Brito

Initiator of case has been blocked by Berean Hunter. - Brianhe (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2015 (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.

There is a conflict of interests since DaltonCastle and Dewritech want to keep corruption allegations that are not proved yet and Tuquoquefili and Superagente86 want to erase that information. ClufoWatson (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No conflict here - just reverting perpetual attempts by Sherlock4000 and confirmed socks Tuquoefill, Superagente 86, and Danielseo451 to remove sourced content. That a SPA raises now this allegations does not surprise.-- Dewritech (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the sockpuppeting cases that are a relevant issue here, if you compare the two versions of the article, there is a conflict between the users who wants to keep the corruption allegations and the users who are against including this kind of information in Wikipe Shouldn't we analyze if this information is certain or not to be here? I mean, it is all sourced in Spanish and I understand that those allegations are still investigated. Shouldn't we discuss this kind of content? I would like to have other users' opinion than the users who are involved in this case. Many thanks!--ClufoWatson (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2015 (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.

Daniel Mark Harrison

Articles deleted & user has been warned by SmartSE. -- intgr [talk] 11:55, 3 October 2015 (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.

Lots of WP:NPOV fail here. The primary editor "dhmco" is a reference to the person's website dmh.co. Common for many COI editors, the editor has a disregard for doing things properly, for example, the photo on the article has a caption saying "Photographed in the Financial Times in August 2015 Daniel Mark Harrison", but the copyright notice at File:DanielMarkHarrison FT Aug 2015.jpg claims that user "Dmhco" themself was the author and that it's a public domain image.

To a question about COI at User talk:Dmhco#Affiliations, some other user called Gankdolf (????) replied "Not in any way affiliated or have any connection". I posted a follow-up question, but neither have replied or made any edits since then. -- intgr [talk] 09:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

A reply has been left for you now. There is no COI involved and your penchant for tackling this indicates that serious COI may be applicable on your behalf esp. with regard to De La Rue for whom it appears you work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmhco (talk • contribs) 09:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dmhco: Please tell everyone the evidence you have for my alleged affiliations, I am very interested. I guess my user account on WP is a conspiracy started 10 years ago to take down Daniel Mark Harrison in 2015. :) -- intgr [talk] 09:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The naming issue does seem terribly obvious. And the fact that Gankdolf (talk · contribs) shows up out of nowhere for the sole purpose of defending Dmhco (talk · contribs) (in the first-person) is even more suspicious. clpo13(talk) 09:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
User Gankdolf claims to be from Singapore, but the IP 171.101.83.163, that has similar editing patterns with Dmhco, is from Bangkok, Thailand per MaxMind GeoIP. So either he's lying or they are different people. -- intgr [talk] 11:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Assorted interesting edits by user Dmhco: deleted this COIN discussion (reverted by Dmhco also), Response to another COI allegation when writing about Daniel Mark Harrison's brother, maintenance templates and PROD removed in "minor edit" with no summary and no talk page discussion. -- intgr [talk] 10:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It is obviously an autobiography as the dmhco twitter account makes abundantly clear by using the same photograph which isn't found anywhere else and linking to the article. It's probably safe to say that Gankdolf isn't in Singapore either... I'm sending the biography and the factory banking articles to AFD. SmartSE (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
In fact, deleting them as spam is more appropriate. SmartSE (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2015 (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.

Vivos (underground shelter) being discussed at AN/I

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.

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Socking and undisclosed COI editing. Thanks. ʍw 17:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC).

Cut article down to what's actually been built, vs. PR. John Nagle (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
And the above users have been blocked as sockpuppets. ʍw 02:44, 4 October 2015 (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.

Money (2016 film)

Account appears to have an interest in promoting a film producer, his movies, and associated actors, film technicians and related productions. A lot of the edits appear promotional, including many attempts to promo movies within actors' bios [13]; [14]; [15]; [16]; [17]; [18]. 2601:188:0:ABE6:19B6:FBF8:ED0:3A18 (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment I cleaned up the references, and once that was done there were only two decent ones. Nominated for AfD here. New Media Theorist (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
More I also tagged Atit Shah for CSD. You are right, whoever is writing these is using Wikipedia for promotion. MAsterful use of Twitter, IMDB, forum posts and lousy reference to make someone appear notable. Article needs WP:BLOWITUP in order to even begin to see the facts. User:Ban003 should be given the treatment that best matches their user nameNew Media Theorist (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
BLOWITUP sounds really good to me, but I've had poor results proposing it before. E.g. this has turned into a cluster----. — Brianhe (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of blocks, 204.148.13.194 has removed the AfD template twice now... Brianhe (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Baystate Health

Two editors heavily involved in these articles/drafts. Copy like "The Hospital of the future...Baystate Medical Center built a visionary new facility..." speaks for itself. Brianhe (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

As a start, I redirected them all to the main article, Baystate Health. The give-away that this is promotionalism is the 2015 attempt to write an article on each hospital on the whole system. The main article has been here since 2011. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Roger Ver

The subject of the article is editing his own article. I've edited that article in the past and would prefer that someone else handle this. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: the user has left a message on Talk:Roger Ver, and a link to a PGP signed copy of the same message[19]. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
As the initial creator of the biography, I believe the editor is simply acting in what should, for the most part, amount to "good faith" given the circumstances and an unfamiliarity with our policies. A standard notice on the article's talk page that he's been caught screwing around with his own article, and a warning to the editor to cut it out should suffice. -- Kendrick7talk 07:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
A discussion on the talkpage is now active on whether the Federal explosives charges should be characterized as "selling firecrackers". — Brianhe (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Trafigura

Hi, I've suggested a few updates to Trafigura (see here on the talk page). I was working with a couple of editors on and off but haven't been able to get any eyes on it for a while now. If anyone feels like taking a look and posting there or on my talk page that'd be very much appreciated. As stated on my user page, I'm a PR professional and Trafigura is my client. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Ranjit mahali and Moonlight Productions

Can someone take a look at Ranjit mahali (talk · contribs)? All of his edits have been to promote his business or justify these edits: spamming/vandalizing American Psychological Association, spamming RSN, and filling his User page, Talk page, and Sandbox with his contact information and YouTube videos. I have warned him with templates and he responded on my Talk page with "it's my profile", so I tried a personalized message. His reponse today was to spam my Talk page and add more spamto his own Talk. Woodroar (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked and deleted the pages, but this is more a case for WP:AIV. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
That was quick, thanks! I'll keep AIV in mind if/when it happens again. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Island6

Articles

Users

This is something of WP:WALLEDGARDEN of articles created and maintained by a group of SPAs. The subjects appear to be mostly notable, however they are promotional in nature and contain large numbers of links to the related organizations. Some cleanup has been done but some more eyes would be helpful.

User:Coldcreation is the exception in that they are not an SPA. However, at the AFD for the Thomas Charvériat article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Charvériat), the user has exhibited some questionable behavior. On Talk:Thomas Charvériat he states that he knows M. Charvériat and previously had a business relationship with him, but denies any conflict of interest (diff here). During the course of the AFD he stated that he would post sources demonstrating the notability of Charvériat, which he did, but it turns out that those sources are images hosted on a domain controlled by Charvériat himself (see http://whois.domaintools.com/m5project.com). The file dates on this server (see directory listing posted at AFD) appear to show that they were uploaded shortly before Coldcreation posted them at the AFD. This suggests off-wiki coordination. Not much of an explanation was given for this remarkable coincidence: diff.

There may be more; this is what I came up with on a first pass. Vrac (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Correction: As stated, I curated shows years ago within which the artist exhibited (mentioned in the article). There was no business relationship, and there is no WP:COI. Coldcreation (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Vrac has summed things up well. As to my involvement:

  1. I put up notability tags on Thomas Charveriat, which were removed (diff) summarily by Coldcreation, prior to his disclosure of a connection to the article subject.
  2. I noticed the possibility of a potential conflict for Coldcreation editing the Thomas Charveriat article when he then said " I can attest first hand to the notability of the artist and curator (as well as island6)".[20]
  3. I asked about this and he insisted on disclosing via email, which I declined[21].
  4. He eventually disclosed that he had curated the article subject in four shows at his gallery about ten years ago. [22] To me, that's enough to expect someone should stay back from editing the concerned article, and not participate in the AfD.
  5. More concerning is the sudden appearance, and apparent off-wiki coordination of a set of hard-to-find references for Chévariat, posted on his website [23] and shortly thereafter posted on-wiki[24] by Coldcreation as support for a keep vote. When I looked at the refs provided by User:Coldcreation, I noticed the site hosting the refs was the personal site of the article subject. Wondering when this had come up, I looked at the folder holding these files, and was very surprised to see thy had been posted within hours of Coldcreation finding them. As Vrac says: "Not much of an explanation was given for this remarkable coincidence: diff".

As Vrac says, there is notable material here that is deserving of article(s), but the normal editing processes are compromised by the multiple SPA's and the above events. My impression is that something is going on that is not in the interests of transparency and neutral point of view.New Media Theorist (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Tc262 outed him or herself as Zane Mellupe [25]. — Brianhe (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what are the odds of two unconnected users having an almost identical set of userboxes, including the same fourteen userboxes, in the same sequence on their user pages? I'm not good at that kind of math, but two users who speak the same languages, and both like the UN? I guess one could have copied the other's. See the userboxes at the top of Tc262's user page] and and and almost identical set on Coldcreation's user page (at the bottom).New Media Theorist (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Combinatorics problem, answer 1/p (k,n) where n=14. If there are exactly fourteen userboxes then the odds are about one in 1011 (i.e. one in 14!). But if there are 100 userboxes to choose from it goes down to 1 in 1026. By the way Wolfram Alpha can do the math. — Brianhe (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
This is neither here nor there as regards the topic of this thread (and the COI is certainly real here) but it really fries me when people mindlessly multiply made-up probabilities (which, even if we knew them individually, are mutually dependent) to come up with meaningless astronomical "odds against" something or other. Please. 02:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I am new here, and I have to comment that the anonymous brains behind Wikipedia are very sharp, and very good indeed. And also sometimes funny. New Media Theorist (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
COIN is where the cool kids hang out. By which I mean the über nerds. By which I mean the WikiGods among men (official). — Brianhe (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I hate imprecision, so I checked: there are 2526 userboxes in Category:Userboxes. So the math says the odds are somewhat less than 1 in 1047. Putting this in perspective odds of winning a typical lottery are 1 in 14 million. 1 in 1047 is like winning the lottery c. seven times a row (math). Hope this helps. — Brianhe (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh my God! Now you're making it worse. People don't pick their userboxes randomly. It's obviously not a coincidence, but that's not because of a ridiculous calculation like this. EEng (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
That would make Coldcreation's username a violation of Wikipedia:Username policy. Vrac (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Correction: The username Coldcreation is permitted because it is non-promotional (i.e., there is nothing to promote). The gallery has been closed since 2006 (i.e., there exists no company, group, institution, product or gallery by that name). Coldcreation ( Coldcreation) 14:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I continue to deny COI, and you continue to not rule it out. In either case, my few edits to the concerned article(s) have been fair and neutral. When you had doubts about notoriety, I stepped in because I was familiar with the notoriety of the artist, and have since listed a series of citations pointing to reliable sources on the subject. This can only help increase the encyclopedic value of the article (when someone else has the time to include the content). I've done the same for hundreds of other articles. There is nothing more to it. I sincerely hope this is clear now and wish to continue going about my business of improving Wikipedia articles. Coldcreation (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
We are well beyond "not rule it out" at this point. Engaging in off-wiki communication with an article subject that you clearly have a relationship with to procure sources for an AFD, in order to retain a promotional article created and edited by SPAs who are in all likelihood the subjects themselves, and then avoiding responsibility for it, is far from "fair and neutral". This is precisely the kind of scenario that makes the WP:COI policy necessary. The only question left in my mind is whether an admin will find this behavior worthy of sanction or not. In any event I suggest you avoid editing this group of articles. Vrac (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
You will see by looking at the edit history of the article(s) in questions that I've always been fair and neutral. Regarding the AfD, notability of the artist is beyond question. The sources exist and they were not difficult to obtain. As far as Googling "Island6", "Coldcreation" (together) I can guarantee you if there were any connection between the two there would be far more than three pages of Google hits (many of which appear to be mirror sites). There is nothing worthy of sanctions. Coldcreation (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Reply.... Sigh.... New Media Theorist (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Suggested reading: Ethics. Vrac (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Coldcreation: there's no closing admin here. That's an AfD construct. Here, each editor reads your comments and decides what to do, whether it's continue debate, edit an article in question, propose deletion, open an SPI or whatever. Admins may also decide to take admin-only action, or ordinary editor action of their own. Rarely are SPI cases closed, they are usually just automatically archived after 14 days of inactivity. Even then, cases can be reopened anytime. COIN is in this way IMHO much more participatory and level between admins and non-admins than the other noticeboards, aa well as less susceptible to gaming by canny editors who know Wiki-legalese. Brianhe (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
You could begin your search by spelling Charvériat correctly. See also this article on the subject of the same exhibition at CCCB (Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona), "Los Miedos", BAC IV - 12/2003: F2T? or Free to talk?? (an interactive hip hop installation that works with your mobile telephone, (see video)). Coldcreation (talk) 07:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The point is, you disbelieved in the notability of the artist, I not: As a former curator I was aware of his notability, and demonstrated it to you by providing published sources, in compliance with core content policies. For the record, your assumption of SOCK or MEAT proved untenable, and your assumption of bad faith will too. The assumption of good faith is a fundamental principle at Wikipedia. Coldcreation (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Once again, a very reasonable question about your editing behaviour has been posed (i.e. how did you produce the sources posted on Charveriat's site), and you have not answered. The sources you provide above are indexed by search engines. The numerous sources you provided in the AfD from n5project.com are not. I am questioning your actions in the related AfD, which seem to speak of COI. New Media Theorist (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
And just to be specific, here are the "magical" sources hosted on Charverieat's web site that were provided by Coldcreation in the Charveriat AfD;
If anyone can find a web result that points to these sources at their URL on the Charveriat server, I'd be very interested in knowing how it was done.New Media Theorist (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Your request to produce independent sources attesting to the notability of the artist was answered with the following unedited list; some from the artists' website (for anyone to find), others from elsewhere on the web (none of which, apparently, you or Vrac could find):

All of the above citations and associated links were obtained with directness and usefulness in accord with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, Wikipedia:Core content policies and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Coldcreation (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

you're good at using the  Done tag but not at answering a direct question. Please provide an example of a search that returns the exact links to the Charvériat-hosted m5project.com refs that you provided. I corrected my typos that you so capably pointed out.New Media Theorist (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

Both these editors made COI edits to MSKCC over two years ago, and have subsequently been tagged as such on the MSKCC talk page. I was recently contracted on MSK's behalf (disclosed on my talk page) to help clean up and improve their page. These two users have requested help removing their COI disclosures on their respective talk pages, which admittedly, are some of the least visible places to do so. Beggf is no longer an employee of MSK, but Davidthelion2 still is. However, it seems that nearly all of his edits have been reverted or changed via this diff. Can someone help me help them navigate this situation? While I'm familiar with the rules regarding disclosure of COI, I can't say the same for removal of said disclosures.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Pixel Press

Concern was raised at the Video game WikiProject and after taking it to the wrong place because this isn't my forte, its here now. The fact that a new editor suddenly makes an article with the quality it is now does raise suspicion, especially after the discovery of OrangeMoody. GamerPro64 02:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I addressed your concern at the games notification board. I am not associated with this company nor am I a paid editor. Thanks for the comments about the quality of the article, but the comments and accusations on the other notification board are hostile and not appreciated. See my talk page, the talk page of the Pixel Press article, and the video game notification board for more information if needed. --Bathchurnning (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

TejaswaChaudhary sockfarm

articles

I opened the case SEO firm August 2015 advert about a month ago. The active SPI WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TejaswaChaudhary indicates that the prediction might have come true. About 25 confirmed socks under the master who was named as one of the possibles in the COIN case. — Brianhe (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

One of the deleted articles in the SPI case is for a company offering reputation management, SEO and social media marketing services. — Brianhe (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
It looks like TejaswaChaudhary socks created Mark Leigh and some other things. Also noting that LeiaWriter canvassed several editors for BOGO. Brianhe (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Burjeel Hospital connection with suspected sock that was missed previously. Opened new SPI. - Brianhe (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ozebooks

I can't quite makse sense of Ozebooks. It seems to be a WP:COATRACK for a bunch of fansites, but refers to a possibly notable museum book publishing house. But then there are no links to the publishing house. It possibly falls under COIN, possibly WP:SPAM, I just don't know. For completeness I've listed one linked article that was just PRODed; it was entirely sourced to a fan wiki. Updated to add: It's possible that "Australian Industrial Archives" is made up or some kind of DBA name. If so, it should probably be PRODed. — Brianhe (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Historic Construction Equipment Association they mention is real[26]; they have a museum full of heavy earthmoving machinery. The "Australian Industrial Archives" appears in Google only in Ozebooks promotions. The Ozebooks web site [27] doesn't seem to mention construction equipment at all, and has a date of 1996. Not seeing any indication of notability here, or any reliable sources at all. John Nagle (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks John. Proposed speedy deletion of Ozebooks as G11: pure promotion. — Brianhe (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Smile Foundation and others

Big cleanup by Mdann52. The COI editors seem to be inactive for now. – Brianhe (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2015 (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.

editors

Appearances of some kind of promotion of various Indian topics. First noticed this in checking contribs of Jeeteshvaishya but I think he was only incidentally related. Ditto for LogAntiLog. Strongest indication of interrelationships is at I Am Kalam, edited by all the listed users and IP. The IP is reported by whois query to belong to Smile Foundation. Brianhe (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mdann52: thanks for all the cleanup you did. Archiving this case now. - Brianhe (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2015 (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.

Risklens

It is possible that an Elance contract write up "proprietary software and our information risk management model" was carried out at the article. Job put up on 12 August (US time?), edits made on 11 August (UTC), feedback received on 11 September.

Protandim and OCEAN Style connected to same Elance account. This Elancer has completed many Wikipedia related jobs back to 2011 and is clearly socking. I have opened an SPI. Probably CastleKing1440. — Brianhe (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it proper for this paid editor to post requests for edit assistance on individual user talk pages? They do disclose that they are working on behalf of the subject (without mentioning they are paid), and that they prefer not to make direct edits to the pages.

Does this amount to forum shopping which provides only the appearance but not the effect of disconnecting the COI editor from the edits?

Other than the protocol question, there are other concerns. Two of these, marked with asterisks, were posted on talkpages of users who have appeared at COIN before. There are content and concerns as well. For instance, Heatherer has proposed additions at Talk:Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft for sections Areas of practice, Recent recognition and Pro bono work. Although claimed to be well sourced, these look entirely WP:PROMO and/or non-encyclopedic to my eyes. The first sentence of one of the proposed sections is "Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft has been recognized as being among the top revenue earning law firms and for its prestige." This demonstrates a failure to distinguish between POV and NPOV content. — Brianhe (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm interested to hear what other editors think about this. Whenever I reach out to individual users, it is only because I've exhausted other resources. To explain my process, I always start by posting a note on the article Talk page and wait for any editors who have watchlisted the page to respond. If there are no responses, I typically add a ((request edit)) template and post messages on related WikiProjects. If there is still no feedback, then I reach out to individual editors who are active and members of the WikiProjects I posted to. These messages always summarize my request and direct editors back to my original Talk page thread for more information (about what I'm suggesting and about my COI). I might skip posting to a WikiProject if there is an editor who has already worked on the article, but I always start on the article Talk page and make that the primary place of all discussion.
I don't believe any of what I described is forum shopping. I don't reach out to editors that I think are more likely to help (except insofar as they are members of a project that deals with the same subject matter and I think they might be interested in the article topic). There are also editors who spend time reviewing COI requests, regardless of subject. These editors are also more likely to help based on their editing interests, but I never go to them first.
To address the users I recently posted to who have appeared on COIN before, I have to admit: I did not realize who I was reaching out to. I found both editors on WikiProject Business after getting no response to my message there. I have responded to both editors and let them know that I will be looking for assistance elsewhere.
Finally, when it comes to content: I always welcome feedback. The reason I ask editors to review my drafts in the first place is because I am open to working through any instances of promotional language and removing information that others do not feel is encyclopedic. I have yet to find anyone to review my Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft draft, so if you or anyone else have suggestions there, including about the sentence offered as an example here, I ask anyone reading this to consider responding to my Talk page message. I think you'll find that my conversations with editors are productive and I have no issue making changes based on feedback. My primary concern is making the CWT entry a better Wikipedia article.
If there are clearer ways for me to disclose my COI or other things you believe I should be doing to be more transparent, let me know. I have no need to hide that I am being paid or be secretive about my work on Wikipedia. Thanks, Heatherer (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I've worked with Heatherer before, via the ((edit_request)) queue ... well, in truth I started working with Heatherer but then got mired down (I've still got three open tabs on Coleman though) ... which I will point out, she is still languishing away, therein. She's a good apple, not a bad apple. User:Brianhe, suggest you take her under your wing, and help her understand the nuances of WP:PUFFERY. But no, per WP:IAR and per WP:EXPERT and per the wide latitude that folks are given on usertalk, I have exactly zero problem with her contacting other wikipedians individually. I much prefer she do it here on-wiki, in the open, rather than via email or via eLance, right? Quite frankly, since the wp-edit-request-queue is stuffed to the gills, direct contacts to other wikipedians is the only thing that actually works.
  Heatherer is here to improve-qua-improve the encyclopedia-qua-encyclopedia, methinks, though good faith obviously doesn't translate to perfection, she's made mistakes in the past and no doubt will again (especially since the wiki-policies are a shifting sand of purposely-unwritten ambiguity). Anyways, my specific advice, Heatherer, is that you are perfectly fine to contact people directly, and doubly-especially if they are listing themselves in some wikiproject, that is the point of them listing themselves in the wikiproject, so that other wikipedians can contact them about articles in that topic-area. You are also free to ask for help at the various appropriate venues, which are generally open to giving help: WP:TEAHOUSE, #wikipedia-en-help connect, and as a last resort since it is not as need-help-editing-specific WP:HELPDESK. You are also welcome to ping my usertalk, though it will help if you can chunk your requests into short easy-to-grasp pieces that will help. With any luck, Brianhe will extend you the same offer, they have a keen eye for promotionalism and will be a good balance to the inherent difficulties of working closely with the article-subjects. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
So I'm supposed to lend my expert advice to this person instead of everybody else taking a place in line at edit request queue? I don't think so, even if I were interested in BOGO, which I'm not, I'm even less interested in expedient shortcuts at the expense of those other people. If this is some kind of guilt trip it ain't working. What you call "improve-qua-improve the encyclopedia-qua-encyclopedia, methinks" is exactly the kind of product improvement at the expense of process—collegiality, waiting in line, forum shopping, POV clarity, BOGO—that I have begun to speak out against forcefully, as a commodification of Wikipedia and its volunteers. — Brianhe (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
No, not a guilt-trip, just a prompt to check your premises, and perhaps moderate your phrasings. Wikipedia is a product, specifically an online encyclopedia, and wikipedia is not a process, see WP:BURO and WP:IAR. Per WP:CHOICE, you need not help Heather. You can continue seeking out paid editors (or people you suspect might be), and ordering them to cough up their COI, and tagging 'their' articles, and generally doing what you can to make the wiki-culture as unpleasant a place as possible for them. But to remain internally consistent, methinks it is pretty hard for you to argue that Heather has to wait her turn in the wp-edit-request queue, when you know full well that the queue is stalled, and has been for months. Arguing that *she* has to wait in the queue, until you get around to helping her, and cannot contact wikiproject members directly, is especially ironic. She is also perfectly free to exercise her WP:CHOICE and to try and improve the encyclopedia, and that goes double when the 'official process' is obviously borked. (We are now into triple-digits for the coi-queue, and steadily growing. The oldest still-active request is from March 2015. The estimated wait-time is well over a month for any response whatsoever; I don't have data on what the estimated MTBC is for actual closures.)
  But my main point is this: we, meaning not just you and me, but we as wikipedians generally speaking, ought to welcome her contributions, to the extent they are legit NPOV reliably-sourced improvements, and criticize her mistakes (failing to stick to NPOV or failing to follow the letter of some wiki-law or whatever). If instead, we -- again meaning we-as-wikipedians-generally and not specific to you Brianhe -- treat the disclosed paid editors as Bad People Who We Wish Would Leave, the actual outcome will be the opposite. Instead of monitoring COI becoming easier and more productive, and dishonest undisclosed TOU violations being the exception, there will instead by the unintended consequence that future Heatherer-type-editors will see how Heatherer was treated, and conclude, that it is not in their interests to disclose, and that if they get taken to the WP:COIN noticeboard, their best path forward is to spawn a new username. That would NOT be a good outcome.
  Heatherer is trying to do a good job here on the 'pedia, in her role as a wikipedian who sometimes gets paid money for editing, and she is mostly doing it. She needs some advice, from an expert, on some of the finer nuances of WP:TONE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. But she's striving to comply with the TOU, and striving to improve the 'pedia. You need not help her, sure, but I would strongly urge you to admit that she is not the wiki-enemy. You have WP:INDCRIT accused her of forum-shopping, which she was not -- contacting listed members of a relevant wikiproject is certainly no violation of WP:OTHERPARENT. You have also raised "other concerns". Are your concerns now satisfied? If not, what specifically can this good faith editor Heatherer do, to satisfy you that they are a good faith editor, and deserve your AGF? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Ushtima e maleve

Hertizsedlon recently blocked as confirmed Orangemoody sock. Looks like this article Ushtima e maleve was his focus. Which makes all editing on that article open to question. Brianhe (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It was more a generalized question of who was in that article along with Hertizsedlon. I found David Devon, and through that, Khaled Akil that looks like it might have been an orangemoody job. Brianhe (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as I remember, Wikipedia asked me to edit this article in a mission while I was working in Wikipedia Adventure, it's not an orangemoody job Brianhe , as for Khaled AKil, a discussion was taking place about this article, and all wikipedians approved this article, Thanks Brianhe David (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Jklmuseum

User has added promotional material as well as original research to an article about the organization their username demonstrates they represent. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Nirvana Chaudhary

Deleted via AfD process. Brianhe (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2015 (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.

Help. Persistent editor restoring resume style material to this BLP. Unreferenced, of course. I have to lay off due to 3RR. Brianhe (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Has it been proposed for deletion yet? --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Only proposed speedy in 2011 but it didn't stick, obviously. Brianhe (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I proposed it here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nirvana Chaudhary. --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2015 (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.

Fairmont Olympic Hotel (Seattle)

Editor has declared status properly. – Brianhe (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2015 (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.

This is a self-declared paid editor but he or she needs some help making the declarations correctly. I may not be able to do this; if somebody else is available to lend a hand, please do. Brianhe (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

They seem to have just improved the history section of the article, rather than adding promotional material. But keep watching. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2015 (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.

Self proclaimed, close-to-the-source, single topic editor making marketing edits/reverts

Consensus version restored, disruptive editor blocked by DGG, remaining content issues can be handled by the usual processes. Brianhe (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2015 (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.

We have a single topic, self proclaimed close-to-the-source, editor who has been making edits since July 2011. Currently, this editor has deleted (eight times) content on the basis that it "Hijack Karpman’s Masterpiece And Make My Bowen Relevant Again” and it “ Rape The Purity Of The Karpman Drama Triangle ”. He is promising an article rewrite this weekend.

Efforts to find compromise solutions have been rejected and met with POV and original research arguments.

At this point, the talk page is mired in circulator and tangential arguments and the article is getting edit warred. The best resolution may be to restore the article to the compromise version, block all editing temporarily, and limit Ricepark to making his recommendation on the talk page (hopefully in a more straight forward manner) .

Comments on the Talk Page are long - below are some selected quotes from Ricepark justifying the 8 reverts:

→Karpman cannot be" too near" to his own work - only he knows what people want
→He is allowed no way of letting people know he has a book
→Notifying people of availability of more information is not INAPPROPRIATE SELF-PROMOTION
→On Google, Wikipedia has leap-frogged the KDT (our) website and that link takes them to your dead end where only the first 20% of his work is written. Please research how that leap happened. Did you pay for it? It is quite a coincidence that it happened with in a month of your August 25 re-write.
→Karpman is 100X more relevant today in actual use than Bowen. You are diluting his ideas.
→Karpman averages 55,000 hits on his website monthly. How many does Bowen get?
→Through Google Alerts, Karpman has record of over 500 blogs mentioning his triangle; several a week. How many blogs mention Bowen?
→I disclose my age as 45 with 25 years expertise and involvement in TA and Dr. Karpman’s work.
→Karpman had not knowledge of Bowen’s work and should not be related to it chronologically.
→This page is for seekers of Karpman’s Triangle information and not for the history of psychotherapy
→I consulted with Dr. Karpman to confirm that his work has no connection to or use of Dr. Bowen’s
→This false history could spread and eventually be damaging to his reputation
→Dr. Karpman moved to San Francisco in the Navy in 1961 and throughout the 1960s supervised psychiatric residents at the UCSF Langley Porter institute in out-patient psychoanalytically-oriented group therapy which never discussed any dyadic or triadic patterns nor any mention of Dr. Bowen’s work, not from the residents nor at the conferences there. There never was any mention of, no knowledge of, or use of Dr. Bowen’s work, so there is not the chronological link that Wikipedia falsely publishes.
→TA was influenced and inspired by the rebellious counter-culture in San Francisco in the swinging 1960s and it was almost heresy to mention the East Coast old schools
→I talked again to Dr. Karpman:
→He states his self-published book is legally registered with the Copyright offices in Washington, D.C. with the ISBN number I gave you. He has the email of proof.
→Dr. Karpman chooses not to be listed on Amazon
→He was selling his book briskly until you would no longer let him link it on Wikipedia
→Wikipedia took over the top spot on Google and seekers are now led to the dead end on Wikipedia and can only get the first 10% of his work that you know about. I asked you for help to find a way to solve this very serious problem that started with you.
→Please answer what are the appeals steps Dr. Karpman can take
→Dr. Karpman will add the important new information this weekend.

Disclosure: I performed a rewrite of this article in August to remove promotional elements, improve readability, and expand content.
Wiki-psyc (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Ricepark for blatantly promotional editing, with the avowed purpose of increasing the sale of a particular book. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks like this is resolved as far as we can go at COI. The article is nearly the 5 October "compromise version" referred to above, and the only outstanding issue is whether the self-published book introduced by this edit by the blocked editor should stay in the article. That would best be handled as a standard content question by article editors. Therefore I'm going to go ahead and archive this case. – Brianhe (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2015 (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.

Ivan Bertolla

Article deleted, editors indeffed. Brianhe (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2015 (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.

Resolved

There are a few concerns here, including WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and the appearance that these accounts are related. Not least, does this meet notability requirements? 73.159.24.89 (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I've started an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/IvanBertolla and have tagged the article as A7. SmartSE (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much. I'd initially requested speedy deletion, then gave it the benefit of the doubt re: claims to notability. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Since speedy has been turned down, I'd suggest AFD, if anyone is game. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I asked the reviewer to reconsider and they deleted it. The accounts were all blocked at the SPI. Thanks for bringing it here. SmartSE (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2015 (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.

"This page is currently being updated by the staff of Portland Monthly magazine."

Regarding article Portland Monthly:

See post at talk page of article, "This page is currently being updated by the staff of Portland Monthly magazine.".

I originally had brought this article to WP:GA quality and was surprised to revisit and see its sorry state having been ravaged by WP:COI.

I've cleaned up the page for now.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

AdPushup

Article AFDed. Brianhe (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2015 (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.

A deleted Orangemoody corp article recreated by zero-history SPA in a single edit [40]. Looks like WP:TOSOON at best. Lots of dodgy Indian business sources (DealCurry?), 2x passing mention in Economic Times, nothing that would be considered solid elsewhere. Brianhe (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

At AfD. No one has argued for keeping it. John Nagle (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2015 (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.

War on Want

Waronwantmedia blocked. Case withdrawn by nominator in favor of working with other article editors. Brianhe (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2015 (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.

Recently this article was edited by two new users who appear to be either members or employees of the organization War on Want.

User Waronwantmedia made several additions on the group's current activities. These additions are promotional in tone [41][42][43] and sourced to their own website.[44]

User Adina4good rewrote the previously neutral lede into an audacious sales pitch for the organization's activies.[45] He/she then made an edit where a signficant amount of material was revised.[46] Of particular note was the slightly gratuitous mention of politician Jeremy Corbyn becoming the leader of the British Labour Party; the organization seems to be close to this politician. An internet search suggests this user may be the organization's campaign/communications officer.

AnotherNewAccount (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2015 (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.

series of promotional biographies

Edits by User:Jumplike23. I can't tell if they're COI, or paid editing, or incompetence, or a confusion between WP and press releases. The editor's habit of repeatedly blanking his talk page makes it harder to see the extent, but consider the following (not all of which are strictly speaking bios):

Take a look at another kind, gracious user who informed me about the blanking of my page. I didnt know about the archive. That is user epitomizes my experience thus far on wikipedia. Here, on the other hand, we have this nominating user throw this in as to imply some malignant intent on my part. That should color this inquiry. However, consider the merits of each article. --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I appreciated your suggestions and changed my layout decisions accordingly.I like headers and know they help readers--but maybe I used too many here and changed it up.--JumpLike23 (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, this user never once proposed changes to any of these articles with the exception of Bryan Stevenson, and I responded accordingly there. I think this is a very significant fact. --JumpLike23 (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, user helped improve the article but went the route of deletion to make his point. In a way, sort of strong arming me.--JumpLike23 (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
See the numerous sources discussing his career as an entrepreneur. Other editors have inquired about the article in a more civil way.--JumpLike23 (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, his proposal for speedy delete was clearly frivolous and unthoughtful. It was rejected.--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Very confused as to what I did here? Again, this user is very lazy. A moment's glance would have revealed I have made very minor changes to this article.--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, the nominator makes no point. This is harassment and I would like an apology. --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Northrup has several articles about his career as a law student/ law clerk and a rapper, and clearly meets the criteria for an article.--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I responded at Afd as to notability. He was a leader in MS during the civil rights movement. He is mentioned in over a half dozen sources, and my article allows them to come together. --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The project is well-known on the internet has several sources, and Jon Linton is the founder and main contributor to the project.--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at this article before I contributed to it. Sure, changes could be made, and I already made some based on the nominator's criticism.--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Eric Thomas is highly notable. Any search of google news would show such. Again, user helped with editorial oversight, but clearly made a frivolous nomination for deletion.--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That's just since Aug 4, 2015. I suppose I should say that I think the careers of many of these people honorable. The ones who are notable deserved decent articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, it does not matter whether these people are honorable. They all qualify per the wikipedia standards on notability and they certainly do not read as press releases. If they do, make minor edits as he did with Alan Purwin, not make this big attack on me and troll me for hours. The nominating user basically has an essay on his user page stating that he does not agree with the wikipedia notability norms. --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
When I edit or use delete processes I follow the prevailing interpretation, or I would hardly have had any success here. (And in particular, in using admin tools or giving advice I think it necessary to be absolutely orthodox.) In making an argument, I do sometime urge the interpretation be adjusted a little, and sometimes the changing consensus at afd does adopt this eventually, and sometimes it doesn't.
But I have not been for the last year or so primarily concerned with notability, but rather promotionalism. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia. Not all promotional editing is direct COI; some of it is well-meaning editors imitating the work of true promotional paid editors. They can't help seeing it here, for there is a good deal of it yet to be removed, as we were less vigilant in previous years. And a promotional style of writing is so prevalent in the real word, where so much of what passes as journalism is basically instigated by PR.
As I said, I think most of the subjects are at least borderline notable. For someone I consider a good faith editor, I try to deal with articles on clearly notable subjects that need improvement by improving them; if I am reverted, then I start to wonder, and bring it to the community. (That was exactly the case here for the first article I listed.) DGG ( talk ) 14:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
My problem with your accusations as to promotionalism are that they are conclusory. However, I have made changes to all of the articles you have listed. To your credit, I found your edits with Purwin and appearance of promotionalism to be helpful, and they were not reverted. As for Stevenson, I reverted and asked for you to explain with specific facts why my edits generally were promotionalism. Then, after considering your suggestions, I made significant changes to the layout of the article. I feel that we met good common ground with the Stevenson article, and I am proud of that article. Your insights helped improve that article for readers. And, you also helped with other articles as well.--JumpLike23 (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I will judge by how well you like my further suggestions. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

CMS Energy and others

editors

Smartse has uncovered a probable UPE ring and initiated WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Yekhai Noting here in case we can help identify actors and further connections.

Noting for the record that the major changes to CMS Energy involved adding large sections on how great they are for the world, with new sections on philanthropy, environment, and awards. They also renamed the "criticism" section to "history" and removing their Ig Nobel Prize in Economics. This wikiwashing work is typical of advocacy editors, and something we should be vigilant for in all corp articles. — Brianhe (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section fixed by others. Removed some peacocking. Fixed broken ref template. John Nagle (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Spacious and others

Case #1

Case #2

Case #3

Lumping these together due to the interrelated editor lists -- there is an SPI on one or more of these editors but it looks like it's not going to result in technically confirmed relationships. However, feel free to refactor into multi reports if you think it's better. There is a fresh Contribution Surveyor report on Ireneshih here. — Brianhe (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

[Admin note: Iaritmioawp was cleared in the subsequent investigation; see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 96. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)]

Orangemoody cleanup

Leakers from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orangemoody#27 September 2015, again showing that there's a missing connection from SPI to COIN. Noting that jewelry companies seem to come up a lot here. — Brianhe (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

A time sensitive new cleanup task: ~100 new accounts at WP:Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts#Blocked after August 31 announcement. The bad news, ~100 new accounts to check. The good news, it's usually zero or one articles per throwaway account; also many have been scanned now. But we need to do this fast to block potential payment to OM. — Brianhe (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Sustainable Sanitation Alliance

Case opened by a sock

EvMsmile (changed name from EvM-Susana today)has WP:COI and probably shouldn't be editing articles that his organization Sustainable Sanitation Alliance has an interest in.

On his user page: I used to go under the name of EvM-Susana because I was proud to show my affiliation with the SuSanA network[48] His organization is funded by the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development .

See Talk:Honey bucket where he has be accused of inappropriate canvassing. On his talk page,[49], he says he has posted on [50] soliciting input for his views on Wikipedia. And his solicitations for others to edit on wikipedia at an outside forum e.g.TOPIC: Honey bucket?? Shouldn't it be called bucket toilet or bucket latrine? An argument on Wikipedia There he signs as "Dr. Elisabeth von Muench, Independent consultant, Community manager of this forum via SEI (see: www.susana.org/en/resources/projects?search=SEI) Wikipedian, co-founder of WikiProject Sanitation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sanitation. Thank you, ~~

This person is a sanitation expert who is spending their free time working in their area of expertise. This is similar to a physician working on health care topics. In fact this is the exact type of editor we are looking for. Now the concern is that we have a brand new User:Bebbebopp. What other accounts do you edit under I wonder? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Have you looked at that forum thread, TOPIC: Honey bucket?? Shouldn't it be called bucket toilet or bucket latrine? An argument on Wikipedia User:Doc James? EvMsmile is the moderator there and tells people how to edit Wikipedia. e.g.
"It seems that the two sides of people arguing are: North American Wikipedia editors who are not actually dealing with sanitation issues and who want it to stay as "honey bucket". Joe and I are arguing to change it and our main argument is that in the international sanitation literature the term honey bucket is not used. Also it is a strange euphemism, as excreta has nothing to do with honey! (except, perhaps, that it can also have a value).
Is Joe mentioned in "Joe and I are arguing to change it ..." User:JMWt? Perhaps a meatpuppet?
"But if you have an opinion on this term, please feel free to put it here and to also copy it to the talk page of the article:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Honey_bucket You can do so even without having a Wikipedia login. Just click on "edit source" and finish your statement with the four tildes: ~~~~ as this provides a "date stamp" for what you've written (but it will be an anonymous contribution without showing your name).
So is this just "a sanitation expert who is spending their free time working in their area of expertise"? Bebbebopp (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
What do you think you are proving from this, Bebbebopp? I have never received payments from any organisation involved in Sanitation, I have never received payment from SuSanA, I have never received or been offered payment to edit wikipedia. In a profound sense I am not an "expert" in sanitation but an interested amateur. Not that it is any business of yours, to be honest. JMWt (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I also don't really see the problem with a moderator on a professional discussion forum telling other users how to edit wikipedia pages. What do you think that is proving?JMWt (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:COI. It has nothing to do with being paid. It is about the pov in Wikipedia articles that results from the bias of editors such as SuSanA forum members.
Conflict of interest is not about actual bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict.[3] That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity.
The link to the forum thread above also shows the attempt to organize WP:Meatpuppeting to affect sanitation articles on Wikipedia. Bebbebopp (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I have read WP:COI, if your allegation is not related to WP:PAY, then you need to show that it is related to one of the other policies, namely WP:COVERT, WP:COILEGAL, WP:COICAMPAIGN, WP:SELFCITE, WP:CURATOR.
Very clearly none of those apply here. SuSanA is a voluntary professional organisation with thousands of individual and organisational members. It does not take a view on specifics of sanitation issues, and has members who believe and act in different ways, sometimes completely opposite ways. The "only" belief of SuSanA is to promote sustainable sanitation as the name implies.
The general allegation of meatpuppetry is nonsense because it is clearly not an issue to encourage professionals to organise and edit wikipedia as User:Doc James has already mentioned above with relation to medicine. There are numerous examples of professionals being encouraged to contribute to wikipedia in medicine and elsewhere, there is no "meatpuppetry" going on here . JMWt (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • User:Bebbebopp, you are clearly not new to Wikipedia, but you have so far edited here and at the Honey Bucket debate. Please let us know who you are and what your motivation is in this matter. --Slashme (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Just as a comment from someone professionally involved in sanitation issues (amongst other things) in the UK, I have not seen any evidence of undue bias or promotional editing. Quite the reverse, EvMsmile has added value to articles and has been a useful , balanced and constructive editor. All professionals contributing here might be construed as having a COI taking the most pedantic meaning of the term in that we have an interest which we write about, hopefully with knowledge and insight. I can't believe that in the absence of anything more concrete (or anything at all in this case) that this complaint is not summarily closed as unfounded.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Have collapsed due to issue of socking. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

More