StrongDM

The author had several COI warnings, but still moved the page to mainspace without AfC. I nominated the article for the deletion as it fails WP:NCORP. Just realized that prabably editors shouldn't spend too much time voting at the deletion discussion, but I will leave that for the community to decide. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I see the user declared themselves to be a paid contributor back on 22 October. --SVTCobra 15:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Tips For Getting Your Business On Wikipedia

Another one of these, for the interested. This one from Forbes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Ha, wow that one's pretty terrible. I wonder if the readers will notice that neither the author nor his company are on Wikipedia. 😂 Levivich 16:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh, the author may very well be on Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I like how he basically writes a guide to UPE without mentioning that it is not actually welcome or even permitted. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
His point 7. is a favorite of mine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
It'd make for hilarious parody, I wish I thought of it, I would have written this for the Signpost. Levivich 17:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
He'd like us to write about him and his company though: [1] Vexations (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Just checked with an eye for WP:UNDUE, and the only links to the two pages he wants to be created are from "Requested Articles", and neither he nor his company are mentioned in any of the articles featured on the list, nor do they seem to appear anywhere else in Wikipedia main space. Seems he fails #3 of his own guideline. BilledMammal (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Some clients of his company ("stoqd"; client list helpfully included on their website) are on Wikipedia - and with a history of UPE. I've reached out to the publisher of the blog post, Forbes Councils, on Twitter to let them know the post is unethical. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I looked over a few myself. Some of them, like Dairy Queen or Coldwell Banker are clearly notable and the articles were begun before UPE was such a big problem, but may have suffered from spammers in the interim. On the whole the guide is actually pretty poorly written and scattershot, I'm not exactly stoked by it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
According to a section on its talk page, Dairy Queen used to have content describing its homophobic approach to advertising, That content is no longer present. Has the article been whitewashed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing I think you forgot a Talk: prefix in that talk page link? -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 14:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Fixed, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I found the diff. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
To be fair thats seems like a reasonable removal if there was no secondary coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Wcsneel and Gleneagles Hospitals

Wcsneel is a relatively new account that began editing at the beginning of September 2021. The first edit made was to create Draft:Hospital Shah Alam and almost the entire focus of the account's edits have been to create or add content about Malaysian hospitals, particularly those associated with Gleneagles Hospitals. I came across this question about a logo file at WP:MCQ and noticed there was probably at least an WP:APPARENTCOI given the promotional nature of the edits after looking at the editor's contributions. The editor has made a number of page moves (which might be OK), but it appears that much of the content they've been added being taken verbatim from official websites or other official promotional materials. Of course, that could just be stuff completely unrelated to WP:COI or WP:PAID, but editor's post at MCQ seems to imply that they've been in contact with one or more of these hospitals and are writing for them in some capacity. Around the time was created, a ((welcome-coi)) was added to their user talk page by an administrator, but it never received a response. I posted a bit of a more detailed message at User talk:Wcsneel#Conflict of interest editing and I did receive a response posted by an IP address on my user talk page which said they had no close relationship with the said company. For reference, I did query about this by email to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org and the response I received suggested that I bring this matter up here at COIN to see what others think; so, that's what I doing now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding Draft:Gleneagles Hospital Medini Johor which I just declined because it read like an advertisement and advised them they need to address these concerns. S0091 (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, this is Wcsneel. I totally understand your concern. I'm here to clarify that I have no relation with these hospitals. I'm just trying to contribute some articles of the hospitals in Malaysia, because I find the info of these hospitals in Wikipedia is very limited, and a lot of Malaysians are also sourcing from Wikipedia. Please forgive my un-intention actions.

Wcsneel (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Wcsneel: thank you for responding. While I understand your desire, I think you have a common misconception about the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not exist to tell the world about things. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should simply summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen to say about a subject in a neutral way. If no such sources exist, then the content does not belong here. Your editing is promotional because you are trying to advocate for something, which is the wrong way to go about it. Continuing to edit this way will only lead to you getting in trouble here so I suggest familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's core content policies. I will leave some additional on your talk page. S0091 (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Basis Global Technologies

Paid editor created an article about company in article space in October 2021. Editor was then told by Giraffer that paid editors are required to disclose, and are strongly advised not to edit directly or create directly in article space. Editor then correctly made a disclosure on their user page. Article was then moved into draft space by User:MrsSnoozyTurtle. Editor then moved Centro, Inc. to Basis Global Technologies, citing name change, and it was then moved again by User:MrsSnoozyTurtle to draft space. User apparently needs to be cautioned again against paid editing in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Very suspicious editor with IP address 96.231.39.34 is editing the AdvisorShares page

Just looking at the timing and contents of edits, as well as using Wikipedia's geolocate link on their IP addresses, it appears that blocked user with IP address 173.66.193.112 and user 96.231.39.34 are the same person. In addition, using geolocate shows that they are using computers near AdvisorShare's office. All of their edits are deletions of publicly available material involving AdvisorShares and additions of unsourced information that almost surely would only be known to a company insider. It seems obvious that they are trying to change the AdvisorShares page to a promotional page. 96.231.39.34's first edit was on October 4, 2021, where they deleted information about AdvisorShares, whose source was the US governmental regulator the SEC, from the Fund.com page without explanation. 96.231.39.34 tried to replace a link about a court case regarding the ownership of the company with the company's own Twitter page. This user also obviously doesn't know the rules around editing Wikipedia. They just make deletions without explanations or add unsourced comments. On December 2, 2021 when one IP address was blocked (173.66.193.112) another one (96.231.39.34) tried to make edits on the same day. In their latest edits from December 2, 2021 they basically just complain that everything written in these publicly available articles and documents from the SEC and US courts are lies and that Wikipedia is rigged. They never cite publicly available information to support the cases they want to make. If you read their comments and explanations, they're not even trying to hide that they have a conflict of interest, in part because they use information that only an AdvisorShares' insider would know. After the name of Charles Robertson under Key People, 173.66.193.112 added "(deceased from reading this slander about AdvisorSahres)". After a quote that Charles Biderman gave to a journalist, 173.66.193.112 adds "the facts are they were notified of the reasons, and they chose not to make them public)". Libertyandjustice (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Christopher Bauman

This draft is entirely the work of unregistered editors, who are removing the AFC comments and resubmitting it tendentiously. Do we have a clue whether there is a sockmaster? I have requested semi-protection. Is there anything else that can be done? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The photo on that page is a copyright violation. If you check out the uploader's Flickr account you'll see it's all stock photos and screenshots that he claims are his own work and has republished as CC or PD. I don't know how to report this at Commons. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
That uploader does have a troubling upload history, but this particular image does not appear to have come from Flickr. --SVTCobra 12:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

JKLlamera

The mentioned user created a draft page about himself, stating his basic information about himself. As per COI rules, no one shall create a page about himself or herself. NewManila2000 (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

There are literally dozens of vanity articles in drafts every day. But can I ask why you submitted this one for review? --SVTCobra 17:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I nominated the draft for deletion, but there appears to be something more problematic going on with this user. --SVTCobra 18:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I submitted the draft for review and at the same time, that the page be deleted too. NewManila2000 (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Nicole Simone

The articles creator states his conflict of interest directly on his Wikipedia profile. His account was created specifically to create this article even. Nicole Simone has worked extensively on personal projects with someone named Greg (last name I will keep private of course). It seems obvious that this is the same person and as someone employed by Nicole this represents an even further conflict of interest.

"JustACodeMonkey, known to his friends as Greg, joined WikiPedia to help his friend Nicole Simone (aka Late July)." NoSpamming (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

While I agree that JustACodeMonkey has a COI, per an old diff of his userpage that clearly states as such, there appears to be an off-wiki dispute at the heart of this over animal cruelty allegations regarding a charity that Nicole runs. The self-published blog that was being used to source these allegations (which NoSpamming presumably knows about, see https://redemptionflaws.wordpress.com/2021/12/03/rp-founder-nicole-simones-wikipedia-article-now-with-references-to-redemption-paws-controversies/) were rightly removed per WP:BLPSPS. I have no opinion on her notability, but the AfD nomination you have created is badly formatted and needs to be fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Added another suspicious SPA. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
An IP with no other edits has responded on their Talk page [2] (sorry mobilediff) Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Swiss Life Asset Managers

Article
Users

Request for a closer look at the article given the self-declared COI. Thanks.-KH-1 (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Louis B. Rosenberg & Zoe Rosenberg & Unanimous A.I.

First of all, very new to editing, I'm unsure about correct procedure. I have been improving the Metaverse article, and the most recent edit was from an unregistered user adding a reference to a newly published article in VentureBeat. I was suspicious about the addition, and checked the anonymous user's contributions. Their only other contribution was to the Wikipedia page of the article's author which set off alarm bells. The author's Wikipedia page reads like pure sales copy, as does the Wikipedia page of Louis B. Rosenberg's company, Unanimous A.I. On inspection, there is a pattern of puffery and inserting editorialized sources to articles authored by Louis B. Rosenberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigadierG (talk • contribs)

I added virtual fixture to the list. Seems related. --SVTCobra 02:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I've added (and will notify) users Augmented Vitality and AR Trends (in this context, "AR" likely stands for augmented reality). Based on topic-related username and overlapping edits, these both also seem related. Or maybe a separate group? I dunno.
The two Outlands accounts could be blocked as promotional usernames which implied shared use (per WP:ISU etc.). Since neither of them has been active recently, this isn't pressing, but it does further suggest something fishy has been going on. Grayfell (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I added User:GardenM (commons) and User:UnanimousImage (commons). These two accounts are largely responsible for uploading images to Commons and adding them to the aforementioned articles. --SVTCobra 09:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI, on Commons, Outland Pix repeatedly uploaded a photo I took of Zoe, falsely claiming as their own; see their talk page for long list of those and other copyvios. Funcrunch (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

See also this exchange on Commons for further context. Funcrunch (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
One edited Louis B. Rosenberg while the other edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis B. Rosenberg. The end result of both edits, regardless of intention, seems to be to preserve the article by trimming the most superficially and obviously objectionable content. While this would be a good starting point, I don't think it's enough, and much of the content still in the article is still poorly sourced and overly promotional. Having two brand new accounts created just to tackle this issue is yet another sign of something weird going on. Perhaps they will comment about it here. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Someone has seemingly put a lot of effort into seeding this guy into Wikipedia, and someone seemingly noticed very quickly once he was nominated for deletion. This level of activism is very concerning. BrigadierG (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Sechnotot, User:Jellostand22, and User:Nipomoham have been confirmed to be sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sechnotot/Archive. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 18:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Agustín Ostachuk

The user Aostachuk has been engaging in slow edit warring to add the journal article What is It Like to be a Crab? A Complex Network Analysis of Eucaridan Evolution written by Agustín Ostachuk, and published in the Journal Evolutionary Biology in 2019 to the Crab article. Aostachuk has denied that there is a conflict of interest, despite the clear similarity of their username with the author of the journal article. Aostachuk has also previously been warned on their talkpage for copying text directly from the article. I am not in a position to assess the paper on its merits, but if the paper was influential in the field I wouldn't have a problem with citing it, but it appears to have had little impact so far. Aostachuk also cited another article by Agustín Ostachuk on the article Alexander Bogdanov. 1 Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

This goes much deeper than I initally thought, Aostachuk has an extensive habit of citing their own research articles (and little else) extending all the way back to the beginning of their editing in 2013 diff. A quick perusal of their edits shows that in almost all cases where they are adding references, they are citing papers they are an author of. This is clearly an abuse of WP:SELFCITE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
@Cougroyalty: who has also been tangentially involved with this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I have also reverted some of Aostachuk's Crab edits, and I warned them about copying work on their talk page. (I also noticed they just received a barnstar on their talk page from a user with no other contributions, which seems odd.) Cougroyalty (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Response to Hemiauchenia

Wikipedia policy regarding "Citing yourself":

Citing yourself

Shortcut

Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason , but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming.

The paper being cited (Ostachuk, 2019) in the Crab page is relevant: it has been published in the journal Evolutionary Biology, it has been cited 4 times so far, and it has been downloaded 418 times from the publisher page [3]. Aostachuk (talk)

Aostachuk has undone my attempts to properly format this response for some reason. For anyone uninvolved feel free to do so. Of those "4 citations", one is a preprint on Biorxiv, and one is a paper that you wrote yourself. I do not see how the paper has had enough substantial impact on the field to warrant inclusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia has been extremely violent with his/her commentaries from the beginning. He/she (who knows who he/she is?) has been trying to accuse me from unethical behavior ("Wikipedia is not a place to promote your own work"), when it is clear according to Wikipedia policy on "Citing yourself" that this not a crime or violation of the terms of use . I advice Hemiauchenia to be more respectful and polite, as I have been, and not to accuse me of false denunciations. In my edits, I have not only cited my own work but others too (5 different citations in the article "Crab"). I will not further discuss the quality of my work with an unknown person with unknown academic formation. Aostachuk

Wikipedia welcomes people who contribute anonymously, and there's a variety of good reasons people do so (including safety). Your edits are a conflict of interest problem and you should (a) clearly state on your userpage that you are the academic Agustín Ostachuk (if you want to continue editing in areas where this is relevant); and (b) not add publications written by yourself directly, but propose on the talk page and such changes you would want to make, ideally using ((Edit request)). It does not matter if you are trying to be neutral by including references from others: the point of a conflict of interest is that it fundamentally compromises a person's ability to assess whether their edits are neutral, and as such a neutral third party is needed. — Bilorv (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Aostachuk, you are both adding citations to yourself to the majority of articles you are editing, as well as edit warring to keep citations to yourself in over the objections of other editors. That is not the 'conforms to the content policies' and 'is not excessive' envisioned by the guidelines here. You should stop adding citations to yourself to articles. When you have published something that you believe can improve an article, you should raise that on the article's associated talk page for implementation by editors who are not so close to the issue. - MrOllie (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that you do not want to accept Wikipedia's own policies: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP: SELFPUB, and is not excessive". It seems to me that there is not much more to add, just accept the reality of the facts and evidence. If citing yourself were a conflict of interest or a crime, you would not be allowed to cite yourself in scientific publications. If this is allowed in true academic publications, it does not make sense that it is not allowed in a general information web page, the content of which is not considered academic or scientific literature.

It is clear that all my edits are in my name, since my username is my name, so it is quite redundant to clarify that the edits were made in my name. I have nothing to hide and I registered on Wikipedia with my name. This gives transparency and clarity to the system, and automatically eliminates any type of conflict of interest (since everything is in view and registered). The use of pseudonyms only contributes to confusion, turbidity, opacity and impunity, and does not make it possible to reveal the conflicts of interest and the hidden interests that these people are defending. I don't think security has anything to do with this. This is not Wikileaks. Aostachuk

This kind of motivated reasoning is exactly why we discourage editing with a conflict of interest. You have taken that sentence, which contains very important caveats and limitations, and are using it to justify adding citations to yourself whereever you like and edit warring to keep those citations in. That is not the intended reading of that sentence. You're a scientist, and you're used to scientific publications, where citing yourself is so encouraged it is almost a requirement. But Wikipedia is not scientific publishing. This is a different community, with its own norms and standards. If you want to contribute here successfully, you will have to make some effort to learn and abide by the local practicies. I think you would benefit greatly by reading Wikipedia:Expert editors, which was written with this sort of situation in mind. - MrOllie (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It is very difficult to maintain a dialogue on equal terms with an unknown person that I cannot identify, and who therefore cannot take charge of his own words.

As for me, I am in a clear conscience that I have acted in good faith, transparently and honestly, that I have not engaged in any unethical, opaque and shady behavior (like someone who hides under a false name), and to be supported by Wikipedia's usage policies (which have already been sufficiently cited). Aostachuk

Communicating with other editors is an integral part of contributing to Wikipedia and is required for our consensus-based decision making processes. The vast majority of Wikipedia editors use pseudonyms. If you cannot find a way to communicate with people using pseudonyms, editing on Wikipedia may not be for you. - MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, if you continue to edit war as you have been, it is likely that your account will be blocked. - MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Kamala Beach

Draft:Kamala Beach was originally created as an WP:AFC draft and accepted by User:HitroMilanese. However, it was later draftified by User:GSS with the reason, "Violation of term of use per off-wiki evidence. Please see WP:PAID." I've asked on the talk page what the specific concerns were, since the page didn't seem to be promoting any specific business, but GSS hasn't edited since 9 October. Would anyone know what exactly the problem is that needs scrutiny for COI? --Paul_012 (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The said user should have clarified more on off-wiki evidence. I am in favour of moving the article back to mainspace and tag it with appropriate template (if essential). I don't understand why someone is willing to pay for a geographic location. Hitro talk 06:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I would wait until GSS comes back in the New Year. There is obviously something wrong if its tagged. It probably something like a development or something like that. scope_creepTalk 10:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Danna Azrieli

This is a paid single account, the paralel hebrew entry דנה עזריאלי is manifestly paid. (disclosure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:2:C10B:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Added other connected contributors and the related Azrieli Group article, which has also been extensively edited by the SPA creator of the Danna Azrieli article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I notified the above listed users. Let's try not to forget to do this. --SVTCobra 22:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Right, I thought the onus was on the IP and I forgot about the others I had listed, my apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The onus was on the IP, but they seem to be a novice. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I should note that Kavanit is the username of the disclosed paid editor on Hebrew Wiki who wrote the original article this is a translation of, but there is no disclosure on enWiki, despite the fact that he has edited the EnWiki article, and it is possible that they are co-ordinating this clear UPE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Katvanit has an interesting knack for obtaining VRT permission for uploads on Commons. The variety seems almost implausible, but I guess that's a problem for Commons. --SVTCobra 23:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't seem that implausible given that he is coordinating with clients who are directly paying him and who can be requested to give the required permission. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Right, I meant implausible for a non-involved party. --SVTCobra 23:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
There is also a paid disclosure In the corrseponding Hebrew entry Azrieli Group and both the two hebrew entries and the two parallel english ones edited in close dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:3:E34C:0:0:0:1 (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Katvanit (official site) is a name of a big PR/content Israeli company. They employ dozens of paid editors in wikipedia (most of them undislose) you blocked many of them, but they keep coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1FD:CA49:0:0:12CF:9526 (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
If that is true, then the Kavanit account should be blocked, as English Wikipedia does not allow usernames that represent entire organisations or companies per WP:ISU Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I have reported the Katvanit username to WP:UAA. Looking at the Katvanit website, it is a clear violation of promotional username for UAA. scope_creepTalk 16:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it true that Hebrew Wikipedia does not have a conflict of interest policy? --SVTCobra 17:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

If I don't mistake the basic rules for COI established by wikimedia foundation and every wikipedia must use it, however, there are subtleties and Hebrew wikipedia is by far less atrict than the english one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1FA:8D97:0:0:12EF:EF12 (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
P.s. I conclude from Katvanit answer in his talk page that according to english wikipedia policy, english entry about Danna Azriely is COI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1FA:8D97:0:0:12EF:EF12 (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yael Shelbia

By appearances, this user has been editing the article about themselves. Coincidentally, User:Katvanit (from above) has uploaded an image of this person. --SVTCobra 17:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I saw this too, but the editing didn't look that promotional. I note she replaced the image uploaded by Katvanit with one she uploaded herself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Katvanit employs many editors, one of them is User:אור פ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8_%D7%A4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1FA:8D97:0:0:12EF:EF12 (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Katvanit worked also with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rotemtal and with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheParkKing

- there is paid disclosure to the corresponding hebrew entries Katvanit created and the three of them wrote in english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1FC:C4C2:0:0:12F1:D584 (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the Katvanit rabbit hole looks pretty deep. I wonder if they all edit from the same IP at their offices. --SVTCobra 20:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I think not, Shauli Cohen,the CEO mostly hire freelance writers, each of them edit from his home or other premise.

Society for the Study of Social Problems

User is a SPA and has not acknowledged COI as requested at their TP. I recently removed most of the "annual meeting" section of the article as promotional and it has been restored as it was with completely inappropriate language. MB 00:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Even ignoring the obvious promotional wording, the article seems to cite no independent sources whatsoever, and thus fails to demonstrate that it meets Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
The COI is obvious; I will leave it to other editors to take the five seconds it will require to find the clear evidence of a connection between this editor's name and the organization. The lack of any communication for over 3.5 years makes it clear that this editor needs to be blocked. ElKevbo (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not finding any independent coverage of this organization... there might be some on JSTOR but I don't have access on there. Anyone else? If there's nothing there then the article might be suitable for AfD. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for the Study of Social Problems. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Virgo

Created by User:Virgo4africa. Brand new editor, probably clueless. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Savage Minds (magazine)

When reviewing and declining the draft at AfC on the basis of notability per WP:NWEB, I noticed that the creator of the draft has a user name that matches the name of the founder and editor of the web based magazine, from which I have inferred they have a conflict of interest and financial stake in the topic. I left a message on the editor's talk page asking them to declare their connection. The editor has replied with claims of harassment, libel and censorship. Please could an uninvolved editor review the draft and the comments that its creator has left for me on their talk page. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It's barely even a "magazine", it is a substack blog. COI creation of articles is allowed via AfC, but I think this one will just die and get deleted naturally. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Substack is a publishing platform. Savage Minds is not a blog. We have an editorial process for everything and this is a magazine which has been quite successful since its launch. The previous Wikipedia editor, as you can see from his comments, has made reckless statements and has made statements not at all based on reality. I can only imagine he is not informed with the publishing world. Savage Minds is a magazine and has many award-winning journalists who contribute to it. I don't know where this editor gets his information, but Substack is a company that merely provides server space—there are many other magazines and news outlets based on Substack. The comments by this editor are extremely uninformed and rude. Please review my complaints of the comments I have received from the previous Wikipedia editor. I have also provided a long list of blogs on Wikipedia that are actually blogs and that are substandard for consideration as a media source. Most of the blogs on Wikipedia are commercial enterprises. Savage Minds is not. Julian Vigo (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The issue isn't whether blogs and magazines are commercial or not, Julian Vigo, but rather whether they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If there aren't independent sources written about the magazine that an article can be based on, then the subject doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. It might be that there are articles about blogs that predate the tightening of the new article review process, but if that's the case they should be nominated for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Funnily enough, Savage Minds is the former name of Anthrodendum, an actually prominent (and probably wiki-notable) anthropology blog. This looks like a fringe-y, politically-motivated rip off. – Joe (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a legitimate publication with two own writers. I am an anthropologist. Keep the ad him to yourself. I would like an editor who is t insulting and who had a modicum of knowledge about the publishing world. These comments are deranged and offensive. We have journalists, writers and scholars on board. These comments are a sad representation of Wikipedia. I would appreciate and editor who is respectful. The public submits to you. Editors need to play by the same rules. I have submitted documentation of our magazine being covered by three major media sources. Criteria met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Vigo (talk • contribs) 12:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Could you link to those three sources here so that I can assess them, Julian Vigo? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Before this gets derailed further, may I point out that the rather aggravated response on Julian Vigo's part appears to stem in part from differences in understanding of what constitutes conflict of interest and paid editing? While Julian Vigo is the editor of Savage Minds, she's saying that her work there is of a non-commercial nature, and appears to have taken insult at the suggestion that WP:PAID compliance is required (as well as the rather harsh wording of the template message regarding forgetting to sign in, which, regardless of other issues, does indeed seem unnecessarily WP:BITEy). What are the applicable policies/guidelines for editors who have a non-financial conflict of interest stemming from their relationship to an organisation anyway?
To Julian Vigo, please understand that there are two separate issues in question: Firstly, if you have a close connection, even if it's not financial, to the subject of a (potential) Wikipedia article, please disclose this; see WP:DISCLOSE for guidance. Secondly, whether or not Savage Minds is considered notable for Wikipedia's inclusion purposes is determined by Wikipedia's notability guideline. No one is going out with the purpose to attack you or censor your work. You're welcome to discuss the issue, as long as it's done civilly. Angry tirades are unlikely to achieve the responses you desire, after all. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
What are the applicable policies/guidelines for editors who have a non-financial conflict of interest stemming from their relationship to an organisation anyway? That would be WP:COI, which applies to all conflicts of interest, financial or not. Mlb96 (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Suspicious

Silas nganyi seems suspicious because of this revision. The user seems to have some relationship with them. Also, see the talk page. 2409:4063:4005:2624:0:0:1D03:70B1 (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Possible SEO activity

I'd appreciate some extra eyes on contributions from this user. About 75% of the references they've added have been to commercial sites that would be unlikely to meet WP:RS guidelines. I realize that for some topics it's difficult to find non-commercial links, and I'm sure we have a lot of good-faith references to commercial blogs about various topics. In these particular contributions, my "SEO radar" is pinging a bit. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It certainly does look suspicious, especially with the very intermittent editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, sorry what have I done wrong? I have put in valuable content and referenced the content to the blog articles and cited them properly (I think). You are right, most blogs on the topic are commercial blogs, and there are only a few sites that even have them. I even deleted an existing obvious citation to an about page that had no reference value. I am not sure what you mean with intermittent editing, do you prefer I rewrite the whole post? Regards Alaila17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.86.66 (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Ed Greenwood

I'm not sure if this violates WP:COI, but per discussion on the IP's talk page they state that they are Ed Greenwood. Could someone please review the IP's contributions and address with them whether their edits are acceptable? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Ed Greenwood here. Once again, this IP user incorrectly asserts that they are "my" edits. As I said at the talk page, I have NEVER edited "my" Wikipedia page; these reversions of material 8.37.179.254 had repeatedly removed were done by librarians working at the same library I work at, initially without my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.158.33 (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe it is also a COI concern for people who know the subject to be editing their page as well, but I will let someone else take a look at this and see what they have to say. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
It look's like a SPA account, that made an attempt to add some books with no sources, that were reverted, and then the editor put the publishers in a series of books and changed a video title from Baldur's Gate to the Eye of the Beholder. He clearly states he is an Ed Greenwood. He has a clear COI. Seems to be tidying up his own article. Left an edit request message. scope_creepTalk 10:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Ed Greenwood, again. To reiterate: As I have repeatedly stated, I have NEVER edited my own article. I have, years in the past, when there was no such mechanism, sent messages to the Talk page of suggested title and date CORRECTIONS to publication credits others have added to my page, for others to review and add/implement if they see fit; I have never edited the page. Apparently other librarians restoring vandalism show up as having the same IP as I do. So, sorry, but I see no Conflict of Interest. And scope creep is incorrect in saying the librarians "made an attempt to add some books with no sources, that were reverted." They RESTORED computer game (Wikipedia uses the heading "video games") credits, not book credits, that had been on my page for years until removed (several times) this month. I notice that some book credits have vanished, too, so perhaps they were also removed. Out of interest, what "sources" should be provided? I was directed to Wikipedia policy "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly support the material"...I wouldn't think credited on the cover of a publication as its author, or on its legal page, would be likely to be challenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.158.33 (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to bring attention to commissioned work which is going on.

Marti Siurana (talk · contribs), is right, I have received compensation for some of my edits, but not the majority of them. I have always made sure my edits comply with the sites guidelines. I apologize for not clarifying it before, it's just something I kept postponing for later. I will make the necessary disclosures as per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, please let me know any further action I should take. Thanks, AtomsRavelAz talk 17:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

AtomsRavelAz Thanks for your candidness. It must be because you were unaware, but your articles are well-written and neutral so no action required. Just declare COI edits like User:Bbarmadillo did and everything should be fine. Marti Siurana (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Marti Siurana: Thanks a lot for your understanding, I really appreciate it. I will declare the COI edits. Thanks again, AtomsRavelAz talk 18:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Marti Siurana: When you post the names of editors on the boards, they are in good standing, until they are found in breach, so you need to inform the person that they are on here. It is deeply uncool and likely disruptive not to tell them. You inform them. When I started editing the Marcelo Claure article, user:AtomsRavelAz never knew he was on here. scope_creepTalk 08:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

WE Charity again

WE Charity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More WE Charity UPE is almost certainly taking place. See The Signpost for a good summary of our past issues here.

This IP edit summarises a CBC source that evidences a unusual co-ordinated campaign to suppress investigative journalism into the group... but summarises it in a way completely flattering of WE Charity, with a few very misleading claims. My new summary was reverted in under half an hour by an IP geolocating to the same area in Canada, and they gave me a template warning. There's a term for someone who knows Wikipedia well enough to have seen template warnings (but who forgets a signature) editing in an area where we've detected large amounts of UPE, trying to whitewash a scandal that portrays WE Charity unfavorably. It's "duck".

The only surprise here is how stupid WE Charity think Wikipedia are. More eyes are needed, permanently, on all WE Charity-related pages. — Bilorv (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:SEMI could keep the IP editors at bay and force any autoconfirmed, registered paid/COI accounts into the spotlight. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
The last two IPs, 98.97.158.7 and 50.68.19.161 are part of the same (expensive) residential proxy network. Obviously an experienced UPE operation. MarioGom (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection applied. Are there any other articles in Category:WE Charity that could benefit? MER-C 20:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

SWVL

Abdelrahman is the Global Head of Marketing at SWVL, currently deleting the SWVL page historical events in favor of showing company image in a certain way. 217.54.134.239 (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@217.54.134.239: At the top of the edit window of this noticeboard, it clearly states "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline." You have violated this provision here and at Talk:Swvl. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Muso805

For over two years, Muso805 has been contributing here, often side by side with user:Colin Larkin, who is the same Colin Larkin who has authored Encyclopedia of Popular Music (EPM) and All Time Top 1000 Albums. The vast majority of Muso805's edits consist of adding scores, rankings and other details from Larkin's books. This has been noticed by other editors in the past, including MrOllie and Notfrompedro. I'm afraid I've not added diffs here of the edits by Muso805, but I believe picking a page – any page – from his contribs history back to mid 2019 will adequately prove the point.

Most recently, there's been some discussion at the user's talk page about a likely COI. Muso805 denies that he is Larkin but, even aside from suspicions relating to his edits, there are several examples of interactions on talk pages that suggest he is:

I think these are all pretty clear-cut examples that show the two users are one and the same. Whether he writes "EPM" or just "rating" in his edit summaries, Muso805 has added hundreds of Larkin scores at album articles for at least two years; before then, it was mostly rankings in the All Time Top 1000 Albums. JG66 (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I have never met Muso805, he has contacted me a few times over the years. I did ask him to respond to something a while back, he clearly knows my work very well - I (maybe foolishly) gave him my then log in password as I cannot self promote. I have since changed my password. There is a possibility that this may be a woman who I had problems with several years ago - but have no way of proving it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin Larkin (talk • contribs) 21:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Colin Larkin: Do not, for any reason whatsoever, allow another person to use your account. Wikipedia has a strict policy against sharing accounts. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Vaughan Grylls

Substantial and long-running cohort of WP:SPA accounts apparently here for one purpose only: to promote the activities of Vaughan Grylls, of his daughter and of Pavilion Books, a company of which he is apparently a director. It seems that I asked Castleandelephant to properly disclose any COI on 14 March 2018; there was no response. The editor continues to make edits promoting Grylls, and has made not one edit unconnected to him. The other SPAs appear to be dormant. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the issue Justlettersandnumbers, I'd agree that this is a clear-cut case of SPA. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

More eyes

Direct editing on Robert Evans (writer). 176.33.97.82 (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@176.33.97.82: Have you informed the editor that they have appeared on here? This is the Spanish Inquisition, or hammer and tongs in the basement. You need to inform them. scope_creepTalk 08:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I am guessing Scope meant to say, "this is not the Spanish Inquisition" --SVTCobra 10:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: Thanks. That was what I meant to say. My grammer is woeful. I was trying to repeat was @Possibly: said almost a year ago. scope_creepTalk 10:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Wiki editor has now properly disclosed SPA in his talk page, but has made an edit to the Evans page since and has not added the proper disclosures to the article talk pages. The edit is a minor one, but worth pointing out as procedure hasn't been followed. Grr >:( /s Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Added relevant tags to articles in talk page and mainspace. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Dragon King (dinosaur skull)

Recently came out of AfC. I strongly suspect that Maudjohnson90 (A SPA) has a COI with regard to people who own or owned the skull. For one thing, she uploaded a diagram made by an expert showing the completeness of the skull apparently made in 2003 that is not available anywhere online. Second, it also includes uncited and unverifiable claims that wouldn't be known to anybody other than those closely associated with the skull. The skull had a brief spurt of press coverage when it was attempted to be auctioned in early 2015, but there is no followup coverage, which implies that it failed to sell at auction. The article includes the claim that Dragon King is understood to be the most expensive skull to ever trade privately. which isn't cited or made in any of the relevant articles, but implies that Maud has insider knowledge, which is confirmed by a post made by her to the Teahouse, where she states that the skull was sold privately "last year". Maud has also added references to the skull to the main Triceratops article as well as the Hell Creek Formation article. A COI notice on her talkpage went unanswered. In her teahouse post, she stated: I should make clear that I have no financial stake in this at all, it is simply a fact that the skull is the biggest found and I think should be public information. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree with the suspicion. In this edit she mentioned that The skull is definitely the biggest in the world. However, sources actually do not support this, merely saying it might be among the largest specimens but there is no sure way to know. Either maud is just a big fan of this skull in particular and nothing else (only topic she's edited over 2+ months of contributing), or there might be an upcoming sale in the near future. Who knows. In any case, per duck test I'd say theres a COI. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

India League

JumpingJimmySingh denies having a conflict of interest with the India League/1928 Institute (User talk:JumpingJimmySingh#Managing a conflict of interest) but seems to be in close communication with the latter's webmaster. At User talk:JumpingJimmySingh#India League, they ask "How do I ensure that page is SEO?" Within the space of an evening's discussion at Talk:India_League#Relationship_between_India_League_and_1928_Institute, text on the Institute's site has been changed from "The 1928 Institute was established in 2020 as a think-tank to continue the work of the original India League (est. 1928)" to "The 1928 Institute was established in 2020 as a think-tank and is the continuation of the original India League (est. 1928)", at the same time as the editor concerned posted this. Previous, when text that JumpingJimmySingh added to Wikipedia was identified as a copyvio of the 1928 Institute website, it very quickly disappeared from the site after JumpingJimmySingh had been notified - see this discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

JumpingJimmySingh also created Draft:Nikita Ved (about a co-founder of the 1928 Institute), which contained unsourced personal information about the subject - for which I can't find a published source. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


Hi - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India_League#Relationship_between_India_League_and_1928_Institute - as discussed on this chat, I said that I would message all parties involved. I messaged the 1928 Institute and they responded to me in an hour to clear up a matter on the 'original India League'. I am an observer of British Indians, hence I volunteer my time in this space and am not part of the India League/1928 Institute. JumpingJimmySingh (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Could you clarify how you knew the personal details about the 1928 Institute's co-founder that you included in the article you tried to publish about her? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
It looks like a straight up coi. There is no other explanation for it. scope_creepTalk 14:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, like with most organisations, they have a 'contact us' page or are available on Instagram, hence they responded to my query. Re Dr Nikita Ved, her details are online and on her Instagram - the information is not very hard to find. I'm now starting to feel bullied for making edits. All of my work edits are on the India League and are based on facts from credible and unbiased sources, i.e. the BBC or the University of Oxford. JumpingJimmySingh (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Which of those sources did the information you included in the article about how she broke her nose come from? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

We now have an IP editor trying to remove a sourced quote from the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumerbhandari. I suspect there is some UPE editing going on that potentially includes this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd also add that the IP edits yesterday were from an address on the same range as an editor claiming to be the 1928 Institute website owner. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Róbert Wessman

Apologies in advance for a bit of an essay, but I’m trying to work with Wikipedia and hitting walls which I dont think are unnecessary - I hope this is this right place to discuss and resolve the issues I'm having.

I am concerned that Wallyfromdilbert is allowing their personal biases to disrupt the efforts to work on the article Róbert Wessman in good faith. To be clear, I dont think they have a bias towards the article subject, I think they have a bias against paid editors, and they have moved from making reasonable changes to being unfair.

Their first work on the article was very sensible and is likely why they are watching the page. An editor posted to the WP:BLPN advising that an IRC helpdesk request had claimed the article’s controversy section was defamatory. Wallyfromdilbert correctly replied "the current article text seems to accurately … [make] clear that the allegations/accusations are only that. The language may be able to be improved and tightened up, but if someone has an issue, then they would probably need to be more specific as to the particular concerns". They also, as per WP:CSECTION, removed the controversy section’s title.

Shortly after this post was made, I started a separate (completely unrelated) section on the BLPN, asking if the Róbert Wessman article could be deleted. The account who created the page, Haeito1010, seemed to exhibit very unusual behaviour, spending over 700 edits uploading a page one word at a time to a different newly-created article before creating the Róbert Wessman article and never editing Wikipedia again after that.

I made a full note here, but I don’t think anyone actually read it … one enthusiastic but misguided editor even said “I didn’t read the above appeal!” and just deleted the former controversy section, which again, Wallyfromdilbert correctly reverted.

I repeated my concern that the article should be made from scratch considering the editor who made it looks like a ‘cunningly’ disguised SPA. As with many cases of editors creating articles in bad faith, my argument was that, if the subject is notable enough for an article, someone without an agenda will recreate it (I think this is sometimes called draftifying?). I didn’t receive any response to this, so I started the deletion request myself.

Wallyfromdilbert reappeared to weigh in on the debate to say the article should be kept, which I don’t have a problem with. I do take some offense at them saying "The paid editor working for Wessman who has requested this deletion seems to be making pretty baseless claims against another editor, ignoring all their work on another article to somehow claim they have a conflict of interest."

Firstly, I don’t think the claims are baseless. I can’t name a single other time I have seen someone upload an article in 700+ tiny edits, but more damning I think is the complete drop of all Wikipedia activity afterwards. I don’t have any particular need for Haeito1010 to be banned as they haven’t done anything on the site since August, but I do think it’s unfair to just dismiss an argument with plenty of links to diffs as “baseless”.

Secondly, yes, I have a conflict of interest, which I openly declared on the BLPN and deletion request, but this does not make me a bad person or incompetent editor, and I must say that having fair observations dismissed as "baseless claims" is likely the kind of thing that encourages people to attempt undisclosed editing. It is not fair to limit people to asking questions on Talk and Discussion spaces and then dismiss them out of hand when they stick to these guidelines. A few people debating the deletion latched onto the notability argument rather than the inherent bias argument, and I think Wallyfromdilbert’s comment might have dissuaded them from looking into the full argument I made on the BLPN simply because I declared a connection.

The deletion debate was unanimously in favour of keeping and improving the article with more information. This is fair enough, so I made a request to add some further content using the Talk page, again in respect for not directly intervening where I have a conflict of interest.

Part of the request was implemented by Alvaldi, who made a few edits to the article. This editor has a solid record of contributions across Wikipedia, an apparent familiarity with Icelandic news and business, and they have asked some questions about conflicting sources; they are definitely acting in good faith. Wallyfromdilbert then reverted Alvaldi’s changes as poorly-sourced and promotional.

I feel stuck; all I want to do is suggest content and have some editorial oversight from unbiased parties so the article is more accurate, but everyone is duking it out in article mainspace. I think Alvaldi’s assessments are fair, and I’m concerned that Wallyfromdilbert is letting a dislike for the usual antics of paid accounts get in the way of a productive conversation. I messaged on the Talk page to ask them to discuss Alvaldi’s work before deleting, but haven’t had any sort of response. I get that Wallyfromdilbert is experienced and has no obligation to look over the content I have requested, but with all the good will in the world I could use a bit more understanding and patience from them.

Can someone please take a look at this and weigh in? Noemimanical (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

TLDR. I do not mean to be flippant and I did try to read most of it, but there is a genuine lack of specifics in this post. It's a narrative full of user names and vague allusions to other editors motivations and interactions. Past deletion requests is not something we review here. This is for discussion of conflicts of interest. What is the conflict of interest that Wally may have? What specific parts of the Róbert Wessman article are incorrect due to the alleged COI edits? Please be concise. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi SVTCobra I appreciate you reading through this. I came to this noticeboard because it seemed the most appropriate for issues where a conflict of interest is the cause of the problem. I have a conflict of interest, but I don't think Wally is engaging fairly with my attempts at collaboration. If it were the other way round this would definitely be the forum, so I worked off that logic.
For a TLDR: I think Wally is biased because they keep fighting my suggestions (or edits based on such) but I think their disagreements aren't justified. I can handle disagreement, but they dont seem to want to discuss why they consider additions promotional. As a specific, they removed the Harvard case study from the Róbert Wessman article, which is arguably one of the reasons him and his businesses are notable. I get that a lot of what COI editors think is a valid addition is typically puff, but a neutral editor decided that that detail was relevant enough to include, so I would argue there isnt consensus to remove it. It's not my place to argue consensus directly, but I've been tasked with trying to make this article more accurate, so I'm trying to play by the rules and encourage those who are free to edit the article directly to reach an agreement. I do maintain that the article creation was fishy as hell, so my motive is to make sure that there is at least fair content on the page. Noemimanical (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Noemimanical: You must notify the involved parties of the discussion when you post a new entry here. It is emphasized in red both at the top of the page and when you edit the page. I have gone ahead and done so on your behalf this time. --SVTCobra 17:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Noemimanical: You should probably disclose your own COI on your userpage. Go to WP:DISCLOSE for how to do so. --SVTCobra 18:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: This looks to me to be a content dispute centered around some unflattering allegations made against Róbert Wessman by a former collegue. I do not see any evidence of COI or bad faith for Haeito1010 when they created the page. There may have been some questions as far as how much weight to give the controversy. Wallyfromdilbert and a couple other editors seem to have implemented some of Noemimanical's lengthy edit request. I don't see any particular bias or COI there. This is above all other things a content dispute and not really for COIN. I will also note, Scope creep has nominated the article for lack of notability, so we will see how that goes. --SVTCobra 19:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Cherupalli Vivek Teja

This looks to be blatant self-promotion. Citing dubious "news" reports and own website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:cf00:1070:8d5b:763a:1529:a25a (talk • contribs) 02:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not seeing COI at all. Notability and content are not issues for this noticeboard. Which user are you claiming to be the subject or acting on behalf of the subject? --SVTCobra 02:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Wildlands Festival

This user has recently created the first two articles and updated the third, all Australian music festivals. They have no edits to other articles. I believe this is a SPA promotional account. Searching on a portion of the username finds a likely connection to the Australian music industry and more specifically, a company connected to these events. Likely UPE. MB 21:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

There is also a copy at Draft:Wildlands Festival. Notifying Robert McClenon also. MB 21:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
The editor first created Draft:Wildlands Festival before they were autoconfirmed, and then after autoconfirmation created it in article space. The practice of creating an article in both draft space and article space is done for various reasons including to game the system by blocking the movement of an article into draft space. I have no other specific information about this editor.
User:MB did not wait for an answer about conflict of interest from User:A.greco21 before coming to this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey there, completely understand where you are coming from! I don't have any connection to these music festivals, I am just someone who really enjoys going to Australian music festival and am planning to update/create a page for all the ones that I have been over the past couple of years, giving an insight into their history/lineup that these have previously had. A lot of the AUS festival either have very basic wiki pages or do not have one at all. I thought the addition of these onto Wikipedia would've have been welcomed onto the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.greco21 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@A.greco21:, that's great and frankly I can totally understand someone wanting to create Wikipedia articles for something they enjoy and are fans of. My first article was about an athlete I was a fan of. In your case, however, you do not seem like a novice editor. You are creating fully formed with near perfect wiki-markup articles as your first edits. Additionally, you are uploading photos to Commons which are very some of which are taken from behind the performers. These facts taken into consideration, I think you are holding back. If the articles are accurate and the performers listed were there, I don't think notability will be a problem. I don't see anyone nominating for deletion, either. If you are a paid editor that does not mean the article disappears. But you'd have to disclose that. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I have done editing previously, but not for a long time. Honestly i have seen what other wiki festival pages have done and mirrored the structure of how they did their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.greco21 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@A.greco21: As SVTCobra previously asked, can you explain how were you photographing backstage during a live performance in these photos? . Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Someone that I knew had access to the backstage and was taking photos and gave me the photos to upload here — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.greco21 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

more than happy to remove if this is an issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.greco21 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The photos are great, I hope your friend knows you put them on Commons. The folks over there may want proof. But I still feel you may be understating own Wiki history. It took me forever to get <ref> to work correctly even after I saw it elsewhere. What was your previous username? Did you attend all these festivals? Did you travel with them? How do you know about the lineups from 5-6 years ago? . Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, the photos were speedied on Commons as copyright violations. They were sourced from a variety of websites. --SVTCobra 18:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The latest is almost entirely, if not entirely, sourced to promotional materials.Slywriter (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. They are mostly press releases. Though, again, I think the festival is notable like the others, and primary can be used for basic facts. --SVTCobra 02:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I've indeffed the user for WP:UPE/failure to disclose and draftified the pages he/she created. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Luckin Coffee

Three WP:SPAs seem to be working from a document to update the article. Editor @Skarmory: noticed the unsusual editing pattern and it up at the help desk. It does seem quite off, particularly the last edit summary Finishing touches -Doc. I've informed them. scope_creepTalk 09:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Reply from iCookie/84.211.19.226 regarding claimed Conflict of Interest. (Also written on my talk-page): Regarding the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard of a possible conflict of interest, there is a wrongful claim that the Wikipedia page of Luckin Coffee is being updated from a document by three WP:SPAs. The IP address of 84.211.19.226 is mine, as I did the first edits to the page without logging into my account, iCookie. You could check my account history and see that I'm not in fact a WP:SPA, as I have edited several articles in the past, including the norwegian Wikipedia sites: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorbert_dose , https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Harold_Gray , https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_(enhet) , https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85ndelig_oppf%C3%B8lger , although this was quite a while back.

The Wikipedia page of Luckin Coffee has been updated to reflect the recent material legal developments, as well as updated to reflect current audited financial data and store counts which were all severely outdated. All the updates have been accurately cited with either 1. news articles from valid sources 2. audited financial data from Luckin Coffee 3. legal documents from the corporate restructuring, found at https://dm.epiq11.com/case/luckin/dockets. I have tried presenting information in an objective as possible manner. I hope you can read through the article and see this.

The "finishing touches" refers to the last updates I made before going to bed yesterday after spending the entire day contributing to the page. The Wikipedia page has not been updated from a document, but it has been a gradual work of mine over several hours (as you can see from the way my edits have been made), to try and organize the page in a better way. For instance the information regarding the Chapter 15 proceeding has been moved from the "History"-category down to the "2020 accounting scandal" category, and this category was renamed to include all restructuring-related matters. The category was moved down as it's no longer a current event after recent litigation settlements.

I hope this clarifies the situation a bit. Thank you. ICookie (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@ICookie: It is indeed "a while back" that you were editing on Norwegian Wikipedia. 14 years, actually, so I think you can see that it is odd that you would suddenly return to begin editing English Wikipedia with such a strong interest in the minutia of the legal situation of a Chinese coffee company operating within New York. User:Mattm64 also appears to have been inactive since 2007, just like you. Is there a connection? --SVTCobra 13:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: I'm still a bit unclear as to what the problem is. Is the article edited or written in such a manner that it strikes you as non-objective?
As for Mattm64, we know each other privately and both have an interest in corporate restructurings, of which Luckin Coffees cross-border restructuring is a textbook learning example. I would assume that such a textbook successful restructuring would be great learning material for students and the likes, of which many use Wikipedia, and I'd think that many people would have great interest in the reading about the "minutia" behind it.ICookie (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@ICookie: This is an informal discussion. Unusual behavior is reported here and those who follow this noticeboard look into it and discuss it. I had never heard of Luckin Coffee before this, so as of yet I don't know if is objective (frankly, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact they grew to 5000+ locations since 2017). You state that you used court dockets as well as audited financial data as sources, yet I do not see either of those listed as references. Digging into primary sources when there are so many secondary sources is also unusual. And again, unusual is not the same as wrongdoing, it's just unusual. --SVTCobra 14:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: Those references are gone, because Quetstar reverted everything, including store-counts and other information like revenues and financial data that was done in complete accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF, and including the numerous secondary sources from Bloomberg, Reuters etc. ICookie (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: SVTCobra claims that since it's a long time since I edited Wikipedia, that I should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia articles anymore, despite all my edits to the article having citations, references, lots of secondary sources like Reuters and Bloomberg, and also having objective language in accordance with the standards of Wikipedia. He has given no further reason for why and just claims that I am "raising red flags" since it's a long time since I edited any wikipedia articles. This is not a valid argument to attack me. ICookie (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if an objective third-party could look at my revisions and tell me if, and how, my edits are breaking the rules of Wikipedia.
Keep in mind this article hadn't been updated in a long time and still uses old financial data, old store-count data and old data regarding important developments that have happened in the restructuring of Luckin Coffee. For instance, they are no longer under Chapter 15, as a judge just approved their restructuring plan. 2021 (UTC) ICookie (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@ICookie @SVTCobra: I checked the article and it raised some red flags in me since the users in question have only edited this article, so I have boldly revered the edits and restored the last revision before them. Quetstar (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@ICookie: I have not edited Luckin Coffee. I have no 'powers' either. So let's keep the discussion civil. --SVTCobra 14:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@ICookie I reverted the edits, not SVTCobra. Quetstar (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: You still have not told me how exactly this article is breaking the rules. The only reason you have given for this supposed "conflict of interest" is that "its a long time since I edited on Wikipedia". That is not a valid reason and you know it. ICookie (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
My language has been objective, all citations and references have been given as neccessary. Anyone can check that and see. ICookie (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Quetstar: You even deleted the audited financial data that I updated on the sidepanel, and reverted it to the 2020 data, which is kind of hilarious. How exactly is updating financial data a "red flag"? Or updating the store count? You even reverted the store count back to 2019-numbers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ICookie (talk • contribs) 14:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@ICookie: Again, I have not edited Luckin Coffee, I have not deleted anything and I have not said anything was "breaking the rules". Nevertheless, you seem to have a problem with me, so I will happily recuse myself from this discussion. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: My apologies to you SVTCobra, I see @Quetstar was the one who reverted my work. Still, you have presented no valid argument as to why the article should be reverted (something you obviously supported), beyond telling me that I haven't edited on Wikipedia in a long time. Please point out exactly how its breaking the rules and how its non-objective.
@SVTCobra: @Quetstar I would like an explanation as to how the article broke the rules or was otherwise non-objective. Why was financial data reverted to data from 2020 and 2019, when we have data from 2021? Why do you think the category on the 2020 accounting scandal should not be updates, when there have been material developments here? Why do you believe the article should still refer to Luckin Coffee as being under Chapter 15 bankruptcy, when in fact its not anymore? Please explain, I am all ears — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICookie (talk • contribs)
@ICookie: I had not even begun to form an opinion. I was just asking questions. I did nothing to cause Quetstar to revert the article to an earlier version. And as far as I can see, neither of us initiated any action that resulted in the rev-del (revision deletion) performed by an administrator. Unbeknownst to me, there were apparently extensive copyright violations in your final version of the article which required it to be actually deleted from the history of the article. I do not know how the administrator became aware or discovered this. At this point, it is impossible for me to evaluate your edits because they are no longer available for me to see. Saying that I "supported" what happened is unfair. I have in the past helped editors who had a genuine COI (again, I am not implying you do). I worked with them and helped get the changes to their articles up to date, etc. I think all that's left for me to say now is God Jul! --SVTCobra 16:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
All the edits were suspicious, so i reverted them. An admin later deleted these due to them violating WP's copyright policy. Quetstar (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Quetstar: Wrong. You removed more edits than the admin did, including valid, non-controversial data such as revenue figures, store-counts etc. from audited sources. You also still have not given a valid reason for removing these datas.
@SVTCobra: Fair enough SVTCobra, and a merry christmas to you too. I apologze if I came off as harsh, I thought you were the one deleting it but it was @Questar. I will take it up with him.

@SVTCobra: Hey mattm64 here. No COI. I just noticed that the page needed to be updated and ICookie asked for help. it's completely out of date, we updated all of the court documents in links and updated financials as well. I'm pretty sure we kept it neutral in tone. Also, you need to look at my edits where I posed exact links to the court dockets. Anything that starts with epic is a court docket, or an SEC link. Don't revert back hours of people's honest work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattm64 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Financials, Court Docs and a rev-del for cutting and pasting from a press release... these are all red flags of someone using primary documents to reshape an article. Slywriter (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Slywriter: Okay noted, I didn't know we weren't supposed to use those? The page is over a year out of date, the last event listed is a 2020 SEC settlement. Since that time there has been a private placement raise, a class action settlement, A bankruptcy filing under chapter 15, and a chapter 15 enforcement order. As well as 2021 financials. I thought those would be considered relevant and not reshaping a document. Please advise. I'm somewhat of a rookie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattm64 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally doesn't cate what a company says about itself, though updating store counts and other non-controversial information is fine when done in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF. Court documents get tricky because they are generally primary documents and really need secondary sources that discuss those court documents. Slywriter (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@ICookie: I reverted the edits because they were highly suspicious. Slywriter has excellently explained the red flags that led to me taking action. Quetstar (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Questar: You removed edits that were objective according to WP:ABOUTSELF such as updated financial data, store-count and secondary sources like Bloomberg and Reuters whom have also reported on the restructuring. Luckin Coffee is not under Chapter 15 bankruptcy protection anymore, and the article was updated to reflect this, using secondary sources (bloomberg), yet you also removed this.
An administrator has obviously looked at this, and he rev-del only the edits from where Mattm64 added information about the "JPL appointment".
But you, a non-administrator, have no reason to remove objective data such as store-counts, financial data and non-controversial information from secondary sources regarding the progress of the restructuring.ICookie (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@ICookie: This is a moot point now. The rev-del would probably have happened regardless of Quetstar. Also, it is common to revert to last best version even if some of the intermediate versions are valid. In fact, I will even help update Luckin Coffee. The point is, the page needed to be reset due to the copyright issue. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: @Questar removed more than the rev-delete did, including store count, revenue and updated financial data in the sidepanel, that was according with WP:ABOUTSELF and data that used valid secondary sources, such as the Bloomberg article mentioning that Luckin Coffee was no longer under restructuring.

@Slywriter @SVTCobra @Questar @Scope_creep @Santacruz Only a smaller portion of the edits were actually rev-deleted by an admin. The rest was reverted by @Questar. You can still see the majority of my edits in diff. Look at the diff, and tell me which of my edits broke the Wikipedia policies, procedures, Terms of Service or copyright, and point out which of my edits did not use objective language, improper citations or the likes. And be spesific. Saying I am "suspect" because it's been a long time since I edited, is not a valid argument.

@Justlettersandnumbers No, we are not paid or otherwise affiliated with Luckin Coffee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICookie (talk • contribs) 19:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

We can no longer see the diffs of what Questar reverted to refer to them. And challenging his revert is pointless. It was well-intentioned and in the interests of the encyclopedia. You can attempt to re-insert the content or discuss on the talk page of the article. Those are the next steps and a lot less waste of everyone's time as absent any other evidence this COI discussion has reached its limits.Slywriter (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree. For me, the subject is closed and that's final. Quetstar (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Slywriter @Quetstar Is this a joke? Go to View History and compare the latest edit with the edit done 20:18, 19th of December (GMT+1). EVERYONE can access that version and it wasnt rev-deleted, but removed by Quetstar along with all my edits before it. AGAIN, I did plenty of edits before that point in time, that weren't rev-del'd but @Quetstar still removed them for no valid reason. Again, go compare these in diff, and tell me which of my edits break Wikipedia policies, procedures, Terms of Service, copyright, are non-objective / biased or used improper citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICookie (talk • contribs) 20:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The edit which introduced content sourced to a press release by Luckin Coffee?? No need to go further if you don't see the problems with that edit. More importantly, this needs to move to subject talk page and be a discussion on the content thereSlywriter (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Slywriter and the edits using Bloomberg, Reuters and audited financial data? Why were those removed? Remove or improve the edit you don't like, dont remove everything including perfectly valid edits.
@Slywriter OH, and great job on that revenue update. You got it completely wrong. Revenues for Q3 2020 weren't even close to $300M. In fact the revenue figures were completely accurate as according to the AUDITED financial data from 2020, until @Quetstar was kind enough to remove them all, because god forbid Wikipedia readers actually get accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICookie (talk • contribs) 22:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
My reasoning was valid. Your edits will not be restored and that's final whenever you like it or not. Quetstar (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Quetstar You wrongfully removed valid edits that were in-line with the Wikipedia TOS and all other legal framework, and that were completely non-controversial, such as financial data, revenue figures, and store-counts that were sourced from AUDITED financial data, i.e. checked and validated by a third-party (secondary source).ICookie (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers No I am not paid by anyone nor do I have any connection to Luckin Coffee. Seeing as information on the company is a bit hard to come by I doubt they are paying anyone to do any of this. Heck I had a hard enough time finding information in the dockets, but as I have some experience with searching legal documents and following court cases I thought I would help contribute - and I was updating the page because it was over a year old. My edits were neutral and non-speculative. I did make the mistake of not putting quotations on a copy paste, but I did cite my source. I accept that that portion has been removed for copyright violation. What surprises me the most is how @quetstar wanted to remove factual things such as court decisions and revenue figures as these would seem to be material to the page. Funny how he just edited and added the word "embattled" in front of Luckin Coffee in the history. I don't care, but that seems like a non-neutral and biased term that should be avoided. if I didn't know better I would say he is the one with the agenda, not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattm64 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Quetstar I see the last revert and changes you made. To be clear, I plan on correcting spelling and grammar, as well as adding any relevant developments on the page as they occur. For example, If there is a management change, or an exit from chapter 15, or if the IPO in HK etc (I'm just making these up), those would be relevant edits to add. It doesn't make sense to keep an article "as is" if it's not up to date (as it has been out of date for over a year). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattm64 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Underlying cause?

So I decided to do a bit of digging to try to figure out what's going on here, so as with most brigading attempts I went and had a look at reddit. It turns out that there's a subreddit dedicated to investing in LuckinCoffee with the belief that it's going to go "to the moon". [9]. On that subreddit there is this thread, which is rather enlightening [10] archive link. This comment [11] claims that the page was updated by the "LKNCY Stocktwits group", stocktwits is a forum for investors. So it seems that what we have here are a load of people owning stock, therefore having a financial stake in the company, working together to "update" the article in the hope of pumping up the stock price. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, I ask any admin seeing this to read through my revisions on the Luckin Coffee page and see that they are completely non-controversial, properly cited and I am not breaking Wikipedias TOS nor infringing on copyrights. The rev-del was AFTER my initial edits, as Mattm64 apparently broke copyrights. Again, the current revision does NOT break any copyrights and was NOT rev-deld. I am not sure why I was targetted in COIN along with Mattm64 (still haven't got a clear answer asides from @scope_creep and @quetstar calling me "suspicious"). I keep getting accused of being a WP:SPA or that I am "paid by Luckin Coffee" when that is not even remotely true. I feel I may be an easy target because my edits happened right before a rev-delete. Keep in mind that in the COIN discussion, @Quetstar (who has several complaints against him on his talk-page) mass-reversed my edits before any consensus was reached, or before users like Slywriter, SPVCobra and Santacruz even had a chance to read my edits. @Quetstar wrongfully revised my work based on "copyright infringement" twice, but the revision he reverted had NO copyright issues. I do also notice that several of the accounts targetting me including @scope_creep @Quetstar @MrOllie and others have several complaints on their Talk-pages. Again this has escalated so much that I am now hoping an admin intervenes here, reads through my revisions on the Luckin Coffee page and hopefully locks it to prevent further drama. Thank you.ICookie (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@ICookie: I would address your comments up at the Administrator noticeboard. They will decide what to do. scope_creepTalk 11:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Update ICookie and Mattm64 have been blocked from editing Luckin Coffee. --SVTCobra 17:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Update ICookie and Mattm64 have now been blocked from editing English Wikipedia. --SVTCobra 22:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
SVTCobra, please send that email to ArbCom, so they can file it away and possibly take over the block if they feel the need to. I'll just say here, for the record, that when Mattm64 said "Hey mattm64 here. No COI." they were lying. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Done --SVTCobra 15:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I knew it was crock. These people and their agenda, will be the death of Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 16:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Reputation Stars Announces Wikipedia Page Creation Services

For your whatever.

"Their writers look for the best quality sources full of accurate information to win favor with Wikipedia admins. With the help of these seasoned experts, customers can boost their personal or corporate prestige with a Wikipedia page today."

Merry Christmas! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

At least they are somewhat up front with requirements for articles, and give us some credit for checking sourcing. Requirements for publishing Wikipedia editors’ goal is to ensure that pages are accurate, free from spam, and notable enough to be included. Reputable sources such as news articles are required to establish a subject’s notability. If you have significant press coverage, you could be a good candidate for a Wikipedia article. Musicians and academics with significant accomplishments may meet qualification requirements with less coverage than is usually needed. If you lack significant coverage, we have connections with a number of PR organizations that can help improve your news coverage. However, it’s important to note that Wikipedia editors do not allow paid articles as sources for pages. They usually check for paid sources, so we recommend creating a plan to get more natural press. Contact us to discuss the details of PR coverage[12] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, there was a cryptocurrency company who complained to their PR-guy something like "We spent $100 000 on press coverage, and you couldn't get us a fucking WP-article!?" @David Gerard? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
yeah, it was hilarious - Ditto Communications doing PR for Decred. To their credit, the PR agency did try to talk sense into them. I mentioned it in Signpost last year - David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
From the same person who ran/runs Submit Express. --SVTCobra 18:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Who is the Wikipedia editor who is known as Pierre Zarokian, doing Wikipedia for 8 years. Does anybody know who that is? scope_creepTalk 18:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Not currently, as far as I know, but the Submit Express entry shows a past IP and user name. There's also a user name used by an employee though not active for over nine months. --SVTCobra 18:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
More