Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 135

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People's Alliance of New Brunswick

There has been an ongoing edit war on this Canadian provincial political party's wikipedia article for a couple of years now, even though the user involved has been warned multiple times to add a COI disclosure to their Talk Page and to contribute to the article through the discussion page instead. As you can see from the People's Alliance talk page, two users (including me) have tried to engage in discussions with Theboo77 over the last months, all of which were ignored. In the (seemingly accidental) COI disclosure pinned by a moderator to the People's Alliance page, Theboo77 initially claims to have been asked by the political party to edit the article. Then this user changed their story from one statement to the next. It went from "I updated the information, as I was asked to by the political party involved" to, in their second statement, "I do not work for the party, only asked if I could update history as it hasnt for awhile"[1], and then, "They party did not tell me what to write. I had a friend of mine mention the wikipedia page history has not had anything from the last 3 years as much had happened" [2]. And finally, in their latest statement on the issue, Theboo77 back-tracked even further, claiming that "Despite this I no longer have contact with said affliation ( it was a loose affliation to begin with) and am eager add to wiki as I have done on other pages" [3].

While we're on the subject of this user's contributions to other pages, all of them except one [4] (which was immediately reverted by another user for adding nothing of substance) were related to this political party. Among other things, Theboo77 has edited the rival Progressive-Conservative Party's article, refering even there to key policies in the People's Alliance platform (the office of the Language Commissionner as well as bilingual requirements for jobs)[5]. Theboo77 has also tried more recently to edit the article concerning the upcoming provincial election by adding unsourced information on this same party's polling numbers [6]. So, basically, this user has dedicated their entire couple of years as a wikipedia editor to a single political party, to which they happen to be affiliated as per the COI notice on this party's article. And most of their edits to that party's page consisted of removing sourced content[7] and adding unsourced information such as rumors [8].

On top of refusing to add the COIN to their Talk Page and of ignoring repeated attempts to take their problems with this article to its discussion page, Theboo77 has accused me, starting in our first interaction, of being affiliated with a rival party [9]. Then, in the edit summary given here[10], Theboo77 seemingly attempts to dox/out me by claiming [REDACTED - Oshwah].

To me, it seems clear that this user's goals are to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. Since the party in question is relatively small and the province of NB itself isn't densely populated, few Wiki editors seem to stumble upon the People's Alliance's article, so this situation has remained unsolved for much longer than I have patience for. I hope someone can help out once and for all, because this will be the last time I can afford to dedicate this much time to this user's problematic edits. Thanks, (A slithy tove (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC))

Previous discussions:
Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Outing is taken very seriously. You can get the edit summary scrubbed if you want. See WP:OUTING. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the traces of the possible outing attempts. Whether or not it's true, we can't have it anywhere. Attempts at outing, upon discovery, should be immediately reported to the oversight team so that it can be suppressed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Yep, as expected, theboo77 is back and still reverting the same edits, probably for the 20th time at this point[11]. Also, there's another attempt at outing by the looks of it in a recent edit summary [[REDACTED - Oshwah]]. Should I report it on the other noticeboard? (A slithy tove (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC))
A slithy tove - Please do not post any links, URLs, details, or information to any revisions, pages, or content that contain attempts at outing or other very sensitive material that needs suppression - this is a public place and adding details and information like this only increases the potential for more people to see it, which is obviously not what we want to have happen. If you run into anything like this in the future, you need to contact the Oversight team with the links, information, and details so that they can locate and suppress it quickly and completely. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that. Theboo77 is back at it on this same article however, and they have now added a "disclosure" that is more misleading than not: "I once had a friend who was involved with a political party PANB in NB. I also had friends who were involved in the P.C. party of NB, the NDP and the Green party of NB" . Considering this user's COI is related to one of those parties in particular (which theboo77 originally claimed had asked him/her to edit the page), and all this user's edits are related to this party, it seems dishonest to minimize the connection by equivocating with the other parties. I've reverted their last edits on the PANB's article and added a source for the party's placement on the political spectrum, but I'm expecting this to be reverted back by theboo77... (A slithy tove (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC))

@Oshwah: I haven't been following this discussion but just checked back in to find the above accusation of a second outing attempt. Also if you take a look at Theboo77's edit summaries they are chock full of personal attacks. And finally I think there is some evidence of COI here, although not conclusive. I'm wondering if further action is needed here. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Kendall-K1 - Investigating... Stand by, please. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Kendall-K1 - I agree that the user made a second attempt at outing someone in their edit summary. The information has been suppressed and I've redacted the link to the revision from this page in order to keep visibility as low as necessary and within policy. I'm going to leave a message on the user's talk page regarding outing and give them a final warning that this cannot happen again. I have not examined anything outside of the accusations of outing or if administration action needs to be taken as far as edit warring, conflict of interest, or other content-related matters. If there is, you should start a discussion at ANI regarding the issues so that the community can investigate and discuss the proper actions (if any) that should be taken. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Kendall-K1 - No problem; always happy to help :-). I noticed that, since responding, Theboo77 has been blocked for edit warring on the article in-focus here. I wouldn't be surprised if the article winds up under full protection due to the level of reverting and edit warring going on... if things continue after the block on Theboo77 expires, remember that ANI is always an option. If the user posts any information that needs suppression, let them know privately ;-). Cheers, and good luck! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Chuck Easttom

Adding citations to the work of Chuck Easttom, IPs geolocate to a plausible location for Easttom. There are a number of other citations, some added by users with other edits, but a fair number by these and similar IPs. Guy (Help!) 08:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Alliant International University‎

I am concerned that Thefrankagency's username matches the name of an advertising agency. The edits that this editor are making aren't inherently problematic (in fact they seem to be quite helpful so far) but the strong possibility of undisclosed paid editing is very concerning. ElKevbo (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Alliant University‎ is a client of The Frank Agency.[12] I agree that the edits are an improvement. Perhaps with a disclosure and username change this could work out. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Have informed Thefrankagency (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Teamfrank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of disclosure requirements for paid editing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm I placed {{connected contributor (paid)}} at Talk:Alliant International University will that workKendall-K1? --Teamfrank (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Teamfrank would you please explain if the same person, or different people, are operating the two accounts listed above? Please stop doing things until we work out fundamentals here, thanks. It will take several back-and-forths. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog We are the same person. I am sorry. I was only doing what was instructed to me by talk--Teamfrank (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
You actually aren't doing the right thing - but you are doing the correct thing in replying here, so thanks for that. Let's take this to your talk page, as there is a lot of ground to cover. The purpose of the filing here - to get your attention and get folks to look at the article, is done. Now you need to get properly oriented. See you at your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Teamfrank has been renamed to Freddie at the frank agency. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Article about Universtiy Innovation Fellows

University Innovation Fellows, is a global fellowship program by Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, Stanford University. It is a program to bring changes in higher education through students. I wish to create an article on this program. I feel that it may be notable. I can find several secondary sources to pass GNG. But since I am a fellow of this program myself, I would like to take the opinion of others to avoid COI on notability. KCVelaga (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I think it would be prudent not to edit this article since you have a conflict, i.e. receiving a thing of value from the institution. Better to propose changes on the article's talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Bri, they want to create the article, which they can do via WP:AFC, no? Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Possible conflicts of interest - MacPraughan

MacPraughan failed to explain, how did he get resources for the article, as he is neither Slovene, nor his speaks the language nor is aquainted with the situation in the country, yet all of sudden was flooded with tabloid sources and haste to publish all but positive information about the subject.

As MacPraughan doesn't speak Slovene, yet is editing Wikipedia's article on Shenphen Rinpoche based on Slovene sources, it seems quite probable that he is connected with the nun, who filed a lawsuit against the subject of the article, perhaps even being fed information by her - she is a person with legal interest in the matter. Note also that he keeps deleting any reference to her name in the article.

Furthermore, MacPraughan is editing all versions of the article: English, French, Slovene, Hungarian and German. Does he really speak all these languages or is he gathering people outside of Wikipedia for his attack cause with the aim to defame on Wikipedia?

MacPraughan also uses biased language in connnection with the subject of the article (see e.g. on the talkpage: "He can run, but he can't hide!") and is quoting tabloid sources (see e.g. Slovenske novice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenske_novice ) in a manner that doesn't even reflect what is actually written in them (he misquoted the Slovene sources, perhaps due to lack of understanding Slovene; he e.g. claimed that one of the articles alleges that Shenpen Rinpoche provided no medical certificates, although the article doesn't state that). The tone of the Wikipedia article as edited by MacPraughan is far from neutral (e.g. stating that Shenphen Rinpoche quit acting as a monk - insinuating fraud of being a monk in the first place, furthermore, first, claiming that Shenphen Rinpoche was recognised by an obscure monastery, later on claiming that he was recognised by a monastery in China - in a manner, which is insinuating that the recognition was somehow fake). Although he quoted recognition papers, which are published on-line (and are not a source from Dharmaling but from a third party i.e. from both monasteries ), he failed to mention that also well known Buddhist Sera Jhe monastery recognised Shenphen Rinpoche, which clearly follows from those papers etc. To summarize: MacPraughan actually actually turned the article in the textbook attack page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attack_page.

MacPraughan outed himself in 2015 and was outed until few days ago, when he deleted the information. I don't know, if this means that he cannot be mentioned by name, so I won't mention his name (but can voluntary outing be reversed, as if it never happened?). Since his name is nevertheless known, it has to be emphasized that he is currently active against the subject of the article also in real life, i.e. outside of Wikipedia, hence this should qualify him for COI. More information can be provided regarding this, if needed (it can be provided anyhow, but it is unclear, what is with his voluntary outing and reversal of this outing, as mentioned above).

Even more, just few days ago MacPraughan has been blocked from editing for a period of one week for abusing multiple accounts - the second account, which he abused, was dedicated only to editing of the article on Shenphen Rinpoche. This clearly shows his aim to attack and defame, regardless of the means used.

Meanwhile he edited the French version of the article, so that in the beginning it refers to Shenpen Rinpoche as: "A doorman who pretends to be a Buddhist teacher" ("un portier qui prétend être un enseignant bouddhiste et un Tulkou de la tradition Gelugpa du bouddhisme tibétain.") Please note, that it was explained on the English talkpage that Shenphen Rinpoche has also a licence as a security officer, which is not the same as "a doorman", he is even a representative for France for IBSSA (http://www.ibssa.org/index.php?topic_id=25 ). Certificates issued by Karnang monastery as well as by the relevant part of Sera Jhe monastery were also provided (this are third party certificates and can be verified with these third parties), proving that Shenphen Rinpoche has been recognised in accordance with the tradition http://www.dharmaling.org/en/2-uncategorised/89-rinpoche-recognition-documents . It is clear that MacPraughan has COI, as he is on purpose editing the article negatively and ignoring what was clearly and repeatedly presented, because it wouldn't support the negative image of the subject that he is trying to establish.

Given the stated MacPraughan should be blocked from editing the mentioned article. Skywalker976 (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


All this from Skywalker976 is a classic example of Wikilawyering and casting aspersions. My 7-day block for (alleged) sockpuppetry has been cancelled after a second look (see, I'm back in less that a week); and so has the supposedly permanent block on my wife, Freewasp - who has been falsely accused, by Skywalker976, of being my sockpuppet in numerous places, including above.
As for speaking Other Languages, guess what - I use Google translate. I deleted the nun's name from the article out of respect for WP policy re. using the subject's own material without naming any third parties. Check it out. She is feeding me information? Which information, exactly? All the information I've mentioned is cited from specific published sources. Casting aspersions on me without a shred of evidence? Definitely.
Skywalker976 has already been officially warned for WP:Harassment of me by publishing personal information about me, see Section "Outing", yet he tries to justify his harassment by casting aspersions.
The harassment continues with the above phoney, fact-free Wikilawyering and "Wikipedia:Casting aspersions" arguments brought against me. But that's a hired lawyers job, so well done, Skywalker976, you've been working hard and making a case out of nothing in the face of all the evidence against you. Chatellier will be well pleased with you. Maybe.
Skywalker976 has confessed his own Conflict of Interest in his editing of Talk: Shenphen Rinpoche, where, forbidden to edit the article himself he functions on the Talk page as an attack lawyer against editors like me who have tried to add information that he wants to suppress. He resorts to any possible means to discredit editors who write anything not to his taste; that is, anyone who takes a neutral, non-flattering approach to the subject of the article, like me. The above accusation of CoI against me is a part of the strategy. Not only me, he also attacks other editors with good credentials whose edits are not to his taste, i.e. not to the taste of Ronan Chatellier, the real name of "Shenphen Rinpoche" (which he also tries to suppress because of what people will see when they search the net for info on Ronan Chatellier).
The "negative image" that he says is projected "by me" in the article is the product of properly-cited facts and journalistic reports based on broadsheet newspaper crime reports showing, for example, the subject being taken to court by police, in handcuffs. In attacking me for bringing such material to light he is attacking the messenger rather than the newspaper. If all these reports are "slanderous", as he and his employer Chatellier claim, then why have they not sued the newspapers that published the reports? If the reports really are slanderous he could have won punitive damages and public apologies, presuming. But no case appears to have been filed yet, in Slovenia, and it's obvious why not. Instead, he can only attack me for having researched the internet and brought these reports about the subject to light.
In any case other editors have made clear that in a BLP such reports are not acceptable content, even if published in reliable independent sources, but he still attacks me and tries to discredit me by any dishonest means (harassment by outing, false accusations of sockpuppetry and false accusations of CoI as above) for even referring to them in a discussion.
In doing so he has only succeeded in discrediting himself since his allegations of sockpuppetry have now failed, he has been sanctioned for harassment by outing me and I fully expect this baseless accusation of CoI on my part will also fail for lack of any shred of credible evidence.
In fact, is there a procedure to complain against editors making repeated spurious accusations including of CoI against editors with a proven track record, acting in good faith? Can Skywalker976 be reported and suitably sanctioned for WP:HA for filing this new false allegation in yet another attempt to discredit me? Please advise. MacPraughan (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
So Skywalker976, what about it? No answers to my responses to your spurious allegations? Cat got your tongue? Have you disappeared off the scene? Lost for words? Given up? Chatellier has dispensed with your services, or can't pay your fee note? Give us a clue, please. Your colleague Balazs38 has also failed to contribute anything since 17 Sept. Have you both been blocked indefinitely, perhaps? It would not astonish me. MacPraughan (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Your regular helping of spam

Note: if your article appears here it doesn't imply you have a conflict of interest. This list is semi-automatically generated, being here means it is significantly more likely to have undisclosed conflicts of interest based on subject matter.

As usual, feel free to remove false positives. MER-C 17:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Another two weeks, another hundred articles

Enjoy. MER-C 14:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

MER-C, These ones for some reason are full of native advertising, like i've not seen, e.g. For more information, check https://www2.moa.ubc.ca/nativeyouthprogram/how-to-apply/ or contact Megan Jensen, Native Youth Program Manager at [email protected] scope_creep (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how that survived more than one hour -- it was delete on sight worthy. I have deleted it, it does not deserve to have time wasted on it at AFD. MER-C 18:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again, MER-C. Plenty of AfD material there. Edwardx (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
MER-C, I never gave you the article name. Next time, although you found it. scope_creep (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Another batch (2-15 September)

Is it just me, or is there something fishy about the accounts creating articles about professors and doctors (compare Fernando Pereira Soler, Alan C. Swedlund and Jacquelynn Baas)? Previous batches also feature similar articles. MER-C 17:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Bump to keep out of the archive. MER-C 19:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Joe DiRosa

I gave this user a COI warning before, but he removed it (yes I know it's okay to remove talk page messages). Not only has he edited what appears to be the article about himself, but he created pages about a company named Onox, Inc.. He started by creating a draft about the article. Then he blanked the draft and created an article about it, but it got speedy deleted per G11 and A7. After the article was deleted, he recreated the draft. Overall, very suspicious edits. funplussmart (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Per the WMC, the subject also took and uploaded this picture of himself [13]. Seems to be a clear case of a conflict of interest.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

One you gave me a conflict of interest warning on the page Onox, Inc. which I am not related to since the company was made 50 years before I was born.. Second I didnt really add anything about the article on myself .. I cleaned up the structure and added a picture to make it look cleaner. So yes.. I went in and created an article for a company, got the hang of it and then went in and made cosmetic changes to an article on myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedirosa (talk • contribs) 19:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

May an administrator take a look at the deleted article to confirm how old the article is? And @Joedirosa:, in general article subjects should not edit their own articles. If you want an edit to be made you should use the talk page. I'm sorry if I wrongly assumed that you had a connection to the company. funplussmart (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Funplussmart: I appreciate that.. I probably should have handled it differently but its been a long time since i was active on Wikipedia and its taking me a minute to catch up with everything.. i think a good amount of the procedures are different and probably a little stricter since wiki has become much larger.

You can thank Wiki-PR for the stricter COI policies. funplussmart (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Funplussmart: The thing that the Onox article is that it is quite relevant within the field of podiatry as they were one of the founders of foot powder for athletes foot as it says in the study.. their somewhat accidental ingredient is what we still use to this day.. plus they also developed the modern foot sprayer which was patented .. they are in every hospital and sports locker room across the world.. Its more medical podiatry relevant that ENews and the Kardashians.

Joe, you can sign your comments by using four ~s. funplussmart (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


Draft:Elena Matei

I'm seeing some strange editing activity at Draft:Elena Matei, which Joedirosa created with this edit [14]. They have extensively edited the article, including adding images to the draft. While it has now been deleted as a copyright violation (File:Elenamateibeachphoto.jpg), it was originally claimed that the image was being used with the permission of the subject; this would imply a conflict of interest. More recently, User:Doctor DreamY (talk) (an editor with one other edit) began to edit the draft, apparently with no prompting.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Your issue? Doctor DreamY (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Doctor DreamY: I have questions in a similar vein to those posted above. Do you (or Joedirosa) have any connection to the subject that may conflict with WP:COI? Do you have a connection to eachother? Given the article is a draft and thus much more remote than a mainspace article, how did you come across it (i.e recruitment)?--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. There was a post about an opinion in a Facebook group. Doctor DreamY (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

All well and good. One more thing to ask (I am unsure if it has directly been linked yet); @Doctor DreamY:, @Joedirosa:, do either of you have any connection to the subject (WP:COI), or have either of you edited for pay (WP:PAID)? This question apply to any article you have edited, not just in regards to Matei.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It's time for an SPI of the many associated accounts here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

While that would be fantastic and likely would have let me get this page publsihed in a day if i could ask for photos, actual information and a date if I actually had any contact with her but i do not. Plus it might make this witch hunt more palpable if I was getting paid for it. .. though I have to say I was curious if editors made any money. From what I understand it is allowed as long as you disclose it? Joedirosa (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Joedirosa: paid editing is allowed so long as it is disclosed and the paid editor complies with WP:PAID. Namely, the editor must disclose on their userpage which articles they have edited for pay, and which clients paid them for which edits. They are also to refrain from directly editing articles they have been paid to change, instead requesting that edits be made from the respective article's talk page. They must put new articles through WP:AFC, and absolutely must comply with WP:COI, as it applies to them. Now for the pertinent issue; Joedirosa, have you ever edited for pay or in regards to a subject (other than your own article, which other editors have covered here) you have a conflict of interest towards? A direct answer is what is needed.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

No. In fact the only article i've even attempted to publish was the Onox, inc. page. I could have easily created this one but it's a draft. I'm pretty sure that is how we got into this whole dumb thing is I stumbled across the fact that I could create a page. Joedirosa (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

For information: I filed an SPI report relating to this incident. Remember that per WP:AGF, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. funplussmart (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Joedirosa has been blocked for socking. funplussmart (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Someone on reddit (who I will not link to anyone per WP:OUTING) posted the wikimarkup for Elena Matei’s draft and asked people to publish it for them. [15] Vermont (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Maureen Brindle

COI with all edits to date, promoting herself, Maria Amor Torres, and awards from Torres.

Has written on her user page about herself, Appointed Humanitarian Ambassador on Literary Arts at the G.O.D. Awards U. N. New York 2015. This is an award from Torres, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Officials of Dignity Awards.

She was greatly honored to launch We Care for Humanity Poetry book co-authored with Princess Maria Amor See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Care for Humanity.

This looks to be part of a recent public relations campaign, judging by the press releases that this editor has attempted to use. --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is the book she co-authored with the Princess:
  • Princess Amor Torres; Maureen Brindle (July 26, 2016). We Care for Humanity Anthology. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
I'd say this is pretty clear evidence of a COI. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this is well past blockable, at least for the ip, so Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#86.0.20.87. --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Article is now semi-protected until November 2018. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I see that "Maureen Brindle is currently the official poet for Princess Maria Amor's international charity We Care for Humanity & N. G. O. registered in the U. S. A. Maureen Brindle is also the current G. O.D. Awards Humanitarian Ambassador for Literary Arts. She has written a poetry book with Princess Maria Amor."[16] Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I've been emailing with her. Yes she is all conflicted and a huge fan of "the princess", and she cannot figure out how to work our interface. Am trying to head off the inevitable. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. See WP:ANI#Maureen Brindle. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

After the 72 hours block, the user still refuses to comply with COI policy ([17]). She does not even acknowledge the problem or any intention to comply ([18]). --MarioGom (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The article was deleted via AfD and this user appears to have moved on to other topics where she has no COI. I think this entry can be closed. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the issue is gone in practice. --MarioGom (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Shahab Pishanidar

Hello I’m Shahab Pishanidar’s manager , he is an famous athlete from Iran. He has an Wikipedia account , Shahab pishanidar . There are always Profitable persons who wanted to get account by his name so that his main account has been blocked. He has Wikipedia in Persian but i want to restore his main account in english.if you need more information about him , i will get you any license you want to certify that it was his, himself , and it mistakenly blocked. How can i restore his main Wikipedia account? ‏As i said to Athaenara I understood my client mistake , he didn’t know about the rules that you mentioned , but now he does and he’s willing to obey them. Now we would like to know if it is possible for you to unblock his account so he can start using his account responsibly . Sincerely Soulmaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulmaz AP (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

NUVO and MONTECRISTO

The entire history of these two articles about related subjects seems to involve single-purpose accounts and promotional editing. It would be helpful if someone with COI experience could take a look. Peacock (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Both of them have no effective references, and are full of promotional spam. Both have been in existence since 2008,2009. scope_creep (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Scope creep and User:Melcous, for your help. Peacock (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Both articles are now at AfD. I've added another COI editor to the above list. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Synopsys, another promo mess

This is a real mess of promotional editing; long lists of acquisitions (including six corp infoboxes!), product lines and the usual cruft for a software/services company. And blatant COI editors. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Vijaya Bhaskar Jatoth

Please can someone help look into this. This is paid article by the subject as declared. It was declined in AFC but the paid editor and another relatively new account were hellbent to circumvent another review because of "client request". I already moved it twice to draft but both reverted by these accounts, the second time claiming he's reviewing "paid editing article" and at the same time being the paid editor. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Ammarpad doesn't this satisfy G11? An easier solution, I hope, for the short term:-) ∯WBGconverse 12:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Ammarpad, my goodness, the article creator was using references that mention an entirely different Vijaya and writing hoax-content to increase claims to notability.Same as to this reference.
We are talking about this person.
There is no scope of assumption of any good faith. ∯WBGconverse 13:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Ammarpad, And, finally Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Minsk8623. ∯WBGconverse 13:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for the multiple pings:( ∯WBGconverse 13:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wow, thank you for all these findings. note the edit summary used here which is related to this AfD where you commented. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Oops, no problem. I just edit conflicted with you twice. –Ammarpad (talk)

I Hope this was COI paid edit but there should be some resolution provided my colleagues. Please look into it and solve the issue. Rakeshroshan1992 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

EPA Alumni Association

Adding content to multiple articles, sourced to the EPA Alumni Association. A username violation, but the COI is a concern, too. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I have updated my talk page to include that I have a contracted position with the nonprofit EPA Alumni Association (not affiliated with the EPA). On Wikipedia I am updating articles with factual information from the nonprofit's extensive historical resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaEPAAA (talk • contribs) 01:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Updating with signature (AnnaEPAAA (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC))

Lists of products by company

I'm not sure this is the best place for this thread, but questions about promotion seem more at home here than at NPOVN. Still, I have no objection were someone to move it (before too much discussion has taken place).

A while back a paid editor asked me for advice about a draft version of what is now List of Honeywell products and services. That editor was FacultiesIntact, but I want to be clear that I don't want this to become about their paid editing -- asking other editors for advice like this is how paid editing should be done.

At the time, it occurred to me that I wasn't aware of any clear standards we have for such articles. My advice was basically that most companies shouldn't have such a list, that Honeywell may well be big enough to merit one, but that it should probably be limited to notable products. My sense is that there should be very, very few instances when an entire product catalog should be included in such a list. Those exceptions, in my view, are the sorts when a product line are an important part of, say, the history of a particular technology, and even then it should probably be selective. Perhaps I am off-base, though. When initially asked for advice, I posed a question at VPP, though it didn't generate much discussion.

Anyway, after that bit of advice (see threads on my talk page here and here), the page creator indeed narrowed down the list. I was surprised, then, to see that it has been moved into mainspace by another user, Auldhouse, who restored the more comprehensive list of entirely primary-sourced non-notable products. I'm hoping to solicit opinions on this sort of article, to see if it is too much along the lines of a promotional product catalog/extension of the Honeywell website. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Please note that I am not a paid editor. I was asked to look at the smaller list, and made the call after also viewing the older draft. I made the call that a more comprehensive list would be best and then I've added to it. Right now, it is mostly the current products but because of Honeywell's history, it should also contain older and historical products as well. I've been working my way backwards from today and would be adding older products as I have time between other projects. You can view my comments on my talk page.Auldhouse (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for clarifying. I did not mean to imply that you were also a paid editor. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Rhododendrites, Auldhouse, isn't this an example of exactly what Wikipedia is not? WP:NOTDIR: "7. Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees ... , equipment, estates, offices, store locations, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions (my bold/underlining). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree and along the same lines I have some serious doubts about the stores list here SM Supermalls. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists. For good examples of lists on products and services, see List of Microsoft software, List of SAP products, List of NASA aircraft, List of iOS devices, List of Canon products, etc. A number of products and services listed point to other articles which serve as context. Example--RFID technology. Honeywell has RFID products, but the page itself points to Radio-frequency identification page. Honeywell HTF7000 points to an article on that specific product which would warrant it. Think like a historian--would a list like this be useful? Yes, because the company is notable. Auldhouse (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Is this an advertisement?
  • WP:NOT has a lot on this question. 1st WP:NOADS says we can't have adverts, PR text, marketing material. WP:NOTADVOCACY prohibits "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise." Promotion is also prohibited.
  • WP:NOTDIR has 2 sections on this #7 Simple listings cited above prohibits listings of "offices, store locations, products and services" (among other things). #5 "Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention." (bolding added). Between 5 and 7, that would prohibit any listing of a company's products unless there is both an independent source and a specific reason to list it - and not just "because the company is notable". I do like the historical justification e.g. IBM has and had many historic computer models. But if it is just a listing of current models - that violates #5 - it's a sales catalog. Older models are not necessarily historic - only if they set some type of standard or made a breakthrough would I consider them to be historic.
  • Is the photo above an ad? Its just of product list of a farm stand. But using common sense, we do know that the sign in the photo is an advert. There's a definition of advertising at WP:Deceptive advertising

The American Marketing Association (AMA) defines advertising as:

The placement of announcements and persuasive messages in time or space purchased in any of the mass media by business firms, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and individuals who seek to inform and/ or persuade members of a particular target market or audience about their products, services, organizations, or ideas.[1]

I suppose there might be an argument whether the sign is "mass media" but billboards are certainly mass media, as is Wikipedia. But this definition only applies to communications from the company (i.e. mostly paid editors) and it does not make any exceptions for "but it's true" "it's not promotional"

WP:NOTDIR OTOH applies to everybody, not just company employees. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Dictionary 'Advertising'". American Marketing Association. Retrieved December 14, 2017.

Obie scott wade

User has been here since 2012, editing their own page since 2013 [19] and to my knowledge has never disclosed their COI or even used their own talk page to communicate with others. They were warned in 2013 to disclose it and in November 2016 they were brought to COIN by CaroleHenson but never contributed to the conversation. There is a connected contributor tag on the talk page but it wasn't even added by them. I don't see any edit requests either. They seem to pop up a couple times a year for the sole purpose to editing their own page. Isn't this WP:NOTHERE and undisclosed COI/possibly paid editing? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Since he is CEO of ObieCO Entertainment it is undisclosed paid editing. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
There seems very little that he has done over and above shezow. As he refuses to communicate it looks clearly like a case of WP:NOTHERE and they should be treated as such and indeffed. As the subject is probably not independently notable from shezow a merge and redirect would be in order. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Martin Moore Jr

This article is obviously an autobiography of questionable notability, and now some other new users with a COI have appeared to defend the article. Possible socking or meatpuppetry. shoy (reactions) 15:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martinmoorejr confirms sockpuppetry. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Braeden Wright ‎

Soulman1125 is baring a small amount of edits is a single purpose account.
The focus of Soulman1125's editing is Soul Artist Management represented model Braeden Wright along with his girlfriend Lola Lennox. Soulman1125 dedication to Wright dates back to 2015 where xe was editing a now deleted draft Draft:Braeden Wright for the model as evidenced by this (24 deleted editsthere?). Since then there was a series of edits around "2018 IIHF World Championship" then the rest has been dedicated to the above two subjects with 34 mainspace edits directly to the subjects and a whopping 81 bludgeoning the afds for the two topics (Total live edits = 152).
I'm of the opinion there is clearly a conflict of interest but xe strongly denies it, "I have no Conflict of Interest with the subject. ..." [20]. Anyone have any opinions or insight on this? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep. I have asked them two questions. We will see how they respond... Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, discussion was here. This person has continued to deny any connection. Based on their behavior -- since September a perfect SPA for two subjects that are very common subjects of paid/conflicted editing; bludgeoning the hell out of the AfDs, aggressive editing of badly sourced promotional content -- which is a perfect example of what paid/conflicted editors do, in my view this person should be indefinitely blocked for being only here for PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
This editor has posted this at their talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, please review my post above posted by Jytdog (thank you for posting it). I hope you all read the evidence of things I have done in regards to my behaviour in context before you weigh in on your decision. I have contributed to many more totally unrelated discussions than stated here, and it will show that I am not a SPA-- and that User:duffbeerforme's claim very much ignores these and misrepresents me incorrectly as a Single Purpose Account-- I have only been back on Wikipedia for a few months. Also, the amount of edits includes an insane amount of typo edits I made obviously in an incorrect manner, which also misrepresents me as bludgeoning when I simply made a mistake in how many (admittedly egregious) times I reread and corrected my comments in order to make them clear, concise, thorough, and based on official guidelines. I admit that as my mistake but to point out the number of edits very much misrepresents what the edits were in order to fit this narrative User:Duffbeerforme is putting forward. I also made so many edits to Braeden Wright and Lola Lennox because I took the time and effort to be bold, and prune them in the way multiple users in the AfD (who voted keep mind you) suggested someone should. Now because I further volunteered my time to two of my first articles I created to improve them based on group consensus, I am facing apparent expulsion from the community? This is heartbreaking and counter to what Wiki's mission statement is. Please read my explanations and record of my actions in full before making your decision. All of the things I state can be evidenced by diffs. Please don't let this user User:duffbeerforme defame me by misrepresenting things. I have felt intense harassment from him over the past three weeks from what I believe and can document are personal attacks, wikihounding, and a general dismissive and rude nature. I sent him a cordial post on his talk page a few days ago asking to be friends and to clear the air and try to bring down the conflict and now today he is trying to have me removed from the community by misrepresenting my actions to constitute COI, before I can open up a dispute resolution process against his personal attacks towards me which I can document, and will now officially. I try to bring down the tension in a fair way and here we are. I think it is incredibly unfair, constitutes harassment, and I sincerely hope you take all of the recorded facts about my actions in context into consideration as I can prove with my recorded diffs all freely available here that this user is misrepresenting me and his claims against me. Thanks very much. Soulman1125 (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Your focus on the count (understandable given how I wrote the report) misses the sheer volume of text that is at the heart of the bludgeoning. And instead of claiming "I can prove ...", actually do it. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I just went through the Braeden Wright page carefully. Garbage. Look at this bit:

Wright was born in Edmonton, Canada, where he lived until beginning his international career as a model. He is a lifelong ice hockey player.[1] He received a degree with distinction in Political Science from the University of Alberta in 2010.[2]

References

  1. ^ Weber, Bruce (May 22, 2015). "A Day at Little Bear Studios". VMAN. Retrieved September 3, 2018.
  2. ^ Palmer, Craig (October 11, 2017). "Braeden Wright on the Influences and Inspiration Behind His New Album". The Cultural Omnivore. Retrieved September 3, 2018.

The sources don't support that content. The first ref only informs us that his favorite body part is his teeth. Nothing about hockey. Nothing about him earning a poli sci degree "with distinction". Nothing about university of alberta. Soulman1125 is not telling the truth. It is obvious from the editing. I have nominated the article for deletion as copyvio from the profile at models.com and spam. That is what it is.Jytdog (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The speedy nominations were declined and the page was draftified. Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Looking for admin action. This person is continuing to stir the pot. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Not too sure how my reply to Jytdog to the above allegations is "stirring the pot"... Check out my talk page for his comments to me. As far as my main reply, I'll post here directly for your consideration: "The direct quote from the VMAN source: "Braeden wears clothing Paul Smith", "Braeden loves playing hockey in Canada". Either your eyes are failing you or you are allowing them to in order to fit your narrative. That's my only explanation for that. He is in the photos as well. I would expect a retraction and an apology. Again, I believe the effort to force your narrative has lead to arguments that mischaracterize the sources on multiple occasions. I'm not going to spend any more time discussing this with you piece by piece. I have better uses of my time. And as far as disdain for the community? You also have an entire section of your user page dedicated to comparing the much valued Wikipedia guideline of "Assume Good Faith" to "dogshit". If that's not showing disdain for Wikipedia's core principals and the community of users within it, I don't know what is. Last time-- please refrain from posting your personal attacks and harrassment on my talk page. I will not respond again. As someone who has been previously indefinitely banned from COI comments, I hope you heed that advice, relax, and find something more productive with your time. Hope you have a great day full of sunshine and happiness. Soulman1125 (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)"

The page xe is so concerned about is gone anyways-- I have more productive and interesting things to do here than to continue to receive harrassment and threats when the facts don't check out-- that is, if you actually look at them. Hope you all have a wonderful day and happy editing. Much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Missed one bit. this page. When I commented on 14 September it this page did not say exclusive. On 16 September it did not say exclusive, as seen at wayback [21]. When Soulman1125 commented on 19 September it has been updated to say exclusive. Weird coincidence or someone aware of the discussion updating the website? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

SKAM Austin

The user XIXLA continues to remove well-sourced information from the the article SKAM Austin regarding the show's decline in viewership. The user seems to be affiliated with Simon Fuller's production company XIX Entertainment, which produces the show, given their username. They have also edited the article for Fuller as well. This, to me, would seem to be a clear-cut instance of conflict-of-interest. BoogerD (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  • The user name XIXLA looks like a violation of naming policy. Since XIX Entertainment has an office in Los Angeles, it looks like a corporate name or shared account. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
This is now connecting up to the Braeden Wright case, above. See this diff. Lola Lennox is also an XIX client. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
XIXLA has been renamed to LASunny1920. Still no disclosures at the present time. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Dolphin Project

One of the authors of this draft is the son of the founder of the project, but has not declared a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Undone (TV series)

PMetcalf has continued to edit the article for the upcoming television series Undone while also claiming in their edit summaries to be a staff member for the series. They continue to misuse a prameter in Infobox television on the page, citing sources that do not properly confirm said edit. When confronted with this issue, they repeatedly insist that the error be let go as they have first-hand knowledge of the situation due to their working on the series. The have been informed repeatedly about the issue with their edits and they have been informed of their Conflict of Interest. Despite this, they continue to edit the page. BoogerD (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Michael W. Ferro Jr.

Paid SPA editor came in added 8k of promotional text to article. scope_creep (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Chase Finlay and Mark P. Finlay

Mpfaia ([22] [23]) and 96.56.64.162 ([24]) are attempting to censor reliably sourced information regarding a pending lawsuit from the Chase Finlay article. After a failed AfD nomination, they're repeatedly removing the content from the article.

According to the current revision of the Mark P. Finlay article, Mark is Chase's father. Mark established "Mark P. Finlay Architects, AIA", which corresponds to the initials of the username Mpfaia. Both Mpfaia ([25] [26]) and 96.56.64.162 ([27] [28]) have made promotional edits to this article as well. — Newslinger talk 08:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The widely reported law suit is clearly appropriate content and does not carry undue weight because he is known as being a dancer and what he is accused of happened in the sphere of his professional environment and because of that he was obliged to resign from the ballet company. No reason to allow a COI editor remove that information themselves. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for help at Roth Capital Partners

Hello. First off, I disclose that I have been paid by Roth Capital Partners to edit on the firm's behalf. I also disclose that I have edited on behalf of Roth from unregistered accounts before registering this account at the encouragement of several editors. I was the editor who initiated this COIN thread and also authored all the edits on that thread coming from unregistered accounts.

In my effort to improve Roth Capital Partners, which had been turned into an attack page by an editor with an undisclosed COI to further the interests of Emmanuel Lemelson, I composed a lengthy edit request and posted it, in its most recent version, at Talk:Roth Capital Partners#Restoring NPOV (#3). User:Spintendo graciously reviewed my request, but was reluctant to implement it unilaterally before "a more thorough consensus" was established from other editors. He then urged me to post again to this noticeboard in the hopes of attracting editors to look over the edit request and help "achieve balance for the article."

I think you will find that the edit request is reasonable and balanced, and takes care to respect WP:NPOV and especially WP:WEIGHT.

Thank you in advance for your assistance. Quknpnfl (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that many (not all) of the changes requested were reasonable, but part of the issue was as Quknpnfl mentioned, this 3rd editor Cypresscross who added the "Page Six" type material to begin with, which has made the article appear somewhat like Page Six from the New York Post (written according to their style of salaciousness, with details of strippers etc.) I had removed what was insufficiently paraphrased already and the editor rewrote it correctly and put it back, which closed the avenues open to me to do anything more about it. Which is why I suggested moving the request here to take advantage of the greater reservoir of experience available than they would get from just requesting additional changes from me. Thank you  spintendo  13:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
If I could also add that this is not a behavioral issue, its much more of a content issue, which means we might have the wrong forum in the end - but both of the other editors I mentioned here have been civil. Just wanted to add that.  spintendo  14:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The COI editor had mentioned that he raised the issue at COIN before but I hadn't realized how well it was covered just one month ago until I read the archives just now. Those make it clear that it should be handled through another forum since no COI issues are being raised here again, only content issues, so @Quknpnfl: my apologies for asking that you bring it here. I would now suggest that you request a Third Opinion (3O) or use the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN), or the reliable sources noticeboard to ask regarding the New York Post. If you like, I can start one of those steps for you since I mistakenly had you waste time by posting here. Please let me know how you'd like to proceed either here or my talk page or the Roth talk page. Thank you.  spintendo  18:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
In my view, the real problem editor is Cypresscross (talk · contribs · count), details at Talk:Ligand Pharmaceuticals#Editor with undisclosed COI.  —SMALLJIM  20:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Just to follow up here, there have been some major improvements to the page recently, a big thanks goes out to Smalljim for their help and their time spent on this, the article is in a much better state now. Unless @Quknpnfl: disapproves I think this thread can be closed. Thank you again everyone.  Spintendo  05:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Prestige Group and other paid editing


The first user is closely associated with the Prestige Group. Most of his contributions are related to the Prestige Group - The Forum Vijaya, The Forum (shopping mall), Prestige Golfshire, Prestige Shantiniketan, List of Residential Developments by Prestige Group among others. But apart from his obvious WP:COI writing, what is more jarring is that he gets a lot of help from one article accounts - who are most probably linked to the marketing company Social Beat. The Forum Sujana, another of their project was created by Jvchawla and he is a known sockpuppet associated with Social Beat - Jvchawla also contributed to COI editing on Forum Fiza Mall, The Forum (shopping mall). The same is also supported by the home page of Social Beat - https://www.socialbeat.in/ which counts Forum among its leading clients, besides TVS and others who also got a lot of articles from Jvchawla (Himalayan Highs, TVS One Make Championship among others). V1985ch has an uncannily similar name as Jvchawla (Sockpuppet?). He is also closely associated with the Murugappa Group which explains his edits on related pages - including the creation of M. M. Murugappan, edits on Murugappa family by Meghana Chandani, attempts to cleanup Murugappa Group among others. Overall a paid editing syndicate that needs to be swept out. Jupitus Smart 14:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jupitus Smart: Without violating WP:OUTING, can you tell us how Social Beat is related to the sockfarm? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bri:, that is going to be hard. https://www.socialbeat.in/ shows a collection of their important clients on the homepage and most of the users above have edited on topics associated with the said brands. https://www.socialbeat.in/team/ is also informative in joining the dots. Jupitus Smart 15:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I get the connection. At least two of the SPI acccounts named are connected to the company, reasonably inferred from from quasi divulged info like this. Thanks for pointing it out; I've listed at WP:PAIDLIST for future reference and analysis. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

UPEs - Sockpuppet investigations/BrookeCook

Looks like a bunch of UPEs working for the same company. Cleanup needed. Further investigation might be useful. Ronz (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  • SmartSE (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • This sock farm knows what a WP article should look like. I've nominated these for speedy. We will see what remains after the first pass. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Well ok then! I guess there is nothing left to do on those. Kudos to the admins wielding the mops. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

How was the list above made? I ask, because Jason Stone isn't listed. I'll look for others.

What caught my attention (SennaNiks (talk · contribs) and JadeRice (talk · contribs)) were the poor or promotional references and the promotional content. It looks like they are actually avoiding creating articles.--Ronz (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Cass Warner was moved from article space. --Ronz (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ronz! Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

That's all I could find. Good job with the initial list! --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ronz: I've written a script here which should list all users, draft, userspace and mainspace creations from an SPI. I did edit it the output though... I will check later on whether that's what caused the issue or if there's something else. I do plan on making it so that everyone can use it, but haven't figured that out yet. SmartSE (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
That's what I was hoping. Very nice. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Difficult to tell now as I wrote it to only look for live articles. I did go through the output deleting things quite quickly so that's probably most likely. SmartSE (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ronz, Smartse, and Jytdog: [29]. This is still an experimental tool - it can take categories of users only. MER-C 19:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  • The usernames chosen by the sockfarm look familiar. If I can remember who does that, I'll post here again. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Suspicious new articles

15 September - 6 October

A little more than usual, because I forgot to run the script last week. MER-C 14:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

How can I help? Do you go through the list on your own or do you want a hand trawling through it? Dom from Paris (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I've started checking each one as well. scope_creep (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Both. Usually I find a few socks in these dumps, so keep your eyes peeled for ACPERM evaders. MER-C 20:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Marathi-film-industry-paid-editing

Greetings,

Let me take some space to greet you to the activities of Shrinivaskulkarni1388.

Pending a long dramatic chain of on-wiki events, that finally manifested across two t/p threads (my t/p and Tito's t/p; each of the threads contain links to several previous threads about him and a reading might be required, in order to understand how far he had exploited our assuming good faith of his activities) and a sockpuppetry investigation, the editor was found to be running a massive under-cover-UPE ring and writing piss-poor-biographies on Marathi film-stars and marathi films, in a bid to promote them.

To keep things short, the person himself is a third-grade Marathi director, whose identity with the on-wiki avatar of the same name has been verified by Titodutta at the above-linked t/p.

That, coupled with undeniable off-wiki evidence (that has since been mailed to Doc James) cleanly establishes the UPE-activities of the sock-farm.

I've unilaterally draftified all of his creations (except movies) citing violation of WP:UPE.

Also, there are behavioral overlaps with another UPE sock-farm, that worked in the exact narrow topic-area. and with BhushanSRT of yet another UPE-farm.

And, now it seems that there are meat-puppets on the rise, with questionable motives and trying to main-space Srinivas's drafts.

Thus, I propose for a full-blown nuking of all the piss-poor drafts (most of which are actually, non-notable) to set a strong precedent against the usage of Wikipedia for nefarious purposes.∯WBGconverse 17:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Nuked. Some were attractive young women, so expect pushback per WP:HOTTIE. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Investorhk

Intentionally use minor edit tag for his non-minor edit, add promotional tone material which only supported by external primary source. It seem an undisclosed paid editing account. Matthew_hk tc 09:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

This diff, which contains the sentence "Each year, Link allocate up to 0.25% of our net property income of our last financial year to fund charitable projects", shouts PAID, and careless with it. I can't find the sentence online, but it's surely copied from some of the company's self-praise somewhere. Let's see if they respond to your COI notice, and if they continue to edit. We can always hope your notices turn out to be enough to discourage them. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC).
Bishonen, for what it's worth the unmarked quote is copied from the company's annual report to the The Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong, p. 18. In fact, this whole edit by Investorhk is copied from that source. Voceditenore (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Since Sino Group had no relation to Link REIT , either it was a good faith edit but copyvio/ promotional tone, or external PR firm using Investor-hk as username.
Even as good faith edit, normal people won't consider "social responsibility" as the essential part of an encyclopedia entry . While his zh-wiki edit on the Link , were even more rebuttal to the negativity towards the company by the general public. Matthew_hk tc 14:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Strizivojna

Strizivojna (see archive 126) may have reappeared with one or more new accounts. Looks like paid editing for biographies. SPI is underway. More details when available. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I have moved (quarantined) both Draft:Halin de Repentigny and Draft:Stacii Jae Johnson to the draftspace, where another editor can salvage them via AfC or delete them via G5, the latter option depending on the outcome of the SPI. Thanks as always Bri.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The SPI results left me stumped. Maybe Berean Hunter can explain. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Bri, I think the confusion stems from the one non-stale account which was tagged as Strizivojna based on behavior but subsequently was found to be Ws95684. It appears that some meatpuppets are operating from the same area.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Socking continues - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmunir.pak ☆ Bri (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

City University of Hong Kong

Continuous undisclosed COI edit of the article of the uni, by ip from the uni and seem static to some department or academic office of the school. Matthew_hk tc 04:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

horrible, i have nominated it for speedy under COPYVIO and PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Given the censorship of removing hkfp as cite on the uni falsify data that send to QS ranking (which was widely reported by other media in HK). I believe the IP can't work in NPOV and out of the acceptability of just making routine edits such as name change and department change. Moreover, those edits certainly qualify to use edit request (if have source) and be accepted. Matthew_hk tc 03:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • speedy tag was stripped. I cleaned it up. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Young Pianist

Notice has been on almost a week, with no disclosure. scope_creep (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Academic spamming the long arm of Lankenau Institute for Medical Research

editors
articles

I cleaned up most of this. Just listing here for future reference.Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the manner in which they have been cleaned up was not altogether appropriate , removing the elements that show notability and leaving a bare directory entry--or even listing the articles for speedy deletion. The organization is famous, and almost all of the individuals are notable or highly notable. The writing was indeed somewhat promotional , but nowhere near the worst of what we see here. I do not think it appropriate to treat promotional editing for a subject which is actually capable of a decent article, with one that is borderline. Both need fixing, but it should be handled differently.
For barely notable subjects accompanied with clear promotionalism, I usually suggest deletion, particularly for work by an undeclared coi editor, and very strongly so if it looks like an undeclared outside paid editor.
For ordinarily notable subjects, I cut fairly drastically. If the cuts are reverted, I usually move for deletion as incapable of fixing by normal editing.
For very notable subjects, I cut selectively, and I also try to add appropriate material that the coi editor doesn't realize is important. What I remove first is terms of praise, overuse of the name, and excessive ELs ; then entire sections of unencyclopedic detail , personal anecdotes, and minor awards; and then background about the importance of the problem which is better handled by linking. For biomedical subjects, as here, I also remove hopes for medical use which have not yet resulted in actual approved products. (pretty much everybody in the field hopes to cure cancer ). I leave in material about what the persons main work, and include the 3 or 4 most cited or otherwise import papers. The papers document the field of work--this is normally implied, but if challenged, can be given explicitly.
some of the material marked as scrubbed above needs to be restored, which I shall do, though of course selectively. Scrubbing something too hard can destroy it.
much of the earlier work on these was done by uncleared coi editors; the current work is being done by a declared coi, and the person doing that needs to be guided constructively.
a final alternative if the editing is too destructive is to rewrite from scratch. I find that much more troublesome than fixing, but when an article is unfairly attacked, as equally in the opposite situation of being hopelessly contaminated, it is sometimes the best recourse. I find it very unfortunate that I almost never have time to do it.
WP is inundated with promotional writing, and we need to retain a sense of proportion. We all want to eliminate bad articles; my technique is to remove the worst and move on, in order to get to all of them, not focus on any one situation.

In particular, we need to remember that an article about a truly notable subject will inevitably have some degree of promotional effect. Removing everything that is conceivably promotional means removing everything that shows importance. Our drive to enforce NOT ADVOCACY shouldn't lead us into the trap of violating NOT DIRECTORY. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

User:DGG We need to remember that if WP becomes a vehicle for PR this project is doomed. A piece of promotional shit cannot be "destroyed" - these pages were promotional shit from day they were created by these paid editors and more shit was larded on over time. The editing by these PR people consistently "cited" primary sources and made sweeping claims about their importance. Disgusting. If somebody wants to do the work to make actual encyclopedia articles about these people and organizations that comply with the content policies and guidelines that would be great. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

D'Evelyn Junior/Senior High School

An SPA is turning this into article suited for the school newspaper: promotional language, (unsourced) achievements of school teams, extensive listings of extracullicular activities, etc. I have tried to reason with this person, but to no avail. Due to he level of dedication, I strongly suspect there is a CoI and possibly a paid editor. I'd appreciate some extra eyes, since I'm at 3RR and my wits end. Kleuske (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I am NOT a paid person, nor am I employed by D'Evelyn. I am new and doing my best. This page was grossly out of date. The areas that have been updated were already present. All I did was continue the information. I will go in and try to delete anything such as you described above, but the page was developed long ago, as was the layout and areas. I already stated that I am doing my best to source all achievements, but with how out of date it was it is taking time. Add to that the learning curve and I am doing my very best. Please be patient and not so judgmental. I am really trying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locococomama (talk • contribs) 18:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I am going to WP:AGF and take Locococomama at their word that they're just a newbie who didn't understand what they were doing. In that spirit, and the spirit of WP:BITE I left them a message explaining that they had long since broken WP:3RR and could be taken to WP:3RR/N if the problematic behaviour continues. They're at revert 5. If it gets to 6, I'd suggest that forum will probably be the most expedient method of preventing further edit warring. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

So, how on earth am I to get the updates done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locococomama (talk • contribs) 19:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Locococomama: If someone has objected to them, you go to Talk:D'Evelyn Junior/Senior High School and you discuss the matter with the editor who objects to your edits. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; if someone objects to what you're doing, the first thing to do is stop doing it, find out what their objection is, and attempt to address it. And you listen carefully to more experienced editors when they tell you there's a problem, rather than attempting to steamroll things by reverting repeatedly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you @seraphimblade. Now I know where to go. The issue is that the areas I updated are not even listed there. Apparently those who did not like my edits did not put them in talk to be discussed. Wow is this a painful process. I can imagine many start as editors and quickly give up. Not one of my changes were discussed there and I have tried and tried and those taking out my edits are not collaborating, but only taking my edits out. Locococomama (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Locococomama please describe any connection you have with D'Evelyn Junior/Senior High School. Conflict of interest is a much broader thing, than being employed directly by D'Eveyln. Please disclose any connection. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I am a parent in the community, which is why I am aware of it being incorrect. I was doing some research on the school and started reading the Wiki page and saw how much wrong info was on it and decided to help the system and update it all. My kids do not even play athletics there and the majority of the corrections are on sports. I am only trying to get the page up to date. There is no benefit to me either way, except to have correct information on the site, I gain nothing whether it is right or wrong. The demographics being correct clearly have no advantage to anyone and I did source it. The external links are either 14 years (see the 2004 AC report, they are annual) behind or don't work. The scores that were listed were also out of date and I tried to update them too. If it would help, I can take one section at a time and do it that way. I thought that is what I was doing, but when they undid it, all sections were undone, regardless of sources or information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Locococomama (talk • contribs) 21:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for replying.
Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and so on, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. Threading/indenting also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit. That is how we know who said what to whom and when.
Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).
I know this is unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again for explaining your "interest" in the page. It is kind of hard to learn what we actually do here. People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. Sometimes that passion is from some financial interest, which is what this board is for, and sometimes it is from the kind of "interest" you have - you have a child in the school, know about it, and care enough that you want the Wikipedia article to be accurate.
That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also makes people impatient and unwilling to take the time to learn how we do stuff. The original poster said that you were adding promotional content, unsourced content, etc.. and that you have edit warred to try to retain it.... and that is what people who have this sort of passion do, all the time. It is a very human thing.
Your contributions could be super-valuable, but you are going to keep being frustrated (and frustrating other people) as long as you remain in a big hurry and don't listen to what other folks are saying, and try to learn what we do here, and how we do it.
Everybody here is generally happy to help teach about what we do and how we do it, but you have to let folks help you. Will you please do that? Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Rakesh Khanna

The editor, who has stated on my talk page that they are working for Orient Electric, is submitting a draft on the chair of Orient Electric, but has not made the required disclosures. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Markipedia 1

This user works for the Washington Post, and has disclosed his affiliation. However, his contributions all consist of adding citations to his employer's web site, and range from unnecessary (supporting material that is already well sourced) to questionable (not supporting the material, as in this one [30]). He claims his edits do not violate COI guidelines, because he is not changing the text of the article, only adding citations. But I would ask that he stop doing this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I think my opening questions would be 1) Is adding the source necessary? 2) Does it verify the claim cited? Normally question 3) would be "is it generally considered a reliable source" but I think we can take it as a given that the WP is. So I don't really see we need immediate action. If the user was adding some blog or an alt-right troll site, I'd feel differently, but they aren't. If the source doesn't support the claim, revert it. If they are shotgunning references all over the place that fail verification, we can block anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Taking at look at his few most recent edits, no, they fail #1. They are not necessary. They are for material that already has a citation, either where it is, or they've added a reference in the intro for material that is sourced in the body of the article. As such, this looks like a form of WP:REFSPAM, even if from a better source than usual. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I think basically it would be nice to see if we can point him in the right direction and get him to tackle, say, unsourced BLP violations, rather than just bringing out the banhammer. At least just for the minute. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this. Their behavior may be WP:REFSPAM, but I don't think we need to ban just on those grounds, but rather try to teach them how to input their references in more needed places? –Daybeers (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I am not calling for any banhammer. I don't know who is. If they continue refspamming, then we should do, yes. But not yet. Of course not yet.Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This was definitely WP:REFSPAM. After their first few edits, every edit was adding a ref to something at washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis, quite often in lead and even as the first ref; never with any content. I have cleaned up all of them that were not already reverted. I left them a spam warning. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I checked a few of them that popped up on my watchlist as they were being deleted (why are they being deleted during a new ongoing discussion? Jytdog, please consider reverting any other removals you have made, thanks) and found the ones I checked not only very relevant but, in the case of the 1968 Democratic Convention protest page, essential to answer many of the cite-needed tags on the page. After checking a few of these Washington Post additions, and if the trend I'm seeing holds up, instead of calling this spam it seems we should be thanking the editor for adding pertinent and important citations to the encyclopedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I will not revert the removal of spam. It is blatant spam. A few of them may have added value but I would guess that near 90% of them were just slapping the ref in, as high in the article as it would go. I would guess the person had a list of pieces to add and just searched WP for places to put them. (If you actually go through all their contribs like I just did, you will see them sticking the same ref in several articles that had a "hook", before moving on to the next piece and then doing the same with it). Several of them were reverted immediately as the spamming that they were. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I can only report that I checked a few of them, and each one was pertinent to the sentence or paragraph it was referencing. What I meant is that you maybe should have waited to remove the references until after the result of this discussion, and I'll suggest that other editors check a few to see if they hold up as good edits. I haven't checked the article referenced (but now removed) on the Roe v. Wade page, and that may be a good place for someone to start. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
So do the work before you start arguing. By encouraging this person you are very likely contributing to them continuing their behavior, and if they do, I will open an ANI requesting they be indeffed, and I am pretty confident they will be. This was very unwise and not helpful to that person, especially given that you have not thoroughly reviewed what that person has been doing. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I believe that Markipedia's purpose here is to promote WaPo, not to add knowledge to the encyclopedia. He may rationalize that he is helping, and I won't dispute that some of his additions probably do add information, but that is merely an incidental result. If he is truly here to improve the enyclopedia, his efforts would extend to something other than, or in addition to, the de facto promotion of his employer, which is not an acceptable activity on this site. If he continues to engage in this single promotional activity, a ban on adding citations to his employer could be an appropriate remedy. Short of such a ban, is he willing to contribute in any other way? DonFB (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this. –Daybeers (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

E. G. Glover is clearly an autobiography

This editor has also created Relative Term Press, A Twist in Time and Times not Traveled. The later two are books written by Glover and published by Relative Term Press. On the talk page of the deleted press article he wrote "This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because I am the owner and know that it in fact does exist."[31] The E. G. Glover article says that Glover founded the Relative Term Press. The COI seems obvious, and although warned about COI and creating autobiographies he's made no attempt to comply with WP:PAID or WP:COI. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Relative term press - wow that's a funky wiki-link. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
But seriously, somebody should go in and delete that. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Article was deleted as WP:G7 after the author requested it on the talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Ogilvy (agency)

I've started a discussion at Talk:Ogilvy (agency) about edit requests by representatives of Beutler relating to that article, and particularly about my concerns relating to native or deceptive advertising; it may have some relevance to other articles where representatives of that "digital agency specializing in visual design, social media, inbound marketing, and Wikipedia" have been active, and perhaps elsewhere too. Comment welcome! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Concerning blog post

I stumbled across this troublesome blog post [32]. While I have seen other sites that talk about exploiting Wikipedia for SEO, I found this one particularly troubling because of the description of the author, someone named Michael Wood: "He is an expert Wikipedia editor and has helped hundreds of businesses and people post their articles to the site where they have otherwise failed."

That lead me to this page on his business's website, legalmorning.com, which really set off the alarm bells (https://www.legalmorning.com/writing-services/wikipedia-articles/). Look at his self-described qualifications:

I can find no user with a paid editing disclosure connected this company. This makes me very concerned that this individual is (or was) engaged in undisclosed paid editing, and is either:

  1. An experienced Wikipedia user, perhaps known and trusted by the community, or
  2. A fraud who is grossly misrepresenting his Wikipedia experience, ripping off people left and right.

I'm not suggesting a WP:WITCHHUNT but if anyone has any ideas or tools at their disposal to find solid proof of WP:PAID violations, I'm all ears. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Searching further, I found this article: https://www.ft.com/content/3f726eba-bb6f-11e4-b95c-00144feab7de. Apparently he did got blocked some years ago, and (at the time of the story's writing) openly admitted to undisclosed paid editing. I wonder if anyone can find some history on one of the noticeboards (this one, ANI, etc)? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, looks like this has ties to the very high-profile Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Morning277. I guess there's probably not much more to say about it, but it's concerning that this person still openly flaunts his talents at evading Wikipedia's policies. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Marie Guerlain ‎

Highly promotional article to sell high-end pots and pans, including where to buy them in Harrods. I've left a notice. scope_creep (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Fred Baier

The current page for Fred Baier is flagged with the following:

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


"This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. Please remove or replace such wording and instead of making proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance."

I have been asked by the subject to prepare, without fee, a replacement page. My proposed text is as below. Fred Baier has not made any changes to this, although I have passed it by him for confirmation of accuracy.

Please advise whether, and if so how, this violates Wikipedia standards regarding objectivity.

Fred Baier

Born in 1949 in Hull, Fred Baier FRDA FRSC is a designer and maker of furniture. He was educated at Bootham School in York and subsequently at the Birmingham School of Art and The Royal College of Art. Establishing his first studio in Birmingham in 1975 with the aid of a Major Award from the Crafts Advisory Committee (which later became the Crafts Council), he is now acknowledged as an important and influential figure in contemporary furniture making.

Throughout his career Baier has consistently challenged the supposed distinction between Art (‘beautiful’ but useless) and Craft (in which form follows function and is only then capable of ‘beauty’) . His ‘manifesto’ of 1973 declared instead that ‘Form swallows function’; forty-one years later the same phrase provided the title of a keynote conference lecture . From this emerged such works as his sycamore wedge chair of 1981, described as “A work of perverse genius … Baier’s striking chair is unattractive, but visually very satisfying … he had thought of everything. A chair of real character with mystical beauty in the quality of the finish and construction … Baier is one of the few artist craftsmen to realise the potential of the métier.”

Baier was an early exponent of Computer Assisted Design. Working with Paul McManus in the 1980s, he was instrumental in the development of Vamp, a pioneering 3D CAD programme that used mathematical principles to develop a hitherto unexplored geometric approach to furniture, for example the Prism Chair now in the collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum and Tetrahedron/Toroid Table in the Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge. Writing at a time when the new possibilities of CAD were still being investigated, Paul Dorner suggested that “his furniture is among the first to show us what ‘computer style looks like’… What Baier does is what Henry Moore did on the seashore. Moore walked on the seashore and found objects he could later twist into sculpture. Baier uses the computer to turn up three-dimensional forms from the seashore of mathematics. Baier can pick them up or throw them back, but those he selects are used as the basis for furniture designs.”

However, having lived through the evolution of CAD from niche interest to everyday tool, Baier is now clear about both its value and limitations. “Remember that, for all their scope, computer programmes are no more than encodings of the previous generations’ experience ... keep using that pencil – it’s the shortest route from your brain to an image.”

He has worked as a consultant to the Design Council; ABK architects; Terry Farrell Architects and Mister Luna B.V. furniture Italy. He has taught at the RCA and has furniture in numerous public and private collections, including Tripod (purchased by the Contempory Art Society and donated to Tyne and Wear museums) and commissions for the Crafts Council collection; Hackney Museum and the House of Lords. In 1989 he moved to his current studio in Pewsey, Wiltshire, where he lives with his partner the artist Lucy Strachan. They have two daughters, Billie and Becky.

Qualifications & Fellowships Dip AD (Birmingham College of Art), MA (Royal College of Art) Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, Royal College of Art, Northern Arts

Exhibited at Australia: Melbourne, Adelaide Austria: Saltzburg, Vienna Germany: Munich Holland: Amsterdam, Rotterdam Italy: Milan Japan: Tokyo, Kyoto Spain: Barcelona USA: Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Denver, East Hampton, Miami, New York City, Palm Springs, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Providence, Richmond, Rochester, Washington

Selected clients & commissions 10CC (K Godley & L Crème) - Barclay Finance - Beacon Heritage Centre Whitehaven - Benshemesh SA & UK - Best Products Richmond VA USA - Bell Public House Ramsbury - Birmingham Museums & Art Gallery - Blackburn London - Bradley Hong Kong - Carnegie MoA Pittsburgh Pa USA - Chiltern Sculpture Trail - Coles Restaurant Marlborough - Collier Campbell London - Contemporary Art Society - Crafts Council London - Dear UK - Ifield College Crawley Sussex - Cyfarthfa Castle Museum - Elson NY & UK - Goddard London - Grainer DC USA - Guys & St Thomas’ Trust London - Hawkes UK - Hackney Museum - House of Lords - Isle of Wight Council - Izzy Myaki Japan - Kesler Lincolns Inn - Kurtz Oxford - Leeds City Museum - Lewis Collection Richmond MoA Va USA - Liberty and Co UK - Lotherton Hall Yorks - The Mill Post Production Soho UK - Mister Luna BV Bologna Italy - Sir Nicholas Goodison - Northern Southern and South East Arts - Packman Lucas Structural Engineers - Page Lacquer PLC - Polygon Inv London - Parnham Trust - Practical Styling - Pyramid Post Production Cardiff - Raymond McGrath (30s) House Chertsey - Roxy Music - Rubicon Systems Software House - Shipley Art Gallery Tyne & Wear - Slough Borough Council - Steam Museum of GWR Swindon - St. Mary’s Hospital IOW - Templeton College Oxford - US Ambassador to Denmark - Victoria & Albert Museum London - West Sussex County Council

Publications Fred Baier, The Right Angle 2011, Craft Study Centre & Ruthin Craft Centre ISBN 978 0 9554374 9 6 Vision & Reality, Contemporary Practice for Furniture Makers 2001 Tyne & Wear Museums / Northern Arts ISBN 0 9059747 5 1 Fred Baier, Furniture in Studio 1990 Bellew / CC ISBN 0 9477924 6 5 A Leading Edge, Design in Furniture by Fred Baier 1977/82 Prescote / Warwick Arts Trust

Published reference Age of Experience catalogue, touring exhibition, UK, Curated Mary La Trobe Bateman, 2007 Furniture world styles from classical to contemporary, Judith Miller, Doreen Kindersley, 2005 ISBN 1405306548 The Art of Furniture, Birmingham City Museum and Artifex, 2004 Collect, the new art fair for contemporary objects, catalogue, Crafts Council and Arts Review, 2004 Miller’s Collecting in the 70’s, Katherine Higgins, 2001, Octopus Publishing, ISBN 0753707683 Vision, 50 years of British creativity, a celebration of art, architecture and design, 1999 Thames and Hudson ISBN 0500281661 Crafts in Britain in the Twentieth Century, Tanya Harrod, 1999, Yale University Press ISBN 0300077807 The South East Crafts Collection, Hove Museum and Art Gallery, 1995, Beacon Press ISBN0951597426 Conservation by Design, ed. Scott Landis, Rhode Island School of Design 1993 ISBN 0963859307 Twentieth Century Ornament, Jonathan M.Woodham 1990 ISBN 028980020 The Cambridge Guide to the Arts in Britain, 9: Since the Second World War. ed Boris Ford, 1988, Cambridge Press ISBN 0521327652 The Woodwork Book John Makepeace, Macmillan 1980 ISBN-13: 978 0330261753 Fine Woodworking, Design Book Four 1987, The Taunton Press ISBN 0918804833 New British Design, ed. John Thakara, 1986, Thames and Hudson ISBN 0500274460 Going for Baroque, Midland Group, Nottingham 1985 Maker Designers Today 1984, Camden Arts Centre. 

 A full and clearly-argued discussion of this key dichotomy can be found in The Principles of Art, R.G. Collingwood. New York,

Galaxy Books/Oxford University Press, 1958. 

 All Makers Now: Falmouth University 10-11 July 2014.

 Review of Exhibition of chairs by 10 makers for Southern Arts Regional Arts Association, 1981.

 Furniture Today, Its Design & Craft: Peter Dorner, 1995

 Quoted in a review of Vision and Reality – Contemporary Practice for Furniture Makers by Margot Coatts: Crafts magazine May/June 2001 ISSN 0306-610X.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MWJDWiki (talk • contribs) 12:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

User:MWJDWiki we don't work on content at this board. This is a board where we deal with editor behavior. So -- would you please disclose any relationship you have with Fred Baier, or companies that sell his work? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I looked at their contribs and I see that here MWJDWiki wrote that they edited at the request of the subject. I've opened a new thread at their talk page.Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Multi lingual paid editing

Jason_Jay_Smart

Evidence includes image from press package http://www.jasonjsmart.com/media-relations/

Plus 6 more languages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Started an SPI [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Politobzor here]. They might just be coworkers rather than socks though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Afuganantik

pages
editor

I asked this person about paid editing; they have denied any paid editing.

They believe that Draft:Chris J. Young is "neutral".

I don't find this person's denial credible. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Elaine Chao

There are a number of SPAs on the Elaine Chao page, which have only edited Chao's page or that of a Chao relative. The content that these SPAs are edit-warring into the article is all in-the-weeds content on "major policy initiatives", which is for the most part sourced to the US Department of Transportation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked WitchHazels, JRWatkins83 and SavonMains based on strong behavioral evidence (all three accounts created at the same time and edits concurrently in the same manner/same content). Whether or not they are related to Megrei and Digglerdoo (oldest account; two accounts created a day apart with overlapping edits) probably would require SPI. Alex Shih (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Nobel (company)

I recently got an offwiki solicitation for consultation from the Nobel (company) about contributing to both the company page and a biography related page. There may be more activity related to the company in the near term -- I rejected the request and pointed them to the WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to make sure that they are asking for the right kinds of activity. I wanted to flag this for folks, so that the page gets watched. Sadads (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

speedy-nominated Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

StreetScooter

I am going to propose an edit to the page StreetScooter which is on behalf of a client. We wish to add information on how Milk & More are the largest user of StreetScooters in the UK. We believe there is a genuine public interest in this - as the milkman has long been recognised as a British icon, and associated with electric vehicles. --David Gough (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gough

@David Gough: You've done everything right. You made a proper paid editing disclosure on your userpage, and proposed changes on the article talk page. So, kudos to you for that - it's great to work with editors like you.
You don't need to post anything on this noticeboard. This is for problems and there's been no wrongdoing here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_135&oldid=960353211"