Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy. Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes:
  • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
  • Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline. If revealing private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can seek the advice of functionaries or the arbitration committee by email.
  • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
  • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, MiszaBot II will automatically archive the thread when it is older than seven days.
  • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives
Help answer requested edits
Category:Requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:

Go Fish Digital and Attentiv

As part of the Go Fish Digital SPI I found out that Dmrwikiprof and KomodoD are sockpuppets of a Go Fish Digital employee. These were used to create and edit Attentiv, a project by Go Fish Digital founders. I sent initial proof about this to [email protected], although this was not used in the SPI (yet?). If that evidence is not enough, please, notify me. I compiled additional evidence since I sent my notes to [email protected] I'm not posting such evidence here since it involves the real name of the owner of the account. The only part of the evidence that does not involve real names is that BurritoSlayer, another GFD sockpuppet, was used to de-PROD the article. --MarioGom (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

One sockpuppet speaks to another: "Thank you for finding that logo and getting permissions. Your diligence is much appreciated!" I'm throwing up now. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I did not receive any confirmation of receipt or any comment on wiki. I'm not sure what to do now. Is the functionaries mailing list the right place to send this or should I send it somewhere else? --MarioGom (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Recommend you send to Doc James, the community rep on WMF Board. He has commented at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Wikimedia and Go Fish Digital, so I know he's following the matter. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Meh. It is beating a dead horse. --MarioGom (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Albright Stonebridge Group

On 25 July 2016 at 18:17, a corporate account of Albright Stonebridge Group, ASGComms, was blocked. Same day at 20:21 Globetrotter17 was registered and continued editing the article. Since then, all his edits are on Albright Stonebridge Group or people connected to the organization. --MarioGom (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be going on with related articles, the relation of them is the CEO:

As well as with the following user:

--MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Globetrotter17 also edited Victoria Nuland, CEO of Center for a New American Security, an organization Madeleine Albright is director emeritus ([1]). These are also subject to COI and UPE:
--MarioGom (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed covert advertiser based on freelance job postings. Indeffed. MER-C 12:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup! I have already dispatched several into AFDs:-) Looking into others.... WBGconverse 13:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Pump and dump

A couple of days ago The Wall Street Journal had an article Some Traders Are Talking Up Cryptocurrencies, Then Dumping Them, Costing Others Millions (paywall) (see Yahoo at Crypto 'Pump and Dumps' Distort Trading)

Pump-and-dump is a type of securities fraud. Only the "pump" part could be done on Wikipedia - editing to puff up demand for a cryptocurrency in this case, but that would still be fraud IMHO.

See Wikipedia:Deceptive advertising#Touting of securities for a basic introduction. SEC rules require our usual paid disclosures, prominently placed (i.e. in the article itself), plus a disclosure of the amount of money paid and in what form. Initial coin offerings are considered securities in most, but not all cases. So please keep an eye out for pumping. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


Interpublic has been a problem before (it is a PR company and has ... an 'interesting' history). Now we have an editor insisting on inclusion of stuff against reversion by multiple editors including me. It's disruptive for sure but maybe has a COI dimension. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

OK let's start with a few things: 1) Interpublic is not a PR company. 2) The inclusion of "stuff" is literally adding an IPG agency onto the list of IPG agencies. 3)There is no intention of being disruptive: Initiative is a key agency that is part of IPG (this is documented ad nauseam) and I am simply including it. 4) I would
understand a "Conflict of Interest" if there was a promotional element, but this is literally just a point-of-fact name of the company. Whoever is eliminating my edits should explain why they are doing so, since there is no clear reason for it.Berwitz (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Berwitz
@Drm310 Have mercy on me I have no idea how to do all you said. How can I have a direct conversation with you? There has to be a way to get to the bottom of all this.Berwitz (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Berwitz
Berwitz has disclosed here that they are an employee of Interpublic.
Unless I am very wrong, my unsophisticated searching shows that you are in a PR/communications role with the company. Notwithstanding whether you are paid specifically to edit Wikipedia as part of your job duties, you are employed by them and you are representing their interests. I will let my fellow editors weigh in on if this crosses the threshold of paid editing, but regardless you are solidly in conflict of interest (COI) territory. COI editing is not prohibited... undisclosed paid editing is.
At the bare minimum, you should disclose your connection to this company on your userpage. Our standard advice is that you should not attempt to directly edit the pages at all. You should instead suggest edits on the article talk pages, using the {{request edit}} to attract the attention of other uninvolved editors.
Please stop adding the company "Initiative" to the list on Interpublic Group of Companies. You are reverting the work of other editors and are about to break the three revert rule. This states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.
The reason your work is being undone is because have added a non-notable company (as Wikipedia defines notability) to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I will also add that no single editor has any right of ownership or editorial control over an article's contents. Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. When disputes arise, take it to the article talk page and if that fails to resolve the issue, follow the proper dispute resolution processes. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Drm310 Taken in order. I am in PR/Comms at the company. Having created a login YESTERDAY I wasn't aware of all the rules - so please stop framing this as me somehow refusing to disclose anything. I started a page on Initiative - a 40+ year-old agency within the IPG network with over 3,000 employees and a number of top brands as clients - under the assumption that given all that it warranted a) its own page and b) at least being listed as an IPG agency in a list of IPG agencies. It's astounding to me that someone - anyone - took time to delete that. WHY? It's factually correct and not insignificant either. Consistently removing it suggests otherwise...which would be very misleading (not to mention a bit odd). To that I ask: Please stop removing it. It belongs there. Period. I don't understand why you or anyone else seems to feel so strongly that it doesn't but nothing you wrote above comes close to explaining it.
Regarding the actual page, I was not aware that I could not put up a page as someone who works at the company, given that I was providing objective information that can be fully referenced. A COI suggests that suggests I benefit from a Wikipedia page...I do not. It's simply to provide information. For one thing, Wikipedia's strength is that it is not promotional in any I am lost on where my conflict of interest is. If I was trying to promote or sell something, this would make more sense to me.
Further, my understanding is that I was submitting the page for review - not for publication just yet. The return message signified that it might take up to 7 weeks for this to be approved. I assumed there may be something I didn't know off the bat and would need to edit, but I figured that was part of the process. What I didn't know was that editors would be taking pot shots at me at in a public forum. Please rethink that process - it seems incredibly wrong. Thanks.Berwitz (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)berwitz

Societat Civil Catalana

User Gargaroi keeps pushing his POV over tags of Jordi Borràs saying he is pro-independence, hides the fact of Somatemps association being far-right and removes any mention to spanish nationalism. Diff: [2]. He removes other contents like in this diff: [3]. In general, any text (and its source) exposing negative points about the matter of the article is removed by this user or plainly ignored. He might have a conflict of interest (WP:COI). This user only edits the page Societat Civil Catalana, see his contribution history [4], so he might be a WP:SPA. I have used the talkpage of Gargaroi but he does not respond. He only has contributed in the talk page of the article once, just to deny the far-right position of Somatemps, denying what the sources say about that organisation. The last diff of him ([5]) has a paragraph stating that "Former members from Somatemps, a unionist platform recurrently described as from far-right by pro-independence media outlets", implying that Somatemps is not far-right and it is only a tag used by Catalan independentists to deligitimate the association. However, in article Somatemps (article to which I contributed and has been reviewed by others too) provides these sources saying it is a far-right organisation (Spanish sources). The article has quoted the corresponding paragraphs: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Societat Civil Catalana has been edited by many sockpuppets, see [17] and [18]. These sockpuppets have also vandalised Somatemps. I am reporting Marlorsen too. He was blocked for 48 hours after showing the same behaviour as Gargaroi and the sockpuppets. Manlorsen has stated he belongs to Societat Civil Catalana, the article in question. Filiprino (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

User Manlorsen has again done a revert and Gargaroi too. I have reported Gargaroi in the edit warring notice board too: [19].Filiprino (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
User Manlorsen today has removed content from article Miriam Tey de Salvador and replaced links to the english Wikipedia in other paragraphs with links to Spanish Wikipedia and added as source a link to the webpage of that organisation, diff: [20]. I consider that he tried to do spam. Moreover, he has continued to try to push his WP:POV in Societat Civil Catalana. The page is now protected and without his edits, however, I think he has violated WP:NOFORUM in the talk page (Talk:Societat Civil Catalana), diffs: [21], [22], [23], [24]. This user seems to be doing great efforts to push WP:POV regarding Societat Civil Catalana and its members. He himself said he belongs to that organisation, as per this diff: [25], I quote: "(As representant of SCC the entry was changed according to the orignial entry in Spanish. Both entries have now a similar structure and the weight is put on the objectives of the organisation and less on controversial points that are not demostrated. This controversal points are still on the entry but in a much reduced form because there are still controversal and are not proofed.)". I think he accidentally revealed his IP. In the talk page of Societat Civil Catalana we can see this diff [26], IP [[27]] starts editing the section "Mayor Edits" and then Manlorsen continues within 4 minutes. It is an static IP from Switzerland, not from Spain at all. VPN? Block evasion? Sockpuppet? If someone is watching this page (the Noticeboard), could please take a look? Other editors have also pointed out in their respective revert summaries of Societat Civil Catalana things like WP:SPA, WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Filiprino (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm now looking into it, both in English and Spanish Wikipedias. Although it looks like an admin might be required too. --MarioGom (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

--Manlorsen (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC) @Filiprino you refer to the articles Miriam Tey de Salvador and Societat Civil Catalana. On the talk page of the article Miriam Tey de Salvador you can find an explanation of the changes totally compliant to the policy of wikipedia. There are some Spanish links to wikipedia because for the same entry there was no English version.

From which IP address I write and in which country I live is totally irrelevent to this matter. There is no conflict of interest WP:COI because I am not working for SCC. However I wonder if Filiprino has a WP:COI as Filiprino has so onesided oppinions and is so ardently argying against SCC without presenting facts but just oppinions of third people.

I would like that we focus on the articles and not on things outside the article like IP, WP:COI, etc which is merely used to discredit the editor. I presented a list of changes in the talk of the Societat Civil Catalana and I would like that this will be considered for further discussions. --Manlorsen (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Removing contents from an article (Miriam Tey) or blanking whole sections (Societat Civil Catalana) is not a way to contribute to Wikipedia. Filiprino (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I proposed a couple of changes in the article [[28]] because the points are either non relevant or not well sourced. I think in wikipedia there is a policy of not writing facts that are not well contrasted Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. I am following this policy and in this sense it is better to delete information that is not well sourced.--Manlorsen (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

--Manlorsen (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC) I would like to point out here that Filiprino has had a lot of conflicts in his past publications. Interesting it is to see in his history and many editor wars that he represents a political position close to the catalan separatism what in my oppinion precludes him for an objective analysis about topics related to Catalonya. I would like to kindly ask to take into consideration the points indicated here Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view--Manlorsen (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

User likely paid by PR firms previously blocked for sockpuppetry

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

The user is involved in disclosed paid editing. However, disclosures are not compliant with the paid editing policy, since only the articles being edited are disclosed. Both clients and payers remain unknown. This is particularly troubling in this case, since two of the paid articles are likely linked to blocked sockpuppets, making this a form of paid proxying.

MarioGom (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that Renzoy16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is in a similar situation, also with a Go Fish Digital client Online Trading Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), although in that case the problem is just incomplete disclosure, not proxying since Go Fish Digital sockpuppets were not (known to be) blocked back then. --MarioGom (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Davykamanzi is a freelancer working through Upwork, so the crossovers are likely to be cases where they have been hired by the same client rather than proxying for a blocked editor. I've had a look at their disclosures, and it seems that they have been declaring their clients on each article they have worked on, so they appear to be compliant. - Bilby (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
My bad. I did not notice Davykamanzi disclosures on talk pages. --MarioGom (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

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

disclosed COI

Hello. On the talkpage of the article, and their userpage; the editor has declared their COI to ScaleFactor. Before realising their disclosure, I put the COI tag on the article. I havent removed it for now. Would somebody please take a look at the article and take appropriate action? Thanks a lot, — usernamekiran(talk) 22:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: the COI tag should probably stay, as the entirely of the article's content (with the exception of small changes by other editors) has been produced by a disclosed COI editor. Another editor could clean the article of any content they feel infringes upon WP:COI and then remove the tag, as maintenance templates are not intended to be left up indefinitely. I would do it myself, but my looking into the article in preparation to clean it instead convinced me to nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ScaleFactor.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@SamHolt6: thanks. Jimfbleak closed the AfD speedily. — usernamekiran(talk) 23:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

the geek group

User is violating COI... a check of ARIN shows the IP Address is assigned to the organization the article is about. Zlassiter (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

User Nicpal775 made edits as the request of the director of the organization... Zlassiter (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Jewish Broadcasting Service

This user appears to be a SPA with the sole purpose of editing this article. Judging by the name there is a clear COI. I left a message on their talk page last year [30] which went unanswered. I missed at the time of that warning that they received one 7 years ago as well [31]. They continue to edit the page without declaring their conflict. These edits include removing the advertisement tag from the article [32] without explanation. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

7 years of not answering any warning on the user talk page and now edit warring by removing maintenance tags without explanation is enough. I would say block would be justified. --MarioGom (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
And the last action was done after I told them that WP:Communication is required. Seems to me they have no intention or willingness to do so. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

COI policy question

I've got a question regarding the extent of my paid COI. Specifically, I have a COI on David M. Cote, with all the appropriate disclosures. A suggestion I received was to create a separate article on the topic of the Fix the Debt campaign (this is a draft link, as the current link is a redirect to Peter George Peterson). Coverage of the topic on Wikipedia is lacking, so I voluntarily created a draft and submitted it via AfC. The article mentions David Cote, with whom I have a COI. Knowing there are other types of COI not exclusive to paid COI, where does my scenario fit? I reviewed WP:COI and I'm still unclear on the matter. I want to err on the side of caution, how does COI apply to Wikipedia articles voluntarily created by a COI editor on which the new article mentions the paid subject in that proposed article?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think your COI should be extended to anything David M. Colt would have a COI himself. At least that would be the safe side. Anyway, I'm fairly new to COI conflicts on English Wikipedia, so I'd like to get the opinion of more experienced users here. --MarioGom (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the response MarioGom. Does anyone else have any insight here?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
What I have observed in similar cases is that those with a conflict of interest are encouraged to go through the Articles for creation process, which will involve someone reviewing and approving the article for movement into the mainspace before publication. On the talk page of the draft, a {{Connected contributor}} is usually added to clarify the connection. After the article is published, the conflicted editor follows the standard practice of submitting edit requests for edits that are not uncontroversial and well-sourced corrections.
Thus far, it seems you have been following this procedure just fine. Given how connected Cote is to the Fix the Debt campaign (according to your own draft), it may be best to consider yourself to have a conflict of interest with the subject, as well, and thus add {{Connected contributor}} to the draft talk page. Feel free to use the following code:
{{Connected contributor|User1=FacultiesIntact|U1-EH=yes|U1-declared=yes|U1-otherlinks=Declared [[Special:Diff/643719299|here]].|U1-banned=no}}
Someone else can add |checked=~~~~~ later, after checking your contributions. I am also new to the matter of COI, though I think it is reasonable to consider anyone whose client is Cote to have a conflict of interest with something as connected to him as this campaign. Personally, if I were in your circumstances, I rather stay on the safe side, especially given how hostile large parts of the Wikipedia community are to paid editing. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 17:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I will also note, FacultiesIntact, that if your contract can be reasonably construed to include being paid to create an article like this, then {{Connected contributor (paid)}} is the correct template. What is unclear to me is, if you created this draft outside the terms of your paid editing on Cote's behalf entirely out of your interest and familiarity with the matter, whether it qualifies as simply a (financial) conflict of interest or if it is still a paid editing one. This is where it may be better to get input from someone more experienced in these matters. If you want to be especially cautious here, then the following code would probably be better:
{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=FacultiesIntact|U1-employer=Honeywell|U1-client=[[David M. Cote]]|U1-EH=yes|U1-otherlinks=Declared [[Special:Diff/643719299|here]].|U1-banned=no}}
As for which is most appropriate here, I have my own opinion, but it is best for someone more experienced in COI matters to address that. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 17:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Three Six Zero

COI accounts
UPE sockpuppets

Three Six Zero has been editing its own article, the article about its CEO (Mark Gillespie) and its artists. This editing has been done from users that look corporate and from sockpuppets by Go Fish Digital and possibly other PR firms (at different periods). These sockpuppets also edited Roc Nation artists (likely because Three Six Zero has some partnership with them? see [33]).

I don't think there's too much to do here right now, other than possibly blocking the users that are still standing. But I would suggest others to start watching these articles, since COI and UPE is likely to continue. --MarioGom (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent related block: StolenTags (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). This seems an ongoing UPE operation on a fairly large scale. --MarioGom (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ranadeep Bhattacharyya


The suspected user is only here to promote a couple of filmmakers and their work. He first created Judhajit Bagchi and Ranadeep Bhattacharyya founders of Passion film and both articles are very similar to each other (see here) and then Sandeep Singh Bedi CEO of Passion film. I applied some maintenance tags on Ranadeep Bhattacharyya and left COI notice on Aritrasanyal's talk page but instead of replying to my message he removed the maintenance tags from the article. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Draftified as in direct contravention of our Paid-editing-guidelines. WBGconverse 09:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion on my talk page with user Aritrasanyal regarding certain things such as how he knows the date of birth of all three subjects or how he knew when and where this image was taken which he downloaded from Bhattacharyya's WhatsApp profile but he failed to provide any evidence and each time I ask something he only reply that "I saw this on their Facebook but now they have removed it" which is a good excuse in my view. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Head impact telemetry system

This is a real mess, needs some cleanup. In its current state, article looks like an ad for an American company called Simbex but there was also some good research introduced at the same time as all this, so a simple rollback isn't the best solution. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I realized that File:Head_Impact_Telemetry_System.jpg adorning the article was probably from the manufacturer -- a high resolution image not apparently available on the public Internet uploaded by User:Downfromthedoor, the same user who the the expansion in the diff above. Lower-resolution versions of the image appear in press pieces from the 2000s probably derived from company-supplied materials, e.g. [34]Bri (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for finding this. Horrible. A huge COPYVIO was introduced by Downfromthedoor which I have asked to have revdelled; when that is done I will merge and redirect to Football helmet or something. Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The comments above are nonsensical. The original version of the page was factually incorrect and incomplete. All of the content that has been recently added is 1) descriptive and factually correct, 2) a distillation of peer reviewed research that was achieved through federal funding, and 3) in no way promotes or markets a product. The image was uploaded with careful consideration of wikipedia copyright rules. I uploaded it and have copyright. This image, since it's creation in 2003 has been freely provided to multiple sources, inclusive of: media, journal publications, book chapters, and been publicly available on multiple websites. As an aside, I also find your critiques (e.g. "real mess", "horrible", "looks like an ad for Simbex") of this attempt to provide relevant and accurate information insulting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Downfromthedoor (talkcontribs) 04:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Downfromthedoor. Thanks for posting here. Please state your relationship with any of the players here (Simbex, Riddell, Virginia Tech, Dartmouth, etc). Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Jytdog No problem. I'm a co-developer of the technology, have closely collaborated in the basic research of head injury in sports / military with the institutions you mentioned, am a co-author for many of the publications referenced, and have been involved in nearly all aspects of the history described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Downfromthedoor (talkcontribs) 05:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. OK, so you definitely have a conflict of interest here. Let's move this over to your talk page - there is a bunch of orientation to walk through about a) how we manage conflict of interest in Wikipedia; b) how we write about health in Wikipedia. It will take some time; I hope you will be patient. In the meantime; please have a read of WP:EXPERT. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed covert advertising. Indeffed. MER-C 20:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

María Asunción Aramburuzabala

New editor repeatedly adds uncited promotional content to the article. From the latest editing, phrases include "considered one of the most influential women in Mexico", "most prestigious", "high sense of social responsibility", "highest professional and ethical standards", etc. I have left a "Managing a conflict of interest" COI templated message two days ago, to no avail. Edwardx (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed covert advertiser. Indeffed. MER-C 10:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj and St. Xavier's Higher Secondary School, Thoothukudi

I've opened a discussion about the {{COI}} tag at Talk:St. Xavier's Higher Secondary School, Thoothukudi#COI tag. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Potential COIs from old accounts

I have just came across two potentially undisclosed conflicts of interest, and one apparent disclosure, from old accounts. One of them, Carlmacki, is still sporadically active but last edited in March 2017. The other two, Thefloydiandevice (last edited in November 2011) and Johnny paris (last edited in January 2013), have not edited in nearly a decade. According to the latter's last edit, which was on their user page, they claimed to be a writer for the magazine. This may have been in response to JDDJS's January 2011 COI warning, but that edit was made over a year and a half earlier than the user's first edit in July 2012 (to the Punk Globe article).

All three accounts have edited the Punk Globe article, though Thefloydiandevice and Johnny paris only edited the article thrice and once respectively. Carlmacki, in particular, has overwhelming majority authorship at both Punk Globe and White Trash Debutantes, and created both articles in January 2008 and February 2008 respectively. More information can be seen at the XTools article information pages of Punk Globe and White Trash Debutantes. If you check the latter's user page and talk page, old 2008–09 versions (drafts? backups?) of the two articles can still be found. On a related note, it may be prudent for someone—preferably an administrator—to remove that from those pages, given their BLP concerns.

I have already added {{COI}}s to both the Punk Globe article and White Trash Debutantes article along with {{Connected contributor}}s here and here respectively, noting Johnny paris's apparent COI disclosure with this edit. I understand that this case may be stale, but I am bringing it here anyway in case anything should be done about it beyond what I already have. If nothing else, it may attract more attention to the articles. To avoid outing, I will refrain from linking to any off-wiki evidence for these potential conflicts of interest. I trust you all to find it on your own.

Is this a case of conflicts of interest? If so, should any further action be taken? Thank you for your time and apologies in advance if stale cases like this are inappropriate to bring here. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 01:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  • If years have gone by, you will want to look at the articles to see if they bear the mark of promotional editing. No point in bothering with years-old accounts though. (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

New America and related entities

I have reviewed New America (organization) and related articles and there seems to be persistent COI activity. I am splitting it per-user since it does not seem to be just one person, but multiple COI/UPE accounts that could belong to different people. I suggest to look at histories of these articles, since there are other users that look like sockpuppets. I didn't include them here at the moment since evidence is pretty weak.

Clarahogan (obvious COI)
Saschameinrath (obvious COI)
TylerRoss94 (obvious COI [35])
Dc510 (suspicous SPA)

--MarioGom (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Sascha Meinrath is related to this organization too. This article was created by another editor with COI (Josherman9) and later edited by Dc510. --MarioGom (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
TechPresident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Created by Josherman9, who has COI here too. --MarioGom (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I've tagged a few of them for merge/deletes. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


Samsparky has been a disruptive WP:SPA on Al-Ahbash, disruptively editing, repeatedly placing unwarranted POV tags, failing to accept the result of his own RFC, filing a report on WP:DRN even though the RfC had resolved matters [38], and so forth. He has had numerous talkpage warnings about his edits: [39]. Today he mentioned his COI: [40]. I've placed a connected contributor template on the article's talk page, but I think he needs to be warned, handled, and observed by COIN editors. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: Al-Ahbash is a religious moment with millions of followers worldwide. Merely being a follower of a religion isn't problematic enough to warrant COI suspicion. If the problem is edit warring, it should be addressed as such. --Soman (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment:Samsparky wants to use Wikipedia to "publicize" (as per its own admission) the Al-Ahbash. Following are some more important facts about Samsparky:
  • All of Samsparky's edits are single-purpose, fixated on Al-Ahbash only
  • Samsparky edits Wikipedia using Mobile edit, Mobile web edit(s), exclusively, a well-known method used by the socks
  • Samsparky's account was reactivated after the hiatus of almost 9 or 10 years as soon as KevinAbdulqader and AbeEll got banned due to sock-puppetry. Samsparky took / picked up exactly from the very same point and using almost the same arguments, verbage, links and more where KevinAbdulqader and AbeEll banned from. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: Does Al-Ahbash really have "millions of followers worldwide", as Soman stated above? Can someone verify that with a citation/source or something? Softlavender (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Given the Al-Ahbash originated from Lebanon, naturally, they have a significant following there as per this source, dated December 2007. However, I am afraid it is very difficult to quantify the followers of Al-Ahbash world over for the mere reason that they try to hide behind the Sunni Muslims which are in billions, despite the fact they don't agree with them, so much so, that the Al-Ahbash don't even pray in the same direction of Mecca in North America and elsewhere as par to mainstream Sunni Muslims. It is important to note that the Al-Ahbash's beliefs are very much an amalgamation of Shia, Sunni and Sufi beliefs hence several Fatwa(s) (a ruling on a point of Islamic law given by a recognized authority.) against them by the Sunni Scholars. Obviously, the Al-Ahbash don't agree with those Fatwa(s) nor the recognized authorities (i.e. Scholars, Institutions) behind them, thus, the Al-Ahbash have set-up their own Fatwa Centers, for example Dar-ul-Fatawa in Australia. I hope it helps. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)I
  • 'Question - On the one hand, I agree that the subject's use of DRN to try to re-litigate a Request for Comments (on the grounds that the arguments given were "strawman arguments". However, we need to ask a question, since this is the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. Does the subject really have a conflict of interest in the usual sense (employment, paid editing, other usual COI), or are they just a fanatic? Have they been explicitly asked about COI? If they are just a fanatic, then the issue is not COI but disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Osvaldo valdes 165443

This is clearly a COI editor and probably a UPE (given what he wrote on Drmies talkpage: "Eva Buchmuller and Klara Palotai of Squat Theatre are aware of this page and of the External Links, they approved them!"). All of these articles are massively promotional, have masses of bolding, and masses of ELs. They all need major cleanup. Softlavender (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Racial insults not COI

Softlavender, please list all the pages I have worked on, you have omitted several. Wikipedia states: "Conflict of interest is one of Wikipedia's least understood and yet most cited behavioral guidelines." It further states: "Conflicted editors can be an extremely valuable and largely untapped resource as they are often the most equipped and motivated to report on a given subject." ( Keeping in mind that COI are the "least understood and yet most cited behavioral guidelines," I ask Softlavender what your credentials are in dealing with COI issues that elevates your common opinion to that of expert? Please show how "All of these articles are massively promotional" Saying it is COI does not make it so...

Every page shows my Spanish name Osvaldo valdes 165443. The issue are the insults by Drmies;; I was personally attacked in contravention of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy and Federal law. ovA_165443 12:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osvaldo valdes 165443 (talkcontribs)

Osvaldo valdes warned that any more spurious attacks of this kind will result in sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't you have to follow Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy? ovA_165443 12:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osvaldo valdes 165443 (talkcontribs)

Yes, if an editor is making a personal attack. But the editor did not make a personal attack against you. He followed the rules exactly, by reporting an editor who seems to be using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. scope_creep (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I've left a personnel disclosure message. scope_creep (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Your English is not good enough to ask and answer questions.." This is not directed at me? Do you have problems understanding what I write in English? ovA_165443 14:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osvaldo valdes 165443 (talkcontribs)
I think the point is that you appear to be demonstrating some resistance to the suggestion that you have a COI, when all of the evidence (both on-Wiki and off-Wiki) would clearly indicate that you do. Attempting to deflect the argument by spurious accusations against other editors will not help your case. I strongly suggest that you withdraw your ridiculous claims against Drmies and address the issue at hand. Shritwod (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For those trying to follow along, Drmies statement was made in a now-hatted conversation at User_talk:Drmies#Squat_Theatre_External_Links_Erased, where Osvaldo had just said that he did not understand a question, and where he did not seem to be understanding Drmies response to his somewhat odd inquiry "How do you fit in????" Communication problems were happening. And in any case, this is the Conflicts of Interest noticeboard, not the place to address the question of personal attacks, so I recommend Osvaldo address here the concern that he may have conflicts of interest with regard to the listed articles. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It has nothing to do with race and everything with competency. The editor asked me that same question three times and I still don't know what he meant, so I just took it as "how does a person like you fit in a community" or so. It gets tedious after a while. Note also that the user kept saying "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link", as if they wanted me to answer to that--when of course they wanted to include the link and didn't provide a justification. Twice. So I hatted it because I got tired of it. And now I am again tired of it; yes I have problems understanding what this user writes in English. The simplest thing--they seem to be here creating Wikipedia articles with a conflict of interest, and they still can't manage to sign their messages, not even here. And now they're throwing policy in Softlavender's face. Good luck y'all. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Shit, "federal law"? Drmies (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Gotta be careful. You don't want to run afoul of the USDA. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • He should be afraid of USDA-APHIS, have you seen the size of the ostrich on his user page? Pretty sure those birds run a-fowl of a number of import regulations.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


The articles in question have been relieved of their bolding, their excess ELs, and their massive images. That takes care of a large portion of the cleanup. But it does not solve the COI, so I think this editor needs watching. Softlavender (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


VeryFineChemicals (talk · contribs)
Account solely dedicated to Together for Sustainability and related articles. Username plus editing behaviour strongly suggests an undeclared conflict of interest. (Has now declared on userpage TeraTIX 13:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)) TeraTIX 13:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I created this account because I think that TfS, with its connection to the sustainability efforts of so many big companies, is worthy of one. Yes, I'm affiliated to it in a professional way. and I didn't know the rules about it :/ I'll try to make a more neutral article, and invite all of you to help me point out the most problematic sections. VFCTIX

@VeryFineChemicals: Could you please describe the exact nature of your affiliation? Are you employed by the organization, or do you belong to one of their member organizations, or is it something else? Thank you --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@VeryFineChemicals: In regards to the article itself, the best thing you could do from here would be to find independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the topic, not just passing mentions. Post these on the talk page and use Template:Request edit to alert other editors. This would help the article meet the notability guideline for companies. TeraTIX 23:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


LewishamLabour (talk · contribs)
Username may imply shared use. Only article edited so far is Damien Egan, a Labour politician for Lewisham. Username plus editing behaviour strongly suggests an undeclared conflict of interest. TeraTIX 13:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Having reviewed their edits and username, blocked for promotional editing and username violation. Yunshui  15:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Precision Group, again

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_98#Precision_Group.


This user has been going back over the Precision suite of articles and doing some light touches and removing COI tags and the like. Appears to be proxying for a banned editor or renewed undisclosed paid editing. I asked them to explain, and received a dodge. Asked again, received another dodge.

The Precision Group pages have been infested with UPE and socking, and 1990sguy has offered no credible explanation for their light cosmetic touches then de-tagging on this set of articles. I don't know why people imagine that other people would find this kind of tight pattern unremarkable. It is obvious. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Of interest may be Special:Diff/853958200 but that was disclosed and appears unrelated to the above. —PaleoNeonate – 18:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I removed it because I finished interning for PMML. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
That's ridiculous -- I fully explained why I made those changes, and I did not "dodge" Jytdog's incomprehensible comments on "going behind" someone's edits. As I explained on my talk page, the pages I edited were stable (virtually untouched) since early 2016, and this lack of editing came after Jytdog and several other editors closely examined the articles and removed the banned user's promotional garbage. If those articles have been untouched for two-and-a-half years, and if Jytdog and the multiple other editors had no problem with the content of those articles during that time, I think (or, thought) we can safely say that a consensus exists for that version and that a COI tag at the top of the article is unnecessary (after all, after over two years, it doesn't seem to be a problem anymore). Keep in mind that I never challenged, and never intended to challenge, the COI tags on the talk page (and I fully support keeping them). But, it's undue to leave the tags at the top of the mainspace pages, and they should be removed from the other articles as well.
As for the "light touches", that's exactly what they were -- updating and improving the articles, like I've done with every other article I've edited. Nothing more to add.
Keep in mind, this isn't the first time Jytdog has (falsely) accused me of COI editing/POV-pushing. He's done so before on completely unrelated articles -- the accusations are false, and he needs to WP:AGF. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
We will, I imagine, be dealing with the Christian-oriented stuff in a different forum.
This thread, is very much about this set of pages; your additional effort to distract from the very obvious pattern here, is harmful to you. And you still have not actually addressed this focus on Precision-related articles, that McCosker also worked on. Steadfastly dodging that, you are. I won't respond further here, as other folks at COIN will be responding in good time here. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Repeatedly accusing me of "dodging" and "distracting" is unhelpful, because I'm not doing those things, and your behavior is treading close to WP:HARASSment, similar to our past interactions. I edited those articles in addition to probably a dozen other pages within the last week. Also, I wouldn't have edited the other three articles if I didn't originally come accross the Precision Group article in the first place, and before your intervention, I was planning on removing the tags from the other related articles linked to the Precision Group page (for the same reasons explained above and my talk page). Not everything is as sinister as you apparently believe. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes it was clear that you were targeting the Precision pages; thanks for making that explicit and for saying you intended to address all of them. You have not explained why.Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Another WP:ICANTHEARYOU statement on your part, and total lack of AGF. I did not inappropriately "target" those pages, and I intended (and still intend) to fix the real problem of unnecessary years-old scare tags on those pages, just as I fixed the real (though less glaring) issues on the several other pages this week -- there's no difference between my edits on the pages you're mentioning here and any of the others I've edited (Matteo Salvini, Ryan Patrick, Lajos Simicska, etc.). If the unnecessary years-old scare tags did not exist on the pages (that you and others edited in depth in early 2016 to rid of promotional info) all linked to the Precision Group article, I wouldn't have edited them. To interpret that as somehow being proof of COI editing is ridiculous and shows a lack of AGF on your part. Statements like this are wrong. And whatever happened to your statement to not "respond further here"? --1990'sguy (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@1990'sguy: Tags can stay for years if needed. They do not expire. So either the problem still exist or not, but it does not matter if these tags have been there for a long time. --MarioGom (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@MarioGom: The issue is, I don't think the problem exists anymore. Several editors, including Jytdog, got involved in the articles in question in early 2016 and removed the promotional edits of the socking user, who is now banned. After the heavy (and good, I'm sure) intervention by Jytdog and the other editors, the articles literally received no edits for two-and-a-half years. COI isn't an issue anymore, since the sock hasn't come back in that time (and no, I'm not one of them), and the promotional edits have presumably been removed (any examples of how I'm wrong?). The tags are unnecessary, and if I'm wrong, why (Jytdog) not explain to me first rather than drag me here and make all sorts of false accusations? --1990'sguy (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I responded because you provided valuable information that you intended to work through the whole suite. That was worth acknowledging. One wonders, how did you even know, that there was a whole suite of tagged articles. Hm.
I also briefly stated, as I will again, that you have given no reason for your focus on these articles. This is not like any topic you normally edit. It sticks out like a sore thumb in your contribs. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
If I see a blatant problem on an article (like the scare tags), I will fix it if I can, and I don't require an article to be of a topic I'm passionate about in order to improve it (duh!). Besides, I've edited over 3,300 articles as of today (many of them are "not like any topic [I] normally edit"), and a few days ago, I made a couple of Star Wars-related edits (not a topic I normally edit). Stop searching for crimes, especially if I didn't commit them. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I think this is going nowhere. It is unusual the amount of overlap in articles for James mccosker and 1990'sguy. They are the only users that ever edited these 4 articles other than AnomieBOT and Jytdog, who obviously are not socks/meatpuppets or have COI here. That being said, we are not talking about a single-purpose account. I do not see any strong evidence of sockpuppetry either (see editor interactions). Could be meatpuppetry, could be COI or could be nothing. I think it would be preferable to let this go and continue watching the articles. --MarioGom (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • quick note - I misidentified which socking paid editor I thought 1990'sguy might be following -- I meant JonathanBentz. Again, my apologies. So many lying, socking paid editors on the Precision Group stuff. 1990'sguy, does that change your answer at all? Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
No, my answer is the same. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
And to elaborate, once again, I have no connection with him -- I never communicated or canvassed with him. He edited many articles, based on his history, and I edited thousands, and we only edited two of the same pages. If your goal is to make me tired, you're succeeding, because I'm sick of defending myself against these accusations that I'm some sock or meatpuppet. They're false, and if you don't believe me, file an SPI. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


I don't think you are socking. There is no point to an SPI. Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think these accusations are accurate. See Talk:Is_Genesis_History?, for example. 1990'sguy is a long time editor here and to accuse 1990'sguy of paid editing based on speculation  is inaccurate and would require solid evidence. Rzvas (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I am not accusing. I am asking a question and not getting a clear answer. Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

the Context

So, there are lots of small groups of people who are interested in similar things. That is no big deal, per se. One such group is people who identify as Christian and are somewhat ... muscular in their editing about that. You can see these folks showing up together, for example at ANI or other drama boards. See for example

Are you getting the pattern? This is a sort of clique, making similar arguments against community consensus. That is a thing, but that is not my focus here. (this is not the board for that)

But things got weird with respect to this group activity, on two related AfDs

Both resulted in deletion as PROMO/spammy. Here are the !keepers that overlap with the above.

That is kind of weird, right? There is nothing particularly Christian about this person or the company. But there are at least two paid editors in the "clique" (Jonathan Bentz very specifically self-identified as "a follower of the Son" on their userpage...) and Renzoy16 per their !votes above.

I just went hm. And let it go at that.

Then this Precision Group thing. Do see the sordid history of undisclosed COI/paid editing on this suite of pages. Of the group above, here are the folks who have edited about this Australian real estate company.

So the recent spate of editing on the cesspool that is the Precision Group is just.. weird. I have reviewed 1990'sguy's edits, and they have no interest in Australian real estate that I could see (I perhaps missed something).

So - how to explain 1990'sguy's behavior here? It is weird. I was ready to hear some reasonable answer. The dodging and attacking only sharpens the question. Jytdog (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC) (add detail, shown w redaction Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC))

Thanks for laying out the context. It begins to make sense now.
Basically, you got 99% of the way there. A small group of editors formed a loose association (I hesitate to call it a "clique") based on their religious views. As often happens, their group identity led them to support one another on other matters, things not obviously related to religion. Most likely they checked out one another's contribs and helped each other on articles, ANI cases, and so on. If some members turned out to have COIs, well, the important thing is to protect the group. Not too different from what goes on in real life. See for example Identity politics.
That's how I see it, anyway. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment here, User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. Yep. Whether it is this sort of loose common interest/contrib-checking or off-WP networking, I don't know and the general matter is not relevant here.
What is relevant here, is when that behavior leads people into pages that have been abused for promotion. GANG, MEAT, or UPE are all not OK when it comes to cosmetically cleaning up pages infested with UPE or trying to retain promotional dreck in WP. It takes a lot more work that adding some more press-release-driven fluff and then stripping the tag. And as I noted in the diff prior to this one, 1990sguy actually replicated what JonathanBentz did on one of the pages. So -- what's going on? Am looking for disclosure. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
More ridiculous accusations from Jytdog (these are getting more and more crazy -- what's next?). I'm flattered that you're painting me as the ringleader of some big conspiracy, but unfortunately, I'm not and your claims are false. And, yes, I gave a completely reasonable answer to your previous accusations. Also, accusing all these editors above of being a cabal without actually pinging them (you used the "noping" code) so they can defend themselves against your absurd claims is suspect. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Given the context (and further checking interactions [41] [42]) I don't think accusations are ridiculous at all. There is obviously some close collaboration going on beyond the shared interest of some of these users. When there are critical issues, they help each other in surprising close time frames. While it would be possible to reach this scenario the way Shock Brigade Harvester Boris described, there seems to be enough synchronization to believe these happen with some sort of off-wiki canvassing. --MarioGom (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree, it's looking pretty quacky to me now but may still just be some like minded individuals who follow each other around to protect their shared interests in very much the same way that the GLAM community or heavy metal fans pile on if anyone dares suggest that someone from their sphere might not be notable. That said some of the above mentioned articles look very weak such as the 160 Ann Street, Brisbane that seems not to meet WP:GEOFEAT. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Interesting that none of the accused editors have actually been pinged/notified of these accusations.
The links above ([43] [44]) don't show "enough synchronization to believe these happen with some sort of off-wiki canvassing," and the "surprising close time frames" are not surprising if you examine it closely. Keep in mind that I've edited thousands of different articles and participated in numerous AfDs, RfCs, etc., and so have the other accused editors. We have commented on the same discussions only a fraction of the time (including the Christianity/conservatism-related ones). The fact that the accused editors including myself have participated in the same discussions every now and then (and the fact that many of them are time-sensitive by definition means that the "close time frames" are not surprising, especially if there's a "dominent" editor who is commenting from start to end).
I should also note that Jytdog is being very selective in presenting his "evidence." For example, he didn't mention that there are also AfDs where some of the accused editors argue with one another (e.g. [45]) or outright oppose one another (e.g. [46]). Just because some users have an interest in Christianity (the dominant religion in the Americas and Europe) does not mean that there is a cabal. This is ridiculous and insulting, and I'm not surprised that Jytdog was topic banned from the COI noticeboard earlier. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
You continue to distract and throw up chaff. The thread is about your recent focus on the UPE-infested Precision Group; not about other people. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Then why did you bring up the other people? I pointed out that two of the other editors (Knox490 and Desmay) who are clearly Christians who have edited corporate articles, and on the AfDs of topics having nothing to do with their general topic interest, have taken different positions. And no, my answer remains the same. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I have made no claims that anybody is a "ringleader", and this thread is about your editing of the Precision Group pages. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I have been crystal clear as to why I edited those pages -- the COI tags are unnecessary, considering it's been two-and-a-half years since the PROM editing and since you and other editors examined the pages very closely during that time. After you went through all those articles, you were apparently content and left them alone. If the articles don't have anymore problems, the tags are not needed. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
That is a) not explaining why you came to the page in the first place or b) why you intend to clean up this entire suite of articles, as you noted above. I intended (and still intend) to fix the real problem of unnecessary years-old scare tags on those pages (emphasis added) Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
See below for why, exactly, I found the page. As for why I said "I intended (and still intend) to fix the real problem of unnecessary years-old scare tags" (and keep in mind that I'm very open about it), I clearly explained it on my talk page and here. The tags are unnecessary, considering they're almost three years old, and since the article was very stable after a lot of examination by you. The problem of COI is over, and once again, I am not a COI editor. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the update ([47]). That's definitely too much quacking by now. This is clearly not about casually removing outdated COI tags. Trying to do the same clarifications about Ross Makris as other COI editors and which the company is trying hard to rectify (see the corporate press release reference in the diff) is beyond any justification given here. The edit might be correct, but we cannot ignore that the user is trying to convince us that his edits here were something like a drive-by, and they are not. I am quite sure there is undisclosed COI here, if not block evasion. Sorry, but by now, I think there is just too much evidence here to continue assuming good faith. --MarioGom (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your note and am glad you are seeing why I am calling shenanigans. Am looking for disclosure of the relationships that are driving this behavior - as I said at their talk page, it looks like MEAT or UPE. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't be fooled by what Jytdog says without looking at the whole picture. Look at this edit by User:CerealKillerYum, a non-COI editor who laid forth the basis of excising the false statements.[48] He made good points -- all the JonathanBentz guy did was provide the company's link, which meets WP:PRIMARY. The reason I removed Makris (though keep in mind that I still left him in the article and did not remove any references) was because I saw that the information Jytdog kept restoring was factually inaccurate -- and as the same editor who had made several ridiculous errors/POV edits on the IGH article where I encountered him before, I was extra suspicious. If anyone here has a COI, it is Jytdog attempting to restore inaccurate information for Makris.
The reason why I found the Precision Group article is like how I found most of the 3,350 articles I've edited -- surfing WP, looking at other users' contributions, reading things that I'm interested in. Bonett's a member of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta ([49], see refs 17, 18, and 19), a Christian organization which I read about recently (and I personally know some other people in that order with connections), and I was interested. No other reason, and this is just ridiculous that I even have to go into such detail.
If you think I'm a sock, or evading a block, go start an SPI (seriously). All the other allegations are also BS. Jytdog claims that my answers are "dodging" and the like, but he clearly won't accept any answer other than "oh, I'm guilty as charged" (and I'm being accused of a lot of different crimes by now), which won't happen, since I am not guilty of any of this. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
We are not arguing content here; that objection was addressed by discussing what independent sources say, on the talk page. That is, however, a very typical conflicted editor's argument - that we should use a company's own documents to support changing the article to reflect a company's preferred presentation of its history. Why you would choose to take the company line, as did CerealKiller and JonathanBentz, is ...weird. With regard to the rather weak nod toward a "reason"; a) you've never edited the Sovereign Military Order of Malta page so it is hard to see how that could have led you there, b) it doesn't explain why would even be aware of "those pages" related to Precision, must less why you intended (and still intend) to fix the real problem of unnecessary years-old scare tags on those pages.
And as I already noted above; I have never asked if you were a sockpuppet per se nor thought you were. That is continued distraction and chaff-throwing.
It ~looks like~ MEAT or your own UPE or following what SBHB said, some kind of GANGish activity.
I'll be looking for more independent input from the regulars here, and will consider what kind of community action to recommend, once others weigh in. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
More dishonesty from Jytdog.[50] I'm beginning to suspect that you wish to form a LYNCHMOB around me after our encounters at Is Genesis History?[51][52] and Answers in Genesis, where I opposed your unconstructive edits. You'll note that it isn't me who is touting the company line--my statement is supported by independent sources like The Australian, which says "The big risks, the background as a commercial lawyer and the confidence to go it alone at the age of 24 and start his property company, Precision Group, helped propel Bonett..." From looking at the edit history, you seem awfully invested in the Precision Group article, reverting anyone who tries to alter your version of the article. Do you care to explain what's going on? Do you deliberately edit the COI area on Wikipedia so you won't be suspected when you make paid edits for companies? I (a non-COI editor) am definitely getting the impression of that. Is it not allowed to co-opt good arguments made by other editors (irrespective of whether they have conflicts) on a talk page? That's what I'm doing.
About the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, I said that I'm interested in the topic (as I said, I personally know someone deeply involved in the organization who has connections--and no, I'm not going to tell you who), not the Wikipedia article (I linked it for convenience). BTW, there are several articles that I frequently read and am very interested in, but that I rarely or never edit (List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump, Kingdom of Hungary (1920–46), etc.). But this shouldn't be something that I have to tell you -- like virtually every other article I've visited, it's directly or indirectly because of interest. Whether or not I edit the article in question depends on whether they have problems that I can fix. Also, as I said above, the Precision Group article links to several articles related to it. Is it a crime to click the linked articles? That's what I did, and I was going to remove the tags on the other articles before you messaged me. But, the tags should be removed (you don't need a COI to think that), and thus, I still intend on removing them, just as I intend on reorganizing and adding additional citations to the Viktor Orbán article. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks for your reply. This board is not a place to resolve content disputes. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't look like CerealKillerYum is a paid editor but actually one who nominates for deletion and attempts to correct promotionalism in articles so to accuse 1990'sguy of making same edits like a paid user could be well inaccurate. Some editors are right with saying that some editors watch others contributions and find what they are doing. 1990'sguy is contributing for years and has 10,000 edits and this is pretty much the only intersection between these two editors. Because of 1990'sguy's interest in articles about Christian figures in the public sphere, it actually does make sense that he would edit articles related to Shaun Bonétt if he felt that the current revisions were damaging to that individual (whether that be true of not). Rzvas (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog and 1990'sguy have various religion related-disputes going on. The COI angle represents a additional front in that war. 1990'sguy is an established editor, not a likely COI suspect. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
COI has nothing to do with the length of time that someone has been on Wikipedia. Admittedly most COI editors are new but not all. I had a bit of a run in with an editor who had been adding stuff about a cabaret he was involved in and various friends and acquaintances for over 10 years on various projects and had nearly 20k edits to his name. Most of his edits were not COI but often linked to the universe of the cabaret. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


Repeatedly adding promotional material, removing previous references and adding up to 25 external links to their own website. In reply he says “I'm not in conflict of interest here since I work at Panduit. I've made minor edits to the site.” Theroadislong (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

i've opened a discussion at their talk page, and nominated the page for speedy. My goodness. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Panduit is a good product for concealing cable runs, but I cannot for the life of me see how something so banal would be encyclopedic. (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Tim Flach

Would someone like to take a look at Tim Flach, where an apparently connected editor has (twice) added a fairly large amount of more or less inappropriate material, over-writing some of the previous referenced content – the second time after I'd already left a COI note on his/her talk. The editor registered the account yesterday afternoon, but already knows all about edit-warring. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


This user's talk page and name is an advertisement. Their draft which they have submitted for AFC has promotional content. I suggest a block due to user name and page advertisement. I will address this to the Username report page as well. AmericanAir88 (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The editor has voluntary disclosed on the their page. scope_creep (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Dot Com Infoway

Added Dot Com Infoway to WP:PAIDLIST based on their own adverts. An editor, Chinanike101, has (re)created an article on their CEO and other things listed here.

Peach & Lily makes me think that there's an apparent connection to prior discussion regarding Jcpc63752Bri (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliance Industries

  • 2409:4000::/22
  • 2405:200::/29

These articles were subject of UPE by Rudra.shukla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) sockpuppets in the past. Now they are edited by IPv6 addresses from ranges assigned to the company. Trying to communicate with the user is pointless given the frequently changing IPv6 addresses, I would suggest to block both ranges completely. If they come back under a proper user account, we can try to get them to comply with COI policies. Although I'm skeptical about them complying, since they changed from UPE to covert COI. --MarioGom (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Sycamore Partners

This article has received significant contributions exclusively from these single-purpose accounts. Given that undisclosed paid editing is quite common in private equity firms, these are pretty strong candidates for undisclosed COI. --MarioGom (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Definitely didn't get paid to do it. Just a dude who couldn't sleep one night looking up companies based on my home state. - TK1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaKrupt1 (talkcontribs) 17:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)



Ubron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


About 5 years editing almost exclusively articles related to Poju Zabludowicz, his family, companies and properties. Repeated addition of copypasted material from their official websites. --MarioGom (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Knock Knock


--MarioGom (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that Sghartman (talk · contribs) is taking steps for compliant disclosure, both of COI/paid editing as well as possibly multiple accounts ([53]). --MarioGom (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


Although they working through AfC the content is entirely promotional. In addition the WP:APPARENTCOI is glaring here. I have asked this person to disclose any connection, and they have steadfastly said they have none. See discussion here.

This person is here to abuse WP for promotion, and should be indeffed. Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


All his articles seem to be paid works, including the above ones, besides Draft:Scott Aharoni. There also seems to be hints of collusion (socks?) with one article editors like RachelM21, Timd2114. It is also very likely from the way he has completed 2 articles that he is an experienced hand, and a probable reincarnation of some banned user. Jupitus Smart 18:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jupitus Smart: I am not involved with anyone and not receive payment for my edits. I edit, create page which I believe the subject is notable. Please guide me if I did anything wrong. Figwood (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The New School

It appears that for the last couple years, employees of The New School have been editing the school's article and articles related to the school on behalf of the school without disclosing their conflicts of interest, or only revealing them once questioned. There have also been some accounts seemingly created to be "official" New School accounts based on their names. Some of the edits have been benign, such as some vandalism reversion, but it also includes multiple removals of sourced information about a sexual harassment case against the school (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and some edits that are less-than-neutral. I originally came across this when I was reverting the unexplained removals in those previous 6 diffs, and I originally just thought the three users were socks of one person, but after a little poking around I figured out that they all seem to be different employees of The New School, except User:Batec and User:Batec.hris, who seem to be the same person. I think that because it's so widespread (the articles I linked are not the only ones edited) and because it's so many different editors affiliated with the school, it might merit some reaching out to the school itself and explaining our COI policy and how to request edits rather than them doing them themselves unless it's obvious vandalism, but I don't know if that's something we do. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 13:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Some more details:
Prestoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (obvious meat or sock, should be blocked, see editor interaction)
Lowfive22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (blocked after edit warring)
Batec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (see talk page: blocked as meatpuppet of Lowfive22, confirmed COI)
Batec.hris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (obvious sockpuppet, should be blocked)
MilanoManagement (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (blocked because of promotional username)
MCraftJohnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (employee of Milano School of Management, Policy, and Environment, notified and added connected contributors to the article)
Adamlevado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (whould need closer inspection, although it is not active since 2016...)
Reaching out the school would be good, if someone is willing to do on their own. Anyway, I added Template:Uw-coi to their talk pages, that should be enough for them to read the policies and decide if they want to comply or not. --MarioGom (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
These related articles are also edited with undisclosed COI:
--MarioGom (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm willing to draft up something to reach out to the school with if someone is willing to look it over and make the contact themselves. I'm not sure if I'm the right person to be doing the reaching out myself since I'm not an administrator (though I do have a long history with Wikipedia). cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 14:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Lionel (radio personality)

LionelY2K is pretty obviously the subject of the article. In the past two years, he's carried out 16% of the edits to the article. Looking over his contributions, this is clearly the only purpose of his account.

As I've already explained why he shouldn't do that, I'm going ahead and blocked him. However, as he's been at it for so long, it probably needs more eyes. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:10, 19 August 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)

Coal Press Nation

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Pptt226 looks a lot like Coal Press Nation, believed to be a media PR company in Nigeria. Here are a few articles probably within their payment window. Pending confirmation of accounts added to case 3 August, but I'll be surprised if it is negative given the content/behavior similarities. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll purge all of these if CU comes up positive (which I am fairly confident is the case). MER-C 08:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hathorra1515 and Ecokidd on Nick Gentry

Hathorra1515 has a long history of solely editing Nick Gentry and related articles, typically improperly marking edits as minor and not using summaries. I reverted one of their recent additions [54] as unsourced. It also seemed promotional (language such as 'unique', 'internationally renowned artists' etc.). I asked them on their talk page about their editing behaviours and whether they had any conflict of interest. Half an hour later, the account Ecokidd is created and immediately re-adds the same paragraph. TeraTIX 10:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA