Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) 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 meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. 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.
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. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. 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 COI guideline. 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, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 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 meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

• Sam Ayoub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kirsh80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe this user (Kirsh80) to be the individual this page is about (Sam Ayoub), or someone working for them. The page is about a rugby league manager. Every edit made by this user has been to update pages to include hyperlinks to the individuals personal linkedin page and the individuals personal business website. This is clearly promotional. The users most recent edit is predominantly self promotional of Sam Ayoub, and describes the individuals personal business and its practices, while also linking to the personal website again. It provided no citation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:c84a:a401:d479:cd17:7dfc:a4bc (talk • contribs) 15:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• These are contribs from 2019. There's not much to do here, since they've made none since, but that's not to say a dormant account can't come back (as they did from March to Dec 2019). I'd agree that all their edits are related to promotion of Sam Ayoub, though a block at this stage might not be worth it. Worth keeping an eye out on the case, should the user come back. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ian Bremmer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  JaneEG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Ngedana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Shenning18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Eurasia Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  Shenning18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Brianharper89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  creidy91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This involves extensive, years-long, undisclosed paid editing by a corporation. Please see this page for full account of the problem as I have been able to figure out thus far. I am posting this here because I am unsure how to otherwise address what I believe is a systematic, undisclosed, years-long effort of paid editing by Eurasia Group. There are several other minor accounts and articles involved besides the ones listed above, see the linked page. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG and Snooganssnoogans:: Pinging you two since within the last year you've noticed and undone frivolous puffery, etc., on these and/or related pages. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more trimming on Eurasia (Having done that, a proper expansion might be possible--it is influential. Further revisions of the Bremmer article involves first reevaluating the articles on each of his individual books; I've started reducing them to size, and then most can probably be merged into his bio . He's notable enough that there should be an article, tho perhaps at his pt it should be rewritten from scratch. For me, it's always easier to rewrite.

What to do further: all editors should be blocked as violators of TOU/meatpuppets (2010 is before our current TOU, but meatpuppetry has always been blockable) and all relevant articles semi-protected. I don't want to do this myself--some other admin should , as I'm technically involved with the articles.

WhinyTheYounger, you've done a magnificent job. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding three more SPAs to the list: Beckdourny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jbrenner99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Hsieh@eurasiagroup.net (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (not sure how I didn't catch that last one earlier...) WhinyTheYounger (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, Snooganssnoogans, and WhinyTheYounger: Hello to all of you. I am one of the users you flagged on the Eurasia Group and Ian Bremmer pages. First, I wanted to apologize--I do work for Eurasia Group and wasn't aware of Wikipedia's policy that we needed to disclose such affiliations as a conflict of interest in a user profile or edit to a page. I don't mean to make an excuse for not knowing this; I simply say it because I want you to understand there wasn't any malicious intent or effort to hide my affiliation when making these updates. While I don't know all of the other editors you mentioned above, two of them are current colleagues, and we sincerely want to participate in Wikipedia while adhering to its policies. To that end, I tried to add a COI declaration to my user page. I believe I did this correctly but would appreciate any feedback if I didn't. I also understand that I should disclose this COI any time I proposean update to either the Eurasia Group or Ian Bremmer pages going forward. I appreciate the need to avoid promotional information that reads like advertisements but also want to be sure that these pages reflect up-to-date and complete information about our company and Ian Bremmer; I'm concerned they don't at the moment. Any recommendations you have on how to achieve this end while ensuring we're adhering to Wikipedia's policies would be greatly appreciated. Thank you all, and I'm sorry again. --Brianharper89 (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out and taking the time to fix things--I responded on your talk page with some links and an explanation of how paid editing ideally goes. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing is an enormous problem on Wikipedia. Good job on exposing these particular COI accounts. I very strongly suspect that a large share (if not the majority of) pages about companies and wealthy have been largely written by COI accounts. On the few occasions when I've checked pages for companies and wealthy individuals, I've been struck by how blatantly COI-ish they look. If someone wants a clan-up project, I'd recommend just going through the pages of "philanthropists" (99% of whom are millionaires and billionaires) and companies to clean up puffery. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would go so far to say every article with a philanthropy section should be checked for appropriate tone and sourcing. Often the philanthropy section can be deleted without any impact wrt reliably sourced material. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HPFanSF

UPE likely but I wasn't able to connect to an existent master.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are some hallmarks I see that make it 100% certain in my opinion. Should either move all to draft or G5. SmartSE (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They were all in draft space at some point - the two that have made it to mainspace did so courtesy of AFC. MER-C 17:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Binomial options pricing model (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Danielkda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Others listed at Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Algotheorist

A series of single purpose accounts have been rather insistently keeping a mention of Evangelos Georgiadis and a citation to a paper of this in the lead of this article (a few have branched out to related articles, such as Black–Scholes model This started right around the time the paper was first published. Danielkda is the latest in this line. Something seems off here, but I'm not sure how (or if) this should best be pursued. Some of these accounts are blocked as sockpuppets, but there was no SPI that I could find, and it seems like the gaps between accounts mean they don't interleave all that much anyway. More eyes would be appreciated. MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be reasonable for an admin to block User:Danielkda as a spam-only account. A search for the string 'Evangelos Georgiadis' only finds the article on Binomial options pricing model. While we're at it, semiprotection of that article might be considered. Adding more names to the sock category may also be worthwhile, as they come up. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would resonable for an admin to weigh in here that is a specialist in this field and considers adding new contributions of this field. Like the article by closed form solutions. Your accusations this account representing any puppet accounts is incorrect. Editors having no clue about this subject and insisting to remove latest contributions to this field should be banned from editing these sources. (Danielkda (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

• Newsmax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Newsmax Media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Newsmax TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Christopher Ruddy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Anarchristian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor above had not declared a previous COI with Newsmax as a freelancer hired by Mr. Ruddy updating facts and figures about its properties and founder/client, but I had reverted their edits several times going back to the end of 2019 because of some WP:PROMO toning and removal of out-of-date information still relevant to the article, unaware of their connection until I left a COI template inquiring about their bonafides. Anarchristian needs help about how to edit the mentioned articles within our bounds and in my eyes seems willing to learn, and as I'm unfamiliar with the COI process, I'm hoping someone sees this and can give them the proper guidance and apply the proper templates to the article talkpages to list them as a declared contributor. Thanks much in advance. Nate • (chatter) 21:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I, anarchristian, have thanked Mrschimpf for his efforts to get me "proper guidance," but I now appeal to you directly for help in (1) declaring my COI and (2) restoring the changes I had made earlier this year to articles on Newsmax, Newsmax Media, Newsmax TV, and Christopher Ruddy, when those changes are consistent with WP's policies. I want to know if a particular deletion must be restored or a particular quotation crosses the line from informational to promotional. I've reached out to you. Please reciprocate. Thanks.Anarchristian (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Anarchristian (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond telling us the deal (that you are a contractor hired by Newsmax to edit Wikipedia on their behalf), you should also use {{UserboxCOI}} on your userpage to list the articles you've been editing as well as {{Connected contributor}} on the talk page of each article. Now that you've announced your CoI, you may no longer edit those articles and you must restrict yourself to asking on each article's talk page for edits to be made. This restriction applies to all articles where you have a CoI. I would like to point out that it's foolish to seek pay while ineptly doing stuff on our private property (this website). You might try looking for other work. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Chris Troutman means is that you are strongly discouraged from editing the articles directly. While there is no direct prohibition on you editing the articles, we usually consider it best for neutrality if COI editors suggest their changes on the talk pages. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I can't update, I'm ruined. I'm desperate. Please help. must be a difficult position to be in. This will be a continuous problem for anyone who expects their livelihood to be dependent on real-time edits here. Chris' advice is sage. Bri.public (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for getting back to me. I'm sorry Chris Troutman responded so un-Wikipedianly, which moved Elizium23 to interpret CT for me. I wrongly, but innocently, thought that making changes on these sites was as uncomplicated as, say, correcting a date on someone's biography or adding to an article's "Further Reading" section, things I've done for years. There was no intention to violate the Wikipedia's Foundation's property rights. I assume that the Foundation wants editors to improve articles by updating them when needed. I understand that a suggested update may be deemed promotional, and I'll leave that to the gatekeepers. But sometimes it's honestly informational and comes from an authoritative source. I hope we can go forward in a spirit of cooperation on the talk pages. I've created a user page for Anarchristian.

I've inserted

This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Error: No article specified.

at the top of the empty field. Is that where it goes?

Below that, I listed four Newsmax-related articles for which I will suggest changes on their talk pages in the coming days. I DON'T expect "real-time" edits, but what would be a realistic expectation for a verdict on a given suggestion? (E.g., a few days? A week? A month?) And if a suggested change were to be approved, would I make the edit, or someone else? I'm sorry if my questions annoy you, but unlike me, you're "old hands" at the policy level. Again, thanks for giving me a chance to do things the right way. I look forward to hearing from you at your convenience.Anarchristian (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchristian, an edit that has consensus will be made by someone else. As to time, there is no SLA, but widely watched articles will get picked up more quickly. If you edit those articles directly, and your edits are reverted, then you will be on a fast track to a ban from those articles. Paid editing of articles is something about which the Wikipedia community is deeply ambivalent, and paid editing that promotes a subject can result in significant adverse publicity (as we saw with the congressional editing scandal). Your best bet, by far, is to propose edits on Talk in the form "change X to Y using Z source", ensuring always that your sources are both reliable and independent. Guy (help!) 15:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Guy, for clarifying that I won't be making any edits that have a consensus. I spent the day compiling suggested edits for the Ruddy and Newsmax TV articles; I'll check the references before listing the suggestions on their respective Talk pages. Thanks also for adjusting my expectations: I'm not sure what "SLA" means, but I suppose it has to do with how soon a suggested edit might be reviewed. I hope, of course, that these two articles are "widely watched" and therefore will attract oversight. Will I be alerted to verdicts on the Talk pages? FYI, for what it's worth: over the years I made many edits to articles with which I had no CoI, and wasn't aware of the CoI issue when I was asked if I knew how to make edits to Newsmax-related articles. I said, "Sure, I can do that." So I was (naively) surprised when my edits were reverted. As I said earlier, I thought it would be "as uncomplicated as, say, correcting a date on someone's biography or adding to an article's 'Further Reading' section." That was naive of me. I wasn't cognizant of the issue, and now I am. My awakening was panic-inducing, for now I got on the bad side of two parties: my client and Wikipedia gatekeepers. Thanks again for your help and for listening.Anarchristian (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Jonathan Hansler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jonhans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor is making changes to their own bio. They self disclosed on their talk page. I left a cordial message on their talk page. I think it isn't obvious to people who aren't versed in this community that they shouldn't edit articles that they have a close connection to, so I tried to be polite and understanding and gave them a link to our coi policy. I don't know if further steps need to be taken or what should be done. I am simply reporting it here to let experts in this area know what is happening. I don't really think the project is in any great danger but I don't want us to be rude to someone who might think they are being mischaracterized. AdamF in MO (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely annoying.Someone set up a Wikipedia page for me without my knowledge and all my dates are on there.It is one of the first things that comes up when you google me.I cannot adjust my own page.As a performer I need an air of mystery and by dating me this I believe has cost me work.. Jonhans (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The date (1985) that the article's subject is concerned about is listed publicly at the bottom of his list of credits here, so it's hardly costing him work. Orphan Wiki 09:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had to keep on reverting his edits to his own BLP article because I was implementing the policy regarding COI editing. I and Visioncurve gave him warnings with regards to that, but he proceeded nonetheless. While he already disclosed that he was indeed who he says he is, the account still needs to be blocked. As a consequence, he would need to proceed with OTRS verification if he still wants to continue editing. The sad part here is that this whole thing would leave a negative impression of him on whoever knows him personally or on social media, since he appears to want to clear his name of any perceived improper descriptions. We take BLP and COI very strictly here on Wikipedia. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, from what he keeps saying, his motivation for altering the article is to remove dates about his training and/or DOB, in order to "maintain mystery" and increase his chance of getting acting roles for different age groups... I can see his account has now been blocked anyway. Orphan Wiki 15:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That information is already available for public viewing, so there is nothing to hide here. The block could be lifted if OTRS verification will be successful, but he needs to refrain from editing his own article directly, much less advancing a biased opinion towards its content. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sunday Breakfast Rescue Mission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Association of Gospel Rescue Missions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Roseforest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also see this diff. The account operated for years for what appears to be the main purpose of promoting Wikipedia presence of things related to Breakfast Rescue Mission or Gospel Rescue Missions and there appears to be a COI without any disclosure. Graywalls (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Synergy Pharmaceuticals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Plecanatide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• VineetGupta777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

VineetGupta777 is a relatively new editor who has focused mostly on Indian film and music articles. Their longer edits tend to have grammatical and capitalization issues that are somewhat common from new editors in those areas (see [1] for example). And then the Synergy Pharmaceuticals article is created. Lots of complicated grammar, all pretty well done, no capitalization errors and a really, really promotional tone overall. I also found Plecanatide which had a huge section related to Synergy added by a two-edit editor years ago that I've deleted. I've asked on VineetGupta777's page about paid editing, but this is so obvious and related to a pharmaceutical company I felt raising it here was appropriate. I'll notify VineetGupta777. Ravensfire (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The unexpected change in grammar and the wording of the subsequent text screamed copyvio to me. Turns out, I was right. Made a revdel request, but that explains that part. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Randolph Cohen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Harvard Innovation Labs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Openthewaygate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Given Openthewaygate's contributions, I strongly suspect that they have a COI or have a UPE relationship with the two articles I've linked and/or Alpha Vantage (a startup they've namedropped in the vast majority of their edits). Further, some of the terminology they've used on their talk page (particularly repeatedly referring to things like "organic content" and "brand mentions") really sounds like SEO language, which is always a red flag for me. They deny being compensated for edits and any relationship with Alpha Vantage , but frankly I find that very difficult to believe. To be blunt, I'm just about ready to unilaterally block for UPE and/or undisclosed COI despite their claims otherwise, but I'm bringing this here for review by other editors. Courtesy ping MrOllie, since you interacted with them extensively on their talk page and may have other impressions to share. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a lot to add, you've covered the situation well. This strikes me as a content marketer who doesn't really grasp the difference between Wikipedia and a social media site. - MrOllie (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both the editor and MrOllie. I don't have any affiliation with the companies mentioned (also not a "content market" or "SEO" person as you have alleged), and the companies are primarily from the Harvard educational ecosystem, and I thought it would be ok to enrich the two Harvard-related Wikipedia pages. I still stand by my opinion that it is natural (@editor seems to be frowning upon the term "organic" so I am using "natural" here) for a startup incubation program such as Harvard Innovation Lab to showcase a small sample of the startup coming out of the program. Nevertheless, I respect your editorial decision and I'm willing to over-correct in this case: I will be solely making Wikipedia edits that don't involve any companies (like the one I did for Technical Analysis and approved by MrOllie). Openthewaygate (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"enrich" and "showcase": two hideous euphemised marks of the beast that betray the promotional orientation of the marketing mindset. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Experience has unfortunately shown that most (but not all) people with experience in PR cannot be taught to write a proper article, because they are so completely oriented to writing advertisements or quasi-advertisements that they honestly cannot see the difference between that and a proper encyclopedia article." -- User:DGG --Orange Mike | Talk 19:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @GeneralNotability: my take is that this is a (paid or not) promotional editor with an undisclosed COI. The sample edit comments sound like the many emails from university-employed marketers that I have had the displeasure to receive and read:

• it contains biased opinion on an otherwise organic and natural content for Professor Cohen's Field X class
• Adding links to HBS COVID-19 Business Impact Center
• Provided information on VIP teams' actions to the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Adding notable graduates of the VIP program
• Adding graduates of the Field X / Field Y class taught by Professor Cohen.
• Harvard Innovation Labs, by its mission, is a program for entrepreneurial ventures

The comments reflect a devotion to institutional interests and promotion. The kicker is where they say on their talk page: "If I can secure an email from Professor Cohen that approves the mentions of Alpha Vantage and other Field X companies to his personal Wikipedia page, is it OK?" Meaning they are in touch, and have COI. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Openthewaygate do you work at Harvard, or have you met with, or corresponded with, any of the people or companies you write about?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Siyatha TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Siyatha FM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Priyantha Kariyapperuma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ‎
• List of Royal College Colombo alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kevin at Voice of Asia Network Private Limited (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

While the username kinda gives us a hint, this SPA has been editing articles about entities of the Voice of Asia Network since 2017 and has never complied with our UPE rules. Now he's done a smarmy bio about his obscure boss. Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike, they've had a COI warning for years but only got a UPE warning today - I know, they should have seen it in the paid warning, but I'll give them a little more rope. If they edit again without dealing with the UPE warning I will block. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I dropped the UPE warning today for precisely that reason. Perhaps he just didn't notice the paid warning in the COI notice before. Who knows. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hamis Kiggundu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Hamis Kiggundu. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ham Palm Villas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ham Group of Companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ham Enterprises (U) Ltd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Haruna Sentogo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Harunda Enterprises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mark Mulwanyi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'd like to bring to a wider audience a series of ongoing conversations about a number of articles created by the user named above. The author or primary editor of those article identified as social media marketer here. There are conversations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamis Kiggundu and his talk page about managing conflicts of interest and required paid editing processes. The editor confirmed having worked commercially for the subject through an agency before. He claims to be making undirected Wikipedia edits on the articles above as he perceives there to be a gap. The articles are all about the business interests of Hamis Kiggundu, his companies or his brother. It has been recommended to the editor to use the AfC process, however article creation continued with Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality. In the meantime, images uploaded at wikimedia commons are evidently used at the copyrighted company website, while being claimed "own work". In any case, they are another sign of closeness to the subject. Any views are much appreciated. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 00:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• CORE (formerly J/P Haitian Relief Organization) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• KNWLEDGEISPWR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is an article which does not have many readers and edits. Suddenly, this user came and added several amounts of information, most of which are either unsourced or use a primary source. He was trying to defend the content that he added, saying that they are sourced. However, his edits were reverted at least twice by Bangabandhu (see this and this). A lot has changed in the article, and much of the new content comes from primary sources. I have not yet seen if copyright violations have been committed. The user is just new and has edited only that article. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LSGH. While I appreciate your concern and sincerely laud your gatekeeping of information, I would like to clarify that my intention is to update the CORE page so that it reflects current information given the COVID-19 pandemic. I plan to update other non-profits as well when I have the time. It's an important time for correct information to be out there, and I want to do my part in any way that I can. Please leave the revisions. I originally did not properly source, which is why Bangabandhu rightfully undid my edit. I apologize for that. But now I have gathered the sources.

• MCPCG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mason Piscitelli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Glenbard East High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Aerolayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WikiLeviathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BoxWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WikiClown150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MoneyMan7274 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:243:B04:8310:70B8:94C6:E754:23EC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Articles and drafts are about non notable companies founded by Mason Piscitelli, who was also added to the high school article [2]. User appears to be here primarily to promote Mr. Piscitelli's endeavors. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Promotions have continued with meat/sockpuppets, as added above. 2601:188:180:B8E0:8582:E7C7:C0B6:2FB7 (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Radha Mohan Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have recently edited Radha Mohan Singh article, the edit of which has been reverted by 2 IPs. Since religion was removed from Infobox, I thought of removing it from description too. I think the caste info needs to be removed but the IPs are still undoing my edit. Adithyak1997 (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a COI issue. Consider taking this to the BLP noticeboard. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds Fake But Okay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alpha3031
• Theroadislong
• Worldbruce
• Beepbopwhy (formerly User:Kayla kas)

Theroadislong has tagged basically everything Beepbopwhy (formerly User:Kayla kas) has ever edited with "connected contributor" templates. While I highly object to it being on the page in it's entirety, I am reluctantly willing to allow it be. But what I won't allow is the addition of the "conflict of interest" and "neutral point of view" links within the template. No discussion has taken place about the content of the article itself. So, how can one say if Kayla wrote it in a neutral or non-neutral style. I tried to explain this to Worldbruce, but he didn't seem to interested in carrying on a conversation. Alpha3031, on the other hand, does agree that the COI and NPOV additions should not be there.

I believe we are prematurely and unilaterally declaring this article is something it is not before a proper discussion of the content of the text of the article can begin. So, either here or on the talk page, one should begin. Until then, a different template or none altogether should be used. Thank you...Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:57 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

User:Beepbopwhy (formerly User:Kayla kas) has written two articles, one about her company Draft:InGenius Prep which was declined at AFC by an admin User:Justlettersandnumbers and one article about her podcast Sounds Fake But Okay which was moved from draft by User:Neutralhomer. User:Justlettersandnumbers tagged it for COI and notability, these tags were removed. As the article creator was one of the presenters it seemed routine to add a conflict of interest template on the talk page as I have done many thousands of times. I review around 30 draft articles a day, and do not need the drama of this, I have removed the article from my watchlist. Theroadislong (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that this would end up either at AfD or here sooner or later. There seem to be some grounds for concern. Neutralhomer is not an AfC participant, and might perhaps have done better to leave this review to someone who is, and has the necessary experience to evaluate it. The reaction to any questioning of notability, sourcing or COI has been (to my surprise) noticeably more combative than collaborative (e.g., "That's insultive"). It'd be good if others would look at this.

Neutralhomer, who were you talking about when you wrote "leave my friend and this page alone"? Do you in fact have some connection to this person? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: Gonna answer these one at a time, in no particular order. (sorry, I had to change your post links around, they were confusing. same links, just not using the oldlink template.)

We have talked on Twitter and here on Wikipedia (more Twitter than here), "friend" might not have been the best word. But "leave that person I know well but not well enough to call my friend yet" just doesn't have the same ring to it. So I went with "friend" for brevity's sake and moved on.

As for the notability tag, with 14 sources on the page, 3 news sources, links from multiple episodes described within the article, AVEN's on blog (and AVEN is, itself, highly notable), and a UofM event site (the hosts are alum of the University of Michigan)...I think that's FAR more than some articles have. Could more be found? Sure! Would it still be notable? Yes! Would it still be insultive? Absolutely! That's not combative, that's just facts. 14 sources, 3 news, all reliable, all meeting RS and V in one way or another, still meeting N and GNG, makes that notability template insultive...hence what I said and my revert.

Plus, you didn't "question...notability, sourcing or COI", you just placed a {{notablity}} template on the page. That's not a question, that's a drive-by statement.

No, I am not an official AFC reviewer, but I do have the "reviewer" and "autoreviewer" flags on my account. I can review articles for creation. I don't do it often. Typically it's radio stations, but when it's something that piques my interest, I will give it a look-see and check it out. Typically, nothing comes of it, this did....and I'm glad I looked at it. This is, has, and remains an attempted erasure of a young woman's work from the get-go, and an LGBTQIA+ woman at that. Now, you all can say "oh, that has nothing to do with it", but if this was an article about a podcast about plants and it was written by the straight white male host, no one would bat an eye.

As for Theroadislong's assertion that the COI and NPOV tags were removed, that clearly is incorrect as you can see by the template that remains (and HE added) and the template (or a portion of it) for which this discussion has be started about. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:23 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

Friendly suggestion: you've just accused another editor of homophobia, with not the slightest shred of evidence, solely on the basis that the connected contributor in this case was a LGBTQIA+ person. This isn't going to add any strength to your case. You might want to tone it down a few notches. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: No, I accused everyone of treating a female editor differently, not just one editor. If one editor had read the content, including you, you would realize, that "homophobia" would not be the word to use. Kayla is Demisexual. So, "demiphobic" would be a more apt word. Though, again, I was not accusing just one user of something, but all users. You misunderstand. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:54 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

I've read the lengthy discussions on the article talk, and on the user's talk pages. As far as connected contributor goes, which you've disputed many times on both talk pages, the editor is undeniably classed as a paid editor according to Wikipedia's policies. Additionally, your argument that it was written in draft and then moved by you doesn't negate that. Indeed, WP:DISCLOSEPAY is clear about the issue. Your arguments are clearly not neutral, if you're trying to dispute the fact that the individual here is the (Redacted) (as stated on their talk) of both the only major contributions they has made on Wikipedia, or your attempts to compare this to your position in a school system.

The user in this case has still not made the necessary declaration. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries. Given your connection with the individual, it may be prudent that you advise them to do so.

Finally, the policy is clear about the "I moved it to draft so it's OK" argument as well. It makes no difference if the paid editor writes the content off-site or in userspace and then another editor moves the material into mainspace on their behalf. Both editors are required to make a disclosure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: Completely missed the point of this discussion the "the addition of the 'conflict of interest' and 'neutral point of view' links" parts of the template in question. I'm not asking for a run down of past events, I'm asking for a discussion of the text of the article in question. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:54 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

@Neutralhomer: If I understand you correctly, you object to the second sentence of the {{connected contributor}} template displayed on Talk:Sounds Fake But Okay:

You feel that it is bitey and/or a badge of shame to say, "Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography and neutral point of view." You want the code of {{connected contributor}} changed to remove that text. You have other issues, but so that participants don't "completely miss the point of this discussion", is this a reasonable summary of what you hope to achieve in this thread on the Conflict of interest Noticeboard? --Worldbruce (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce:...or the addition of a field to turn those parts off (which is very easily done). I made my "issues" very clear at the top of the discussion. The additions of COI and NPOV (autobigraphy isn't listed) is incorrect and shouldn't be listed since the content of the article hasn't been discussed. You can't tag COI and NPOV without first discussing the content of the article. Clearly some (ie: ProcrastinatingReader) need to read it in full. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:22 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

Note: the template has been adjusted by Neutralhomer for the subject in the article, in Special:Diff/964886719. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Side Discussion

@ProcrastinatingReader: I would like to know why you had your comments from this edit to this edit RevDel'd. They included my response to you and an admin's response. The comments remain on the page. Why the RevDel? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:55 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

Neutralhomer, I didn't have them revdel'd, I requested to have them suppressed. The reason they're suppressed is due to WP:OUTING, specifically the outing of Beepbopwhy's personal information. The comments have also been suppressed on their talk. Unfortunately, because the outing spread across many revisions, many had to be suppressed. That editor is entitled to their privacy, and shouldn't have had their personal information published publicly without their consent. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: "Suppressed" is "RevDel'd". What are you talking about? It has been already been established that Beepbopwhy is Kayla Kaszyca. She has said that herself. I'd link to it, but you had that RevDel'd too. That's never been been in dispute. So, connecting herself to that account, connects herself to the podcast Sounds Fake But Okay, which then shows "Kayla Kaszyca" and "demisexual". She "realized" her own sexuality, no one was "outed". It's on the show's own website. So, you aren't doing anyone any favors, you are just trying to erase her (once again) from Wikipedia.

I think the bigger question is "Why?". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:34 on June 27, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

Neutralhomer, the part that was suppressed was her job role, which she hasn't publicly stated. She didn't state the company she worked for either, until someone did for her. If she wants to state her job at the company, that's fine, but in the meantime it constitutes outing and should be suppressed. There is nothing improper about this, and the decision to suppress is not mine but of an oversighter, who is adequately familiar with the policies on the matter. Perhaps you should stop thinking that we're all out to get you and her, and that everything here is about sexuality; that's really not the case. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: You had where I mentioned she was LGBTQIA+ on here RevDel'd too. So, forgive me if I don't believe that "only her job" bit. From what I have seen across many pages and many discussions, as I said earlier, if this had been about a podcast about plants hosted by a straight white guy and he wrote the article, no one wouldn't have batted an eye. But because a young, LGBTQIA+ woman wrote the article and co-hosts the podcast with another young, LGBTQIA+ woman, and she was the one to write the article, all hell has broken loose.

In this day and age, nothing surprises me....and on this website, nothing surpises me either. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:53 on June 27, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

Neutralhomer the LGBTQIA+ text is still there and hasn't been removed; the revisions suppressed in the history were just collateral losses but their text remains. You should pop over to WP:AFD sometime. We delete articles on "white people" all the time. If anything, I'd argue that the only reason there hasn't been a WP:UPE block and this article hasn't already been sent to AFD is because the person is "a young, LGBTQIA+ woman". This article doesn't meet GNG and anyone here could've sent it to AFD already. AFD has, many times, understood that sometimes 'minority groups' (for lack of a better word) don't get the coverage required, and have hence let some articles be. This site really isn't as '*-phobic' (again, for lack of a better word) as you think. Policy has been bent in your favour already, and havoc isn't being broken loose except by you. WP:PAID is a policy that applies to every editor equally. All this editor has to do is place the required notice at the appropriate place (which they haven't done yet, in violation of WP:PAID and the WMF Terms of Use) just like everyone else, regardless of their sexuality, and get on with it. Nobody here has requested anything further. Most editors don't argue with it, I don't know why you are. Your concern is that the notice on the talk page states that they might be a connected contributor, and that the COI and NPOV policies may apply. You're at the wrong venue for this anyway - COIN is the wrong venue to change a template. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader It's COIN's template, so yeah, you can. Plus, I was told to come here by mutiple people. I'd link, but that got RevDel'd too. She mentioned she wasn't paid for her work, I'd link to that, but I can't. So why would she add a template to a page for something she isn't?

Yes, this is about gender and sexuality, as much as it is about a template no one will fix and the content of an article no one will look at, no matter how much you don't want it to be. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:38 on June 27, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

There was a server mis-configuration reported on wikitech-l about 12 hours ago that let some users access other users' accounts. It was corrected by requiring everyone to re-login. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Black Mesa (Apache-Navajo_Counties, Arizona) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Climate Justice Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 24.115.226.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At 14:49, 17 June 2020, the Black Mesa (Apache-Navajo_Counties, Arizona) page was edited by a user without an account, with the IP address 24.115.226.137. This address leads to PenTeleData,^[1] a Pennsylvania-area corporate Internet service provider. ^[2] The text added violated NPOV standards and contained unverified and disproved information favoring continued mining efforts and attacking the Climate Justice Alliance (CJA). It is possible this was an attempt to discredit the CJA and the associated Black Mesa Water Coalition, who have both fought strip mining in the region. It is possible that Peabody Energy, being the strip mining company which operates in Black Mesa and the 12th highest ranked polluting company in the world by the Guardian^[3], has edited the article to defend itself and attack its detractors. In quotes below is the text added on June 14th.

"The alleged 'success' of the Climate Justice Alliance (CJA) resulted in the 'benefit' of job loss for Navajo and Hopi citizens. This was caused by the termination of mining activities in the area which then significantly drove up the price of coal due to a lack of availability. As many homes in this region use coal for heating, it placed low-cost heating out of the range of the local inhabitants as this coal would no longer be readily available at low prices. As well as exorbitant heating costs and job loss from the end of mining, the closure of 4 Corners power plant - coal fired - will also result in further job loss and the loss of megawatts of generating capacity that helped support the electrical grid in the region. Groups such as Climate Justice Alliance (CJA) have ignored the low emissions of modern American coal-fired power plants, instead using inaccurate statistics, falsified European Union reports, and constantly changing, fraudulent 'climate change' science promulgated by self-serving researchers who put their junk science ahead of jobs, modern industry, and low-cost power. Unfortunately the Hopi and Navajo are the latest victim of the myth of "green jobs." Although rejected and ostracized for pointing out the 'green jobs' lie and the costs of killing energy industry jobs, the Spanish government and other European governments were finally forced to face the reality of Gabriel Calzadza's research. Those have come to pass here as well: every green job kills 2.2 real jobs. As Calzada explained, 'American jobs will suffer the same fate if the United States similarly attempts to promote renewable energy at the expense of conventional energy sources.' The 2009 Calzada report is 'Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources,' Gabriel Calzada, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, March 2009: http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf"

The aforementioned Gabriel Caldaza is an economics PhD with close ties to the Heartland Institute,^[4] an institution which has repeatedly engaged in climate change denial and has received nearly $800,000 from ExxonMobil. ^[5][6][7]173.2.121.44 (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really possible to prove a conflict of interest here, and they've only made one edit. The best course of action is probably to put a WP:OR / WP:CITE notice on the IP's talk page, for the time being. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@173.2.121.44: I've added article and user links to the top. I hope you don't mind, but I also converted your external links to Wikipedia pages into internal links, to help with readability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Stony Brook University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sbueditorjoanne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The name rings alarms, but is not forbidden. The account, however, seems to only care about SBU. Orange Mike | Talk 13:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangemike: this edit makes the user sound like a paid employee: "We've tried to reach out numerous times on the old logo used for this page, but haven't heard from any editors on if it can be swapped out to the one that's being used now. There have been two separate updates to the logo since that one, so this hasn't reflected updates to the imagery. This page explains the new logo. https://www.stonybrook.edu/brand/design-visual-identity/logos-2/" ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The strength of the evidence that this editor is employed by this subject and violating WP:PAID makes me believe that he or she should be blocked until he or she directly and clearly addresses these concerns on his or her Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which block template would you recommend? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with the block templates to make a recommendation. If there isn't already a "there's strong evidence that you're violating WP:PAID but you are refusing to address the issue" template then it might need to be created. ElKevbo (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangemike: how about that fancy new pblock on the Stony Brook University page? The only problem seems to be them editing SBU pages.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice they refer to "our legal team" here? -- Bri.public (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: good catch. They also extensively edited the page for an SBU president here and in other edits.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:TutorsMedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MxsoloInc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The draft seems to be subjected to WP:UPE and WP:PROMOTIONAL. ~ Amkgp 💬 02:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Digital Finance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• LiliyaBulgakova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please read my synopsis of the situation at User talk:Curb Safe Charmer#"Digital Finance" article. While the draft has been deleted at the user's request, their message to me on my talk page makes it clear that they are still intent on creating an article about the company. Given the WP:GAMING, COI and SPA I think some administrator action is appropriate. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Joey French (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Joeyfrenchmusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated reverts against MOS:BOLD and adding links to his YouTube channel against WP:LINKFARM Leijurv (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Martin Newman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Martin Newman (author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AmyHarper77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kennard.lucy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikicontributor279 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On comparing the history of this article and this draft, these appear to be the same person, and both have a history of editing by fly-by-night accounts, most recently User:AmyHarper77, who has not replied to an inquiry about COI. This history of puffery goes back to 2011. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Creep Catchers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AminCreepCatchers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Brax1016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user downright admits in their edit summaries that they are the owner of Creep Catchers, and is requesting another editor on their talk page to edit for them. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 01:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brax1016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly a sockpuppet of them, pretending to be an unaffiliated third party. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies has blocked both accounts making this discussion moot. For the record, I couldn't even find a source that they were purchased by an American company, and that doesn't even seem possible because of how they're made of non-affiliated individuals and groups. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• CU confirmed your suspicion, JDDJS. Let's see if they can do it properly--with reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hoshinoya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hoshino Resorts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hotel Shilla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WikiHotels01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HotelsKorea01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Promotional editing to related articles by multiple editors. Both have been warned; mentioning here because I don't know if there are more articles or editors involved. Hoshinoya may be an AFD or G11, searching hits on dozens of hotel booking sites so it's hard to tell what actual coverage there may be. MB 18:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hotelpedia01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another one. MB 06:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pulsion Medical Systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• PiCCO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• PulsionGermany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.125.31.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Shameless spamming, often in first person plural, and block evasion. Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is at the top of User:Movies Time.

Movies Time is a site that brings you the highlights of Movies from past, present, and future. Movies Time also brings you the highlights for entertainment like music and television.

Okay, so blatant advertising and bad username. So obvious that I deleted the userpage as an ad. But then I looked and that this person has done quite a lot here. So, I'm stumped. The username SEEMS to be an advertisement for the user's YouTube, Instagram, etc., etc. brand name, and the userpage reeks of advertisement.

Advice?

--Orange Mike | Talk 14:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They have their email and shit on their user page. Is the any policy that states that their username and userpage are problematic? Then they could be renamed? --FFS19 (talk | contribs) 16:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editor agrees with my reasoning, is petitioning for re-name and promises to remove promotional content from userpage. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Funding Societies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Glennice.yong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 116.86.189.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Glennice.yong did a series of potentially COI edits on the article on 3 July. The edits were reverted and tagged as COI, with the standard COI message left on the user's talk page. Similar edits were made again via IP address on 6 July. Similarly, edits were reverted. – robertsky (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Peter Schwerdtfeger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Paschwer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wranxisys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Wranxisys is a single-purpose account editing Peter Schwerdtfeger. They say they are "Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger himself". Their interest in the page is a bit unhealthy, neutrality-wise. Mostly I think they just need to understand that they should leave the page alone and not edit it, at which point the COI template can be removed. The username Paschwer, with 60 edits to the article, has a lot of similarity to the article subject's name. They also uploaded a portrait of the subject, with the caption "One of our staff members in 2014 with my own camera:, which implies they are the article subject.

Pinging @Melcous: as they also interacted with this user. Given the long-term COI, use of multiple accounts, lack of disclosure and the fact that they have ignored and not repsonded to a COI warning, this seems like a good candidate for a pBlock. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP I am not Peter Schwerdtfeger, however i know his work. Of course i am not going to deny that "i know the subject" however there is no COI in my edits. The problem with my "bit unhealthy" edits was only in response to Melcous continued addition of "issue" tags to the article without attempting to offer a significant and specific reason(s) why. Apart from the links to articles about COI, reads like résumé etc which are "blanket" reasons. What Melcous fails to understand is that most biographies of living (academic) persons read this like. One can see easily that Melcous edits biographies with a template that is not suitable to academic profiles/articles. I encourage anyone attempting to edit this page to find any real COI with any of the content and/or references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wranxisys (talk • contribs) 03:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wranxisys and thanks for your reply. Why did you say in the linked edit above that is was "request from Distinguished Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger himself".ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP in discussion on Melcous talk page. thank you for your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wranxisys (talk • contribs) 04:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said on my talk page, any further discussion about your conflict of interest, Wranxisys, which you have now acknowledged in at least two different places, should take place here, not there. Melcous (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User Budke says of the article subject that "I have contacted him and had a long set of discussions with him", and apparently the subject says they won't do it again. The idea that editors are in touch with the article subject is a bit of a bad idea all around. GeneralNotability what do you make of that policy-wise, contacting subjects off-wiki?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, it sounds like they knew each other in passing before this, so this isn't exactly a Jytdog situation. I don't think it's a huge issue, we've certainly had cases where editors contacted a biography subject to request a freely-licensed photo or something similar. Might have been better to keep the communication on-wiki, but what's happened has happened. I wouldn't encourage contacting article subjects off-wiki, but I don't think any lines have been crossed. (Also, I think you meant Bduke, not Budke). GeneralNotability (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Peter_Schwerdtfeger now understands that he is not to edit the article about himself. At least, I think that is what he agreed and I expect him to be bound by it. He clearly did not understand that earlier. Bduke (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Trier Cathedral (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dudva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Much of user's edits don't make significant contributions to the article prose, but are predominantly pushing/shoehorning their self-created images into articles, and sometimes replacing existing images with their own as a minor with vague comments like "more colours". There might be a conflict of interest of their primary purpose being publicizing their own photographs, which isn't consisting with WP:GALLERY policy.

Here are some examples of their displacement of existing photos with a vague summary Special:Diff/962550137, Special:Diff/962677089 Graywalls (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, adding images one has taken is 100% fine, as long as it is not self-promotion. Whether they are an improvement or not is a content issue. The user also needs to stop marking edits as minor and start leaving edit summaries. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"as long as it is not self-promotion." this is what we're trying to determine. Since images at Wikimedia Commons are Creative Commons licensed, anyone can use any image form existing pool of images there. When a user's edits predominantly consists of findings articles to insert images they have created and sometimes over-writing existing images on subjective ground, I believe we're stepping on the fine line of promotional COI much in the same way as looking for articles to insert citations to your own book. (which should not be happening anyways per WP:GALLERY it could possibly be WP:NOT. This series of edits for example is an introduction of a number of images into an article in which an effort has been underway to trim down on excess images. Graywalls (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: I see what you are saying. I looked at the most recent diff that had the edit comment "more colors". Dudva's photo (right) is indeed better and has more colors than the original (right), and Dudva's photo has better composition and more even lighting. I don't see any promotion in it; the image credit is "Dudva". After seeing the image comparison at right, I restored Dudva's image at right. Hope that is OK Graywalls. I would take this as an improvement of the image, in the same way we would overwrite text with something better. But maybe I am missing something? I didn't look at any others. It's quite time-consuming to assess image-based COI!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also looked at the first diff mentioned above (this one) and Dudva's image was clearly not as good as the original; reverted. I do not think there is much COI or promotion here, beyond a subjective feeling that their image is better than someone else's. Regarding the second diff mentioned in the initial post above, from the images at right, Dudva's is a clear improvement to the article. But they should not have been marking the image additions as minor edits, as it makes it look sneaky. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If these two edits were out of many ordinary contributions, it would be one thing, but look at their contribution as a whole. There's hardly ANY contribution that isn't piling up and exhibiting images they authored into the gallery section of articles. Some target are already overfilled with pictures. Adding sources unrelated to the editor to improve unsourced articles is encouraged, but looking for unsourced, or inadequately articles to mold around sources related to the editor is likely COI. The same may apply when editor goes to look for articles to which they can insert photos they have taken especially when the article does not have encyclopedic merit from having additional photos or there are plenty of photos not related to the editor to tap into in Commons. The possible COI arises from the observation that essentially all their edits consist of inserting their own photos into articles, sometimes a bundle of them at once. Graywalls (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: I hear what you are saying, so I went and looked at a dozen more of their image edits or additions. I am not seeing anything but good intentions in their edits. If it is COI, then what are they gaining? The images are all credited to the anonymous Dudva rather than any particular photographer or company. If there is a particular diff that shows COI, it would be good to see that.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Smile Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2402:3a80:688:3400:5922:5ab8:ab68:a471 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2402:3a80:662:2511:c111:9e7b:be25:97df (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2405:204:8b:8043:1897:abbe:995c:1fbd (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Only here to promote Smile Foundation with no efforts to follow WP:COIEDIT. They were asked to disclose their conflict of interest but unfortunately, there is no reply. GSS ^💬 11:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected Smile Foundation for three months. The fluctuating IPs never discuss. A note was left at User talk:2405:204:8B:8043:1897:ABBE:995C:1FBD by User:GSS but there is no answer. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Collabora Online (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Marc_Rodrigues_(Collabora) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has disclosed their paid editor status on their userpage, but has also deviated from best practices by 1) writing an article on his product himself in the main space without using WP:AFC and 2) is in the process of adding wikilinks to that article to several list and comparison articles. Thoughts? MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the user is now blocked, but the article remains. - MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ro'ya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Razan raghad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor repeatedly add un-encyclopedic/promotional info. Has not responded on their talk page. MB 14:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this an opportunity to partial block? The user was really pressing the company line, but has now been educated. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some further discussion at User talk:Materialscientist#Clearing my edit. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Patricia Ford Crass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Emile Kellogg Boisot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jean-Baptiste Boisot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lewis Francis Byington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Byington Ford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tirey L. Ford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Emil Ernest Gloor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alexander D. Henderson (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alexander D. Henderson Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alexander D. Henderson III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Girard B. Henderson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Joseph Henderson (pilot) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• David H. McConnell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ellwood Walter (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• George Faunce Whitcomb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Greghenderson2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor was warned about COI seven years ago and posted a generic notice to their user page, to the effect of "I am making pages about my family". Here is a very low quality memorial-type page that they pushed to article space on Patricia Ford Crass,which includes a list of workshops that the subject did, and a section for their travels. Greghenderson2006's user page lists Patricia Ford as their mother. They have apparently made numerous other pages on family members, so these may need to be checked.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor lists Alexander Henderson as their father on their user page, so I am adding the three Alexander D. Henderson pages that they have edited. This is reminding me a bit of the Mitzi.humphrey family memorial efforts.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, they have been adding various forms of this link, which the user lists on their user page as their own site.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, there's quite a lot at [3]

It's perhaps worth noting that the editor in question makes exaggerated claims about his subjects, such as that Cary S. Cox is "best known for inventing the ... the cotton gin ". (His patent is from 1928, Eli Whitney patented the first modern cotton gin in 1794) Vexations (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: I have removed all mentions of hendersonfamilytree.com as a) it was published by the editor who added it. Not a reliable source or appropriate EL. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of these cases. My hand is currently not on the block button, but it twitches closer and closer as I note how almost everything he has contributed is connected in some way to his family (List of Pilot boats? Oh, that looks okay...wait a second, why's this Joseph Henderson linked everywhere...?). There do appear to be some unrelated pages in his contribs, though, and I don't think this is a WP:NOTHERE situation. I will give him some time to explain himself here. I also recommend that those experienced in image licensing take a look at his Commons uploads, I've already see a few doubtful "own work" cases. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: maybe you could speak to this user on their talk to encourage them to discuss here? They are ignoring requests to stop editing the family-related pages: today's edits. I agree they have made some positive contribs in the past, but they seem dead set on ignoring basic COI principles and continuing to promote the family.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with ThatMontrealIP that this COI case is similar to the Mitzi Humphrey case. (Which took a long time to clean up). I looked through Greghenderson2006's edit history and it seems that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather to use Wikipedia as a vanity press, a means to blatantly celebrate and promote his family genealogy/ancestry. It seems that virtually all the articles he's created are about members of his family or their business activities. Netherzone (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. See their newest creation Carmel Art Association.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The user in quesiton has added a COI declaration with articles, but it is still unclear as to whether these are all the articles. They still do not seem to understand that their editing has created a lot of work for other editors who now have to go through and check each of the articles on family members that they edited.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I have looked through a number of this editor's articles and they contain excessive quotes from obituaries and trivial mentions which make them read much more like memorials than encyclopaedia articles. I've made edits to several but they will need a lot more careful scrutiny. Melcous (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK I found the COIN page. You guys are doing your job and I appreciate this. I have been creating Wikipedia pages for many years have loved it! However, in the last two days, you have laid into me with messages and warnings. I am slowly getting it. I can of course improve the pages, but not sure what to do here with so many messages of COI and possible deletions. I thought Wikipedia was a place to add information on important subjects like Sandy Hook Pilots, Attorney Generals, and Developers of Airparks, Patents, companies, etc. When I write a Wikipedia article, I try to follow best practices by asking for help, sticking to neutral language, and having other editors review my work. I have signed a COI Declaration on my user page. What can I do to improve the articles and repair this relationship? Greg Henderson(talk)

Greghenderson2006 it seems a bit disingenuous to say you "thought wikipedia was a place to add information on important subjects like Sandy Hook Pilots, Attorney Generals" etc when the vast majority of your edits here have not been to do that, but to create and maintain articles about your family members. What you can do? The first step is pretty simple: agree to stop editing articles on topics connected to your family members. Melcous (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And please, Greghenderson2006 stop WP:SPAM spamming the External Links sections of articles with links that go to an Amazon.com sales page to your own self-published book. Wikipedia is not a place to try to sell your "book". Netherzone (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Greghenderson2006: thank you for your post above. The reason that we are concerned about your edits is that we don't allow substantial content editing of articles by those who are directly related to the articles.

I see you have asked about adding sources at Cary S. Cox. As long as these are independent sources, doing so is fine in my view' the COI policy allows involved editors to make minor non-controversial factual corrections or small additions to the article. You should keep in mind that anything that looks like promotion of your family is probably not a non-controversial item. Any significant changes need to be proposed on the talk page, usually through the WP:REQUESTEDIT process.

What is not OK is creating articles about your family members, pushing them to article space and then continuing to edit them for years. If you want to write articles about family members you can do that via WP:AFC, where the article will be reviewed by an independent editor.

Similarly not OK is adding links to books that you have published, unless it was an independent publisher and you add the links very judiciously. The same goes for the family history website that you operate: we are not interested as you are publishing your own material, and ostensibly could be seen to be promoting it via Wikipedia.

To sum up, the advice here is that you have to stop directly editing articles on your family unless the edits are very minor. Larger edits need to be discussed or approved via Requestedit. New articles on family members need to go through AFC. Does that all make sense? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP Yes, it makes sense. I appreciate the time you have made to educate me on these issues. I will follow the above advice. Greg Henderson(talk)

Thanks, that is all we needed to hear. It is all about keeping the encyclopedia neutral. We appreciate your future adherence to the policies.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Deepak Mittal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• JasbeerPhoghat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SPA not responding to warnings on their talk page and only edits are to create Draft:Deepak Mittal. The draft was declined by multiple users so they choose to post it under Deepak mittal. WP:NOTHERE applies imo. GSS ^💬 12:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• SoftServe
• Biosphere_Corporation
• Dragon Capital (company)
• NIX (company)
• Kvartal 95 Studio
• Oleg Bakhmatyuk
• Norebo
• Andrey Stavnitser
• Darnitsa (pharmaceutical company)
• DLC InterChem
  • Draft:DLC InterChem
• Boris Lozhkin

For everyone's awareness, we worked our way through a pile of possible Bodiadub (long-time UPE) socks in this investigation. I'd appreciate it if folks here could take some time to look through the socks' contributions in case cleanup is required. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a lot of material to go through. It would be really helpful if you at least point in the direction of what you have concerns on. Graywalls (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up Boris Lozhkin back in April over "a bunch of socks". Prior sockfarms included WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Issack.build & WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Claíomh Solais and CU-blocked user:Imrelaxed. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Romesh Wadhwani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Easchroeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Contributions show that the editor has been only active on the article. The editor removed information from the article for "security concerns", giving me the impression that the editor might be working for the Wadhwani family. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 23:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperGoose007: agree about the likely COI. The edior summarised removal "at child's request". I'd agree with this if this would be about welfare of a minor, e.g. WP:CHILD. However, the subject's daughter is an adult and details of her wedding are widely published, including wedding glamour pics, etc. A sentence about his daughter in this respect are not undue. The editor has been warned correctly. Let's see how they respond. Some of the edits need clean up._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 23:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Easchroeder response to COI--I also put this on my user page but putting this here too, since I'm not totally sure where I'm supposed to be responding.

The page for Romesh Wadhwani (the founder and chairman of SAI Group) is wildly out of date. This is coming up this week because the Wadhwani Foundation announced an initiative so people are looking him up on Wikipedia and it incorrectly cites his current role as head of STG. He left STG in 2017.

The page is also missing info about the Padma Shri (awarded Feb 2020) and a bunch of other items. I'm happy to provide external citations for each needed change. I don't know how to get the information updated so would love some help in that.

My main concern is getting Romesh's info up to date. I do not work for "the Wadhwani Family." I work for SymphonyAI Group.

The secondary concern is the mention of Melina and Patrick. Patrick (Melina's husband) works at SAI (so the information about him is wrong anyway). They do want their mention removed from Romesh's bio. I did not say welfare--I said security concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easchroeder (talk • contribs) 00:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Easchroeder, many thanks for the clarification. If you are employed by SymphonyAI, a company founded and led by the subject of the article, you are a paid editor under Wikimedia's terms. Any edits to articles about the company, its products, key personnel, etc. are subject to disclosure. For details, see WP:PAID and WP:COI about how to disclose and suggest edits as paid editor.

In a nutshell, the wishes of people connected with the subject are irrelevant as long as there is sufficient publicly available coverage in reliable media and a mention is not undue or otherwise violates Wikipedia's guidelines. If the place of employments of the subject's son in law needs to be corrected, that's fine. Removal of mention is not necessary as there is sufficient coverage about the daughter and her relations. A sentence is not undue weight and it is relevant.

Factual updates are fine, but they must be free of puffery. "Fast growing", "leading AI", "driving ... operational excellence", etc. are all marketing hyperbole. Whatever is referenced will also need reliable secondary sources. Company websites, press releases or closely authored articles are not sufficient. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 00:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EAschroeder responding again: OK. So I don't violate anything, where/how do I put recommended edits to factual info on Romesh? Noted about "puffery." --Easchroeder (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can make an edit request on the talk page of the article. Create a new section, and put {{request edit}} at the top of the section, and that'll put it into the COI request queue for a neutral editor to come and review your suggestions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posting this here as a courtesy; it was originally posted at the Teahouse.

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I would like to report a couple undisclosed editors working for a company called wikiprofessionals inc. They have an online profolio (can't post link because it won't let me due to the filter) and that the page creators from the page creation log does not appear to have disclosed their editing. I also had a live chat with a rep and that they have admitted these accounts, but claim it is allowed. On their FAQ, they say that wp:iarpermits them to do so, except they actually don't. What should I do now? The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 11:21 am, Today (UTC−7) (reply)

We don't have a list of involved editors or an article list to look at; The creeper2007, perhaps you could post below if yoiu know of any involved editors or articles?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I practically have a incomplete list! They have a profolio at (can't post link because of blacklist) and that they are all page creations. so, one could look into the page creation log of each one of the pages and find out. The thing is, there are way too many people and I am quite busy at this time. I would also like to post a excerpt of my conversation with the company here:

(The rep admits one and Denys one of the accounts.) So, that is the evidence for now. Also, it would be very helpful if someone could look through the page creation log of all of the pages in the profolio.