Wikiafripedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions or browse at zero-rating.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikiafripedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Header

Pall Mall Barbers[edit source | edit]

Almost every edit by this editor is about Pall Mall Barbers or its founder Richard Marshall, or advocating for the retention of these articles.

COI has been discussed on the user's talk page and the user denies having a COI. I am not clear, however, whether this edit is in fact an admission of a COI (it might not be; as I say, the meaning of the message is unclear to me).

Draft:Richard Marshall (barber) has been declined twice. User:Nosebagbear suggested including a few lines on Marshall in the article about the shop and leaving it that due to a lack of notability, but the advice was ignored.

The draft was speedy deleted under G13 on 21 July 2019 and refunded by request of Thedavidshow on 25 July 2019 where it was suggested that Mr Marshall is "on a path towards knighthood" (this is not public information). This claim was expanded on by this edit, which is highly dubious as neither the Queen nor Prince William decide who receive Knighthoods - the government does. It comes across to me as peacocking.

The draft was again deleted under G13 at 09:20 on 10 February 2020. At 10:42, Thedavidshow was back requesting another refund, their first edit (including deleted edits) since October 2019. kingboyk (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I am going to assume that the this edit was NOT an admission of COI, in light of Thedavidshow's just-posted unequivocal statement on his user talk page. --kingboyk (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for your time. I've been editing and writing articles for Wikiafripedia for as long as Wikiafripedia has been around. This just happens to be the only account that I still have access to. (I started out just editing pages anonymously. Then I started writing articles... I think it was still a while back then before you were really required to use an email and password.) For a while I was making corrections to articles that I came across many times a day... but recent health problems have left me little time for Wikiafripedia. I do intend to finish the Richard Marshall article and I apologize for the many delays in doing so. As for the part about knighthood... this was tied to the Prince William visit to Pall Mall Barbers and an article that I read where the Prince was considering knighthood for various individuals related to mental health and mental health awareness. Given the timing I took this to include Richard Marshall but so far nothing has come of it and I fell ill shortly thereafter. Nevertheless I intend to refine what I've already written and update the article with new sources as soon as health permits. Thedavidshow (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The unequivocal statement on the talk page and the statement above seems to be an adequate explanation. Overall I would say this is a very steadfast good faith editor trying to get a non-notable subject published. Thanks @Thedavidshow: for clarifying your position. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible UPE by Nappiamore[edit source | edit]

Nappiamore is not a regular editor, (s)he only edits when they need to post an article which is common in paid editors. From March to October 2019 (s)he uploaded three promotional images at commons-wiki and posted four articles and none of them looks like created by a brand new user. I tried, but can't find those images online, this suggests a close connection between the subject and the uploader so, I feel their articles must be reviewed for notability, verifiability, and neutral point of view and sent to AFD if they don鈥檛 appear to be notable. Thank you. GSS💬 04:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The images they uploaded are interesting. All three are marked "own work" but then have two different authors:Renae Maihi for one and Catya Plate for the two files with "plate" int heir name. One file, Catya Plate.jpg has metadata that says "漏 Jason Walz". So at minimum, some deletions are in order.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I have tagged File:Catya Plate.jpg for SD as per the metadata and the other two for OTRS permission. The user is inactive since October last year but, there is definitely a case of UPE. GSS💬 08:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. MER-C 20:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Experts-Exchange[edit source | edit]

Bkay was warned about COI and undisclosed paid editing. Bkay then stopped, and Beedee started inserting some of the identical language from Bkay's previous promotional edits. No disclosure from either account.  Orange Mike | Talk 21:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The edits were first made by an IP. I'm tempted to semi protect the article and block both accounts from editing mainspace until they make the necessary COI disclosures. That said, the article is in pretty bad shape. The two AFDs it has survived both identified better sources, but they aren't currently in the article. it would be nice to see the article improve, and protecting it works against that. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Those have to be socks. Reported.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Orangemike: A CU has confirmed that they are socks, which I guess was obvious. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Pete Hawkes[edit source | edit]

The behaviour reported at Wikiafripedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_128#Pete_Hawkes started up again as soon as the page protection was lifted. In addition to the sockpuppets / throwaway usernames listed there, there are four new ones listed above. I recommend permanent semi-protection of the page now, as this behaviour will apparently continue indefinitely. --Slashme (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It is interesting that Dudeoftheuniverse's edits consist almost entirely of arguing about the use of the COI template. The only substantive edit they ever made to the article was this one. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The documentation of {{COI}} makes clear (highlighting in original): "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article". This requirement is not met; and as the documentation continues: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Very good point! --Slashme (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The COI discussion was actually placed on the talk page November 28, 2019 by Melcous.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
A discussion was placed there; it merely repeats the vague and unsubstantiated accusation, and fails to meet the highlighted requirement "to explain what is non-neutral about the article". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Selman Akbulut[edit source | edit]

Editor appears to have a strong conflict of interest or bias on behalf of the subject of the article, Dr. Akbulut:

  • User has either edited Selman Akbulut or to pages related to his editing (such as the edit warring noticeboard about his behavior.) One exception being an edit to an article on the Turkish Mathematical Society.
  • User participated in an edit war to remove a news article about the disciplinary action against Akbulut, reverting links to a mainstream news article [1], [2], [3], [4].
  • After receiving a notice about edit warring, user then began removing information from the mainstream news article about the Akbulut attacking individuals via email. They substituted links to Akbulut's personal website, and a site called "stopacademicabuse.com" which was created a few months after the accusations and is only about the subject of the article (not academic abuse in general). They also added improperly sourced content (saying mathematicians around the world are concerned but using the aforementioned "stopacademicabuse.com" site as proof, even though it does not meet WAP:SOURCES.) [5], [6], [7].
  • Attempts to discuss this with them during the first edit war (including a warning) resulted in no response; instead they are accusing editors who are reverting these changes of being part of a "smear campaign" [8] and that the sourced material is "wrong/baseless" [9] and that media coverage cannot be presented as a fact [10].
  • It seems clear (WAP:DUCK) that the editor is strongly biased with a conflict of interest. Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • And just to put the nail in this coffin: the editor's handle is [REDACTED - Oshwah] --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Clear guidance has now been left at Eylem Z Yildiz's talk page (permalink). A COI declaration (or a clear refutation) is expected before the editor attempts any further editing of the article. Edit requests should be used by all users with a strong COI. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

For the record, they have declared that they do not have a conflict of interest (with "either party", I assume Dr. Akbulut or MSU.)[11]. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I am adding another user to this case who has a conflict of interest. Note the only edits User:Ustun YILDIRIM has made outside user space is due to this article or the subject, including a RPP. Emailing the evidence for privacy concerns. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I would like to add the users Mr. Vernon and Ylevental to possible COI lists. As they are clearly misusing the references, representing quotations from third-parties as official panel results. 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by Ustun YILDIRIM (talkcontribs) 05:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Emma Dalmayne[edit source | edit]

This article is a bit of a mess:

  • It went through AfC process by User:Winchswan who has made no significant edits outside of this article.
  • IP edited the article and in the edit summary here claimed to be the subject of the article.
  • An account was created using the name of the article and continued adding to the article.

I'm not sure if they are notable, and I can't be sure if there are socks involved here, but at least two of the users involved have a COI. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks very suspicious. The IP is registered to the UK via BT Broadband. The IP and Emma are definitely related. Winchswan may me a meat puppet or a sock. July 8th was the last edit for Winchswan. Seems that it was a single purpose account to create the article. Possible SPI, but not quite sure. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
AmericanAir88 Should I open up an SPI on this? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Mr. Vernon: I am not really sure. The article is at AfD and if the consensus is delete, there will be more base for the contributions. If they continue editing in the future or recreate the article, then a SPI may be necessary. The Ip should maybe be reported though for spam and socking. What do you think? AmericanAir88(talk) 13:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
OK. I will report the IP at least. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Coconutmediabox[edit source | edit]

This handle belongs to the production house as is obvious from the username. Multiple editors have warned the user and asked to disclose paid editing but the user has failed to reply or disclose. Should be blocked. Coderzombie (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Hard blocked based on edits and information from a google search. Pretty obvious even without a google search. Coderzombie you must notify editors as it says at the top of the page that they are subject to a noticeboard discussion. You can use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ for this purpose. Dreamy Jazz 馃幏 talk to me | my contributions 12:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

MNB9911 sockfarm and Pro Creative Writers[edit source | edit]

Referring back to Wikiafripedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_151#Wikiafripedia_Procreative_Writers. It turns out that at least one article they used as a sample is Wikiafripedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MNB9911 鈥 27 confirmed sockpuppets. Maybe time to compile a list of article creations of this bunch... 鈽 Bri (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Added another account, not (yet) roped in to the sockfarm, who helped on a businessperson draft. 鈽 Bri (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Marmalade Game Studio[edit source | edit]

As a frequent editor of video game-related articles and an active member of WAP:VG, I noticed that the edits by Kiki99xtra all concern UK video game developer Marmalade Game Studio, an article they also created. While I do believe the studio meets the GNG threshold (see WAP:VG/RS and the custom Google search engine), the article was POV-pushing previously. Marmalade Game Studio makes digital game adaptations of classic board games, like Monopoly, Cluedo (Clue in North America) and The Game of Life; Kiki99xtra also added information about the studio on the articles on those board games, like here and here. They are also working on Draft:The Game of Life: 2016 Edition.

Now, of course this could all mean nothing. Perhaps Kiki99xtra is just a huge fan of Marmalade Game Studios or their games. But since their first edit was on January 27 and every single one concerns Marmalade Game Studio somehow, it seems rather COI-ish. soetermans. 鈫戔啈鈫撯啌鈫愨啋鈫愨啋 B A TALK 08:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems that Kiki99xtra's userpage has a COI template that isn't complete. It has almost been a month since it was edited. AmericanAir88(talk) 21:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Wow, okay, I should've spotted that! Sorry everyone. soetermans. 鈫戔啈鈫撯啌鈫愨啋鈫愨啋 B A TALK 08:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Cleveroad[edit source | edit]

This editor has been warned about his or her potential COI instances previously. Their edits solely pertain to software development, including the linked article about a Ukrainian development company. They are attempting to sway the company's AfD on its discussion page. He or she has not acknowledged our COI policies or made the required disclosure WAP:PAID. BonkHindrance (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

On what basis have you gone from "potential COI" to "required disclosure"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Harrison_Jessie perhaps? Vexations (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this was my reason for that. BonkHindrance (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Please explain the connection. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett, what should I do? I was also notified. --Moana122 (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Moana122: If you have a conflict of interest (including, but not limited to, being paid to edit) you should declare it as advised on your talk page. However, such a declaration is not required, if there is no conflict of interest. If you need more help, ask at WAP:Teahouse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, such a declaration is not required (followed by a conditional) can easily be misinterpreted. I'm not required to make a declaration that I do not have a conflict of interest for every article I edit. But when challenged, with
  1. REDIRECT Template:Template link

for example, even if I don't have a conflict of interest, I should cease editing until I have clarified that I do not have a conflict of interest. Vexations (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Under which policy? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, under established consensus. The uw-paid1 template says so since 22 June 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-paid1&diff=next&oldid=668203800&diffmode=source There was a deletion discussion archived at Wikiafripedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 30 and consensus was to keep. Vexations (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
As I thought: no policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, WAP:CONSENSUS is policy. Vexations (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
As I thought: no policy says a user, when challenged, should cease editing until they have clarified that they do not have a conflict of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: what's the point of coming here to argue with volunteer editors editors who are making good faith efforts to address COI issues?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't answer questions that are based on false premises. And don't mess with my sig. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing perhaps you want to raise your objections to the statement "do not edit further until you answer this message" in {{uw-paid1}}, as it remains there, and in escalating urgency in {{uw-paid2}}, {{uw-paid3}} and {{uw-paid4}}, I for one, will be happy to support any RfC that makes disclosure when challenged on a potential CoI mandatory. I support an immediate block for refusing to respond to such claims. In fact, I support making a CoI statement mandatory at the time of registration, making inclusion on a user page mandatory and linking to it from the signature. Vexations (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
As you're so keen on making people answer questions, perhaps you could answer the one I put to you above, and repeated below? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I have no idea what you mean by messing with your sig. Anyway, it seems plain that you are just at COIN (at least form every other post you have made to this version of the page) to challenge the editors trying to get something done, which to me seems unproductive and mildly disruptive. If you do not like the way COIN operates, perhaps you have pages that need editing somewhere?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm even less interested in your baseless imaginings about my motivations than in questions involving false premises, but see here for your abuse of my sig. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC).
Pigsonthewing Looks to me like a case of "control/command + c" copy-and-paste of your username gone awry, rather than any sort of abuse. Both of you are very experienced editors and a little AGF is usually a good idea. Edwardx (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing that was a copy paste error, obviously. Thanks for your other warm comments and friendy demeanour.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
"Please explain the connection." Tumbleweed... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Stockton University[edit source | edit]

WAP:SPA for Stockton University and related pages. Undisclosed COI, even after warning. BonkHindrance (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hilligermr[edit source | edit]

Every edit made by this user has been to insert the name of Walter Hilliger and links to his works into an article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The edits insert a reference to an article linked to an external source in the Times of Israel, which features a comparison of the manna in a blog with photos and videos of a research made since 2011.
If the proposed interpretation or the source itself is the problem of the edit, there is a suspicion of antisemitic bias behind the reversals because such stringent criteria to exclude that source was only applied to Walter Hilliger's contribution and not to other disregarded sources with missing links and references. Whether the author himself or someone else inserts the name of the author contribution it doesn't alter the value of the contributions. The sources of the article are verifiable and advance the knowledge of the topic featured in the page. 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB20:40FD:3D00:E4E9:E206:25B2:CBC1 (talkcontribs)
Wikiafripedia seeks to present the mainstream scholarly view based on (ideally secondary) reliable sources. Self-published sources are sometimes acceptable for basic non-controversial material, or when the author is a reknown expert/scholar in the field. Even experts have to be careful about introducing citations to their own works, or editing topics about themselves, etc. I have left a standard message on your user page about conflict of interest management on Wikiafripedia. 鈥PaleoNeonate 鈥 10:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Peter Linus[edit source | edit]

Above accounts likely connected to each other and article subject. Removal of COI/PEACOCK tags, self-promotion. MB 06:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The page was not created by the article subject and is in no way related to the article subject. However, the editor used a name similar to the article subject's name as its page username. The username name is currently being changed to fixed this issue.
Kindly suggest other ways this issue can be fixed.
PITA LINUS 06:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

United States Army Armor School[edit source | edit]

Block evasion, sock- or meatpuppetry, ownership assertion. Page protected for 2 weeks, cleanup help by experienced editors welcome. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That turned out to be an effective measure. After a short discussion on my talk page, I have invited Hinch32, who has commendably disclosed their conflict of interest, to make edit requests on the article's talk page. I'm happily looking forward to this. Independently of any such requests, I guess the article could still use copyediting and a stricter implementation of the verifiability policy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Temple University[edit source | edit]

This single-purpose editor appears to have a connection to the subject of this article but refuses to address the topic despite warnings and a direct question on his or her User Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I have placed a {{uw-paid}} notice on Stella's talk page, and added verbiage to the effect that this is a final warning. It's blatantly obvious (to me anyway) that this is a conflict of interest editor, and is likely performing edits as part of their job at Temple. Also of note; Stella added File:20171005 night owl 014.jpg to the article. I've nominated this image for deletion on Commons as it is a copyright violation due to freedom of panorama issues. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
    Editor blocked. They had enough warnings; having changed their username after the first one indicates that at very least the first warning has been read and not understood or ignored in this regard. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Kenneth_Arnold[edit source | edit]

This is appears to be a WAP:SPA dedicated to editing the article of her father. Phuzion (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I concur this appears to be a COI editor for this subject. I placed a {{uw-coi}} notice on their talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Good grief; two warning templates (total: 665 words, over 4,000 characters) and a WAP:COIN entry, all after her first and only bout (six edits, in 30 minutes; total: 1254 characters) of benign editing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
    Evidently Kim should be like Caesar's wife and avoid even the appearance of CoI. What should s/he have done? Put the proposed additions and changes or criticisms on the talk page and wait for someone to make the edits? DCDuring (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The first notice said all that. What was the point of the second notice? And then there's the irrelevance of the corporate/employer warnings. If you knew it was the daughter, why include the irrelevant? It makes us look like a bureaucracy. 24.104.194.39 (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
          • Because, frankly, I didn't see it. I saw a welcome notice, and a notice about this discussion. I see now there's a {{welcome-coi}} notice, which is different than the usual {{welcome}}. I was acting out of concern for the editor in that they had not been notified about conflict of interest issues, and instead were now the subject of a conversation without knowing why. I thought I was being helpful. If you think otherwise, fine, but that was my intent. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment ignoring the COI for now, what is the template for "this article is a badly sourced pile of tin hat conspiracy theories?" I just removed 6K or garbage from it and there is still probably another 10K or junk source to crackpot UFO blogs.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Imogen Cooper[edit source | edit]

Takeover and rewrite of the article today, without sources. Editor appears to be the subject's husband. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

How do you know they are the subject's husband? We avoid WAP:OUTING here unless there has been a voluntarily disclosure.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
(It鈥檚 2601, away from home today) That the username is the same as the subject鈥檚 spouse wasn鈥檛 difficult to ascertain. It鈥檚 a rather public self-disclosure. However, I understand the issue. If my comment violates policy, I ask that it be rev/deleted, and will accept any appropriate disciplinary actions. 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:1D (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I guess "appears to be" is vague enough...ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Southern Asset Management (and others)[edit source | edit]


I suspect a COI and undisclosed paid editor. The articles are a immaculately referenced and the articles seem rather promotional. All the articles listed are for companies/organizations, bar the SEED AWARD, the kind that would want to pay an editor to push their company in a good light. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I took a look at Southern Asset Management. I wouldn't call that one well referenced anyway. In fact, it's poorly referenced. Most of the references are either behind paywalls, don't mention the organization at all, or barely mention it. The content of this article doesn't strike me as a notable entity. Sure, it exists, but notable? No. As to the editor; account created in April, but didn't start editing until September, with a burst of 50+ edits in two days. After that, outside of a single edit to their user page (to create it), it's been nothing but new articles. I suspect this is a throwaway account. Patrolling new pages, you see this a lot. Articles (and drafts) get created and a ton of references are added to give them the air of being notable, or at least difficult to delete right off, so people run off and don't touch them. Easy to create, difficult to delete, and the paid editors (whether this one is or not) make off with the money. In this case, the editor is fitting the profile of what we would expect from a paid editor. We need better tools for managing this general issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    What I'd love to see is some kind of way of checking how long someone spent editing an article between clicking "edit" and "submit" (maybe with a counter for how many times they previewed, too). Not perfect, but if a brand new editor writes a perfect 10kb article in under a minute without even clicking preview, I would be a tad suspicious. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    Hammersoft when writing this I did at first think it would be appropriate to say 'immaculately' as the referencing initially seems very good, immaculate even, but then actually turns out to be poor. Thanks for your comments and I definitely agree that we should be less restricted in dealing with cases like this. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    I agree that these look suspiciously like refbombed UPE. I'm going to quarantine them in draftspace pending a response from the editor. creffett (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Elliot Fletcher[edit source | edit]

Resolved independently by users at the talk and user talk pages. AGK ■ 08:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor is the article subject Declaration. They also contacted OTRS Template:OTRS ticket. I also left a COI warning message on their talk page. It also seems that this account Elliot.fletch (talk  contribs  count) is a sockmaster for the above account. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

While drafting this report Elliot.fletch left a message on my talk page. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Obvious sock is obvious. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Given that the operator of the I96 account declared their identity, as shown above, and did so with their first edit, how is this an "obvious sock"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 22 February 2020 (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.

Edith Covensky[edit source | edit]

Months of promotional edits here. I've removed a ton of author testimonials, and multiple issues remain. Needs more eyes. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Editor also removed a COI notice on the page today. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Now blocked 24 hours due to their removal of the COI template from the article. This user has never replied to any messages. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)