Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (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:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:A Time Called You Talk:A&P Talk:Access Industries Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency Talk:American Water Works Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:William Bolcom Talk:BP Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Clearview Federal Credit Union Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Dowa Holdings Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:Energy Capital Partners Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Randy Fine Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Rene Gonzalez (politician) Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Arlene Harris (inventor) Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru Cancer Hospital & Research Centre Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Draft talk:Juris Svenne Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:King School Talk:King the Land Talk:Dana Klisanin Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist) Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:Moody Nolan Talk:MP Materials Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Operating system Talk:Optum Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Karen O'Rourke Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Joseph C. Papa Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Polymarket Talk:Programming language Talk:Alexander Pruss Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revolut Talk:Jarred Rome Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Brian Rush Talk:Sartorius AG Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Schott AG Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tencent Talk:The Peninsula Hotels Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Ella Thomas Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Vincit Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Thomas Albert Work Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zions Bancorporation

User:Ovedc

• Yosef Abramowitz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Technion Faculty of Architecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ovedc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Those two, as well as other articles. The pattern of editing suggests that the user, who have had a run in for undisclosed paid editing seems to be under the impression that as long as they disclose they're paid, they're free to make promotional puffery and mold the articles to be more favorable to the clients than encyclopedic. Inclusive of, but not limited to this edit. I've reviewed many of their edits and I am seeing a clear conflict between encyclopedic goals vs doing advocacy editing in the best interest of their clients. Graywalls (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but this only half of the problem. The other half is: he submit drafts and at least 70 percent of them don't approved and he submit PR stuff again and again, and the reviewrs need to work hard to check them, User:Ovedc exhaust the volunteers trying to check his drafts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1FC:B2D2:0:0:B37:3CCD (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I find this edit very questionable where the COI/U tagged the code to make the contents they do not like invisible from public view. Graywalls (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

As someone who has dealt with Ovedc in the past, I find their tenacious paid editing & shoehorning of non-notable subjects into the mainspace disruptive. Would love to get some fresh eyes on their edits. -FASTILY 03:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The earlier articles seem a bit puffy but the later ones aren't. The newer article are tend to be eminent doctors and they are all notable with little puff. It might have been taken out, right enough. The last artist articles are notable and fine. The editor seems to be improving over time, with less promo content. scope_creep^Talk 09:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Dmitry Utkin

• Dmitry Utkin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Extorc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mhorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• El C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 103.240.204.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I’ve twice given an explanation of why I made my changes to that page. Editors Extorc and Mhorg reverted them without any comment or explanation why, even after I asked. Subsequently IP address 103.240.204.243 reverted them once more and user El C locked the page.

Not only am I taken aback by the lack of explanation of what’s wrong with my changes and the repeated, blanket reversion of said changes, but also given some of the editors’ profiles (showing Russian inclinations) and some of the IP origins and/or profile locations indicating India (where in recent months many Russian troll accounts have appeared all over Twitter and the wider internet), I wish to raise the recent edit history of that page as a potential Conflict Of Interest. I have a suspicion (which I would be perfectly happy to be disproven of) that some of the recent reversions on that page were not made in good faith. Rather, I wonder if they are part of a whitewash effort made by bad-faith actors working on behalf of either the Russian government or perhaps one of its many agencies.

I would like to raise:

• Getting an explanation for why my changes were inappropriate.
• The changes getting reapplied if that turns out to be the result of this discussion.
• Unlocking of that page and re-locking after the changes are in place, if it really needs to stay protected.
• An investigation into coordinated insincere efforts (Russian trolling, propaganda) on the part of editors (three) and IP addresses (one) involved.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.227.0 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted the tangent. The reverts look like good faith attempts to prevent content deletion, but in the future you should start a talk page section before posting here. Per WP:GS/RUSUKR all war-related pages have been extended-confirmed protected, so there's definitely no COI on El C's part. RAN1 (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that! I’m quite new to Wikipedia’s policies and procedures so my apologies for misunderstanding how to handle such edit conflicts.

Will definitely look at talk page in the future if I run into something like this again. I’d looked at the other editors’ talk pages instead before posting here but it didn’t seem appropriate to add my questions to those. Realized now there’s an actual talk page tab on the article itself, rather than inside the edit history table somewhere (I think that must’ve just been my being blind).

I still think it’s weird that the other 2 editors would be acting out of concern for “content deletion”, that almost seems like they didn’t look to see what content was being deleted and why, even though I explained that in my edit comments. Hopefully your removal of the Wagner tangent does not also get reverted also..

Thanks again, RAN1! 67.160.227.0 (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

North Dakota State College of Science‎

• North Dakota State College of Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Marketingcats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ContentCreator16s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editing history and name of this editor - the college's mascot is the Wildcats - raise substantive questions about a conflict of interest, potentially an undisclosed paid editing relationship. The editor has not responded to a warning left on their Talk page so discussion from other editors may be necessary. ElKevbo (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Marketingcats is the official log-in of the NDSCS Marketing department, and changes made through this account are made by officials at North Dakota State College of Science (NDSCS). Official, updated content is being added to our page. Marketingcats (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

And consequently blocked per WP:ROLE. SmartSE (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

New account ContentCreator16s has resumed where the blocked account left off. Would appear to be the same person/people who are now again, undisclosed paid editors. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. --Yamla (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Marketingcats: The North Dakota State College of Science article isn't a page, it's an article - a subtle but important difference. It also isn't your article but an article about your institution. You have no right of ownership or control over the content of this article or any other on Wikipedia.

Your username violated Wikipedia's username policy against accounts named after organizations and also implying shared use.

You also did not properly disclose your employment in accordance with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure policy.

And because you have an inherent conflict of interest, you should not be editing the article directly, but limiting your involvement to submitting edit requests on the article's talk page.

If you wish to continue in any capacity, you should request an unblock on your talk page instead of creating new accounts in an attempt to evade the block. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

See also- UTRS appeal #64382 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The sad thing about this is that the NDSCS marketing department could make useful contributions to help improve the article about the college. They could provide much-needed independent citations for the many currently-uncited facts it has. They could upload better photographs, under open licence. And they could use the article's talk page to make suggestions for non-promotional changes to the article, in cases such as the appointment of a new college President. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Article about Wikipedia page creation is itself covert advertising

Just thought this board might want to know about https://techbullion.com/american-wiki-editors-reviews-a-perfect-platform-offering-you-pristine-wikipedia-page-creation-services/ maybe someone wants to look into "American Wiki Editors", americanwikieditors.com ☆ Bri (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, their text is awkward, pretends that they are following our rules, and is clearly either written by non-native readers of English, or machine-translated; I'd guess the former. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I've spent the last 10 minutes laughing at all the stock photos on their home page, ROFL. ~Styyx^Talk? 20:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Found a mention of Tech Bullion in Ozy (media company). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bri: - looks like another front of https://www.americanwikispecialist.com/ and https://www.wikiconsultancy.com/ (already in WP:PAIDLIST). this shows a list of all the other sites hosted on their server - these reviews would suggest that they are all scams. SmartSE (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Just found another recent one of these: How to create your own Wikipedia page as a musician, creator. I didn't know about Hire the best Wikipedia specialists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• americanwikieditors.com, wikiconsultancy.com, wikimaven.com, along many others are ABTACH Ltd (AKA Wikiprofessionals). I'll update its entry at WP:ABTACH. It's community banned. MarioGom (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Jim Karahalios

• Jim Karahalios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Belinda Karahalios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dimitri Karahalios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Obviously a relative of above subjects who is adding unsourced content to both articles. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I have to say that even if the first WP:LEAD sentence

"Jim Karahalios is a Canadian politician who has never been elected to public office"

is factually correct, it sounds like strange WP-writing to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Srushti Tawade

• User:Srushti Tawade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Srushti Tawade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A new editor "Srushti Tawade" appears to have a user page with the start of an autobiographical profile of a rapper with the same name. Although there is not yet have a Wikipedia article for "Srushti Tawade" there is recent news coverage about her. This account may be used by the rapper herself, a fan of hers, or by her management/promotional company. If this is the rapper herself or one of her promotors then there is a COI problem. If the account was opened by a fan it could be misleading to imply that the fan has a close personal or professional connection with her. Blue Riband► 19:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Blue Riband: You have not notified the user that you have opened this discussion, as you are required to do. Also, the user has done nothing but create a user page. I see no COI here. Let's assume good faith here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I failed to give that editor the ANI notice. The Userpage however appears to be using Wikipedia as a webhost but that's a different topic. I'll leave it alone as this appears to have been a bad call on my part. Blue Riband► 13:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Citations to Ian von Hegner

• GLORIFICUS1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GLORIAN11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LORD.GLORIAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These three accounts (non overlapping, not sock puppetry) are all singularly devoted to adding mentions of Ian von Hegner to the encyclopedia, including mentioning them by name in articles [1], Replacing citations by others with citations by Hegner ([2]), and writing a biography of Hegner (Draft:Ian von Hegner). Talk page messages directed to the currently active account (GLORIFICUS1) have gone unanswered. They don't even communicate in edit summaries. Is this actvitity appropriate? MrOllie (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

User:GLORIFICUS1 has been blocked by ToBeFree and I have blocked the other two accounts for WP:REFSPAM. Suspect likely undisclosed COI as well. Spencer^T•C 09:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Is paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org still monitored?

I'm trying to deal with a complex case of suspected WP:UPE that involves private information. Is paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org still monitored? Or would it be better to contact a functionary/ArbCom directly? Thanks for the help! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It is monitored, but doesn't seem to be very fast. Lots to watch, not enough people. - Bilby (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Good to know, no issues with waiting, just didn't want to wait in vain. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It's absolutely still monitored, but as Bilby says there's a fair bit of work involved in reviewing most submissions so it's not a fast process. :) firefly ( t · c ) 12:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Time for patience, then. I understand why each case would move slowly. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Cannabidiol (CBD)

• Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Making repeated edits at Cannabidiol. These are rather WP:PROFRINGE and are original research woven around primary sources, but the kicker comes at the end in the mention of

Authentic products (such as those supplied by Healthcare International Research)

It turns out "Healthcare International Research" is a company[3] promoting "very best in CBD products". So the whole thing smells off. More eyes please! Bon courage (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The post is a correctly cited and referenced addition relating to the Origins of Cannabidiol. Are you disputing this? The mention of a company is to emphasise the salient point of ensuring readers do research on obtaining genuine CBD products. Why is this a particular problem to you? Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of a specific company's products. Ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no interest in HIR as a company but accept your point; it doesn't read well. I will remove any connection to a specific company and repost in accordance with the guidelines. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

if you repost you will be WP:EDIT WARRING and likely to get blocked. Your edit was bad from very many points of view; you need to discuss it at Talk:Cannabidiol. Bon courage (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

please explain 'many points of view'. How can a correctly cited and referenced addition be considered bad? certainly from an academic point of view it is merited. Are you even qualified to advise on this matter? Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, I find your claim to have no connection to the company hard to believe. Either way though, you are required to discuss disputed content on the article talk page. And note that if you make any further attempt to hijack a disambiguation page in the manner you did here, [4], you will almost certainly be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Why have you just deleted another post that is correctly cited and referenced with no mention of any company? What is your motivation for deleting factual information that has been published correctly?? Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

If you are referring to my deletion of the material you added to the CBD page, I removed it because it should never have been added there in the first place. That isn't an article on cannabidiol. It is a disambiguation page, with links to relevant articles on subjects that the three-letter acronym 'CBD' may refer to. Something that should have been blindingly obvious from the content that was there before you edited it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

ahh.... so you deleted it because you don't like it... despite it being factual, informative, correctly referenced and relevant to the page. Are you actually aware that scientific research on the topic of CBD belongs on the CBD page? I believe the fundamental aim of Wikipedia is to share information in the public domain.... information that is correct. My additions are correct... your removal of them are based on your personal dislike of the facts. There is a colossal difference and quite frankly, you should be banned from this site unless you can counter-argue or debate in an evidence based manner. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That response indicates there is either a serious WP:CIR or troll issue here. Do we have to wait for this to play out at length or can there just be a block now? Bon courage (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, your post is based on your emotions. Mine are based on facts. I accepted your initial comment about mentioning a company and amended my post accordingly. Now both of you are not satisfied with this and are trying to ban me. Why? because I am defending my argument in the correct way? What is your actual problem now? I don't have one other than supporting my addition the this site. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Nothing you have said so far suggests to me that you understand how Wikipedia actually works, what our requirements for content are, or how to appropriately deal with disputes. I suggest you take the time to do a little research before proceeding further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do that. In the meantime, please actually read what I post and take the time to explore the references and citations I include to support my work. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

References are irrelevant to the CBD disambiguation page, since article content doesn't belong there. As for our actual article on cannabidiol, content regarding medical claims is required to comply with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). If you haven't read that, do so. And then discuss the disputed content on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not making medical claims at all... I have never stated this. I have made an edition to the page titled 'Origins of Cannabidiol'. This is a completely different subject. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Discuss on the article talk page. Not here. On the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Note I've also just spot-checked one of the cited sources.[5] and see that text from it has been copy-pasted into Wikipedia. It's likely these edits need to be suppressed to avoid a WP:COPYVIO. Bon courage (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  I haven't copy-posted this into Wikipedia. I only listed it as a reference. I hope this is clear. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  Really wish you were already blocked, since this is just an utter fucking waste of time. The text

  The ECS emerges as a complex and widespread brain signaling system that plays a role in affective and cognitive functions, and psychotic disorders, and might be the target for the act of various therapeutic compounds. The elucidation of the ECS also sheds light on the human fascination for cannabis, which appears to be the only plant that produces a potent phytocannabinoid activator of the CB₁R.

  from the source I linked was copied[6] by you thusly into Wikpedia:

  Further scientific research concludes that the ECS emerges as a complex and widespread brain signalling system that plays a role in affective and cognitive functions, and psychotic disorders, and might be the target for the act of various therapeutic compounds. The elucidation of the ECS also sheds light on the human fascination for cannabis, which appears to be the only plant that produces a potent phytocannabinoid activator of the CB₁R

  So there is a problem. Bon courage (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  Firstly, its only a waste of time because you are deciding to 'waste time on it'.

  Secondly, it's quite ironic that you report me to an administrator for defending my viewpoint in a polite and logical manner and here you are swearing to me on this post. I feel sorry for you. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  At this point I'm going to disengage. I have half a suspicion this is a WP:LTA on the stir, but whatever - our long-suffering admin corps will need to deal with it. Bon courage (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, probably best you run off and go and annoy someone else. You have done nothing to help this situation. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  To add, I welcome the investigation into Long Term Abuse; after all, you are the one who is swearing and making unfounded and unwarranted claims. I wish you a good day (if you know what that is!) Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Qualitative CBD Researcher: I have no expertise on CBD or neurobiology or any other such topic, so I can't really comment on the content of your edits at CBD. I can comment that you should not be adding article content there at all. The purpose of that page is to point readers to a number of articles that might be related to the initialism "CBD". The content you are trying to add should be added to Cannabidiol, if you can get past the COI problems that have been noted here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the information. This is the first time I have posted on here and your advice is greatly appreciated. I did initially post on the page titled Cannabidiol but it was removed due to a genuine COI claim. I will rewrite the post to reflect impartiality and post again soon. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Qualitative CBD Researcher: Given the degree of disagreement that has been exhibited here in this discussion, you might be wise to propose your edits at Talk:Cannabidiol prior to editing the page directly. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree; my post certainly ruffled some feathers today! None of it intentional I may add. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

User:‎AdvocateSheikhKhalidSaifullah

• Draft:Sheikh Khalid Saifullah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• ‎AdvocateSheikhKhalidSaifullah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Promotional article currently in draft space. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a simple case of a user creating an inappropriate draft. The matter can be handled by declining or deleting the draft (which has already happened). It does not need to be raised to the level of a noticeboard discussion. Also, you failed to notify the user that you had started this discussion, as required. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Beemer69: Failed to properly ping you in my reply. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Eugenix hair sciences

• Eugenix Hair Sciences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Eugenix hair sciences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bosscafey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Looks like a UPE trying to WP:GAME the system. The editor created Eugenix Hair Sciences yesterday, it was A7'd. Today he created Eugenix hair sciences. It was A11 but withdrawn for some reason. Sent to Afd. Seems to be a clear coi. scope_creep^Talk 03:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I withdrew the nomination because I didn't feel an administrator would think it was clear cut enough for a CSD. I pinged the admin that left the initial COI notice as I felt they might have a better judgement on this issue. I agree it appears that it is a paid editor but they have posted on their page that they are not being directly or indirectly compensated. They have also authored Rohit Raj Goyal which does seem to pass muster but haven't dug in depth. Unbroken Chain (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep: there was also Pradeep sethi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), founder of the company. I don't find their explanation credible so shall block. SmartSE (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Smartse: That confirms it. scope_creep^Talk 12:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Mick Clegg

• Draft:Mick Clegg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• B4r781uk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has one of the obvious signs of either UPE or COI editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969: What sign would that be? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd be happy to tell you off-wiki, but am hesitant to post, thus giving potential COI/UPE editors hints at how to avoid being spotted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@One15969: We'll be hard pressed to discuss this matter given that secrecy. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

No worries, then don't discuss it. No skin off my nose. First and last time I report to COIN. No reason to help COI/UPE editors evade detection. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969: It looks like case of coi. scope_creep^Talk 00:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep and Onel5969: Apparently there are esoterica of COI of which I am unaware. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

From my view, there are multiple signs of possible COI in this article, WikiDan61, and the creator of the article can be asked if they have a close connection to the subject and to disclose per WP:COI if they do. The article can also be edited to tag, remove, or source unsourced information and rewrite puffery. Beccaynr (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Since we're going to be all hush-hush here (not a good look for Wikipedia, in my opinion), I'll just note that bring an editor to COIN for their very first edit seems a bit WP:BITEY. But hey, that's just me. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

In the additional notes section of the Welcome banner at the top of this page, it says: 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. Ordinary talk page discussion does not appear to have happened yet. The Welcome section also states Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. I think it would be helpful to start by discussing COI concerns with the new editor on their Talk page and then returning to this noticeboard with evidence if there are continuing concerns after that discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

TechnologyOne edit request open since February

Hi folks – I know this isn't the typical use of this forum, but hoping it's OK for this somewhat unusual case. I have some edit requests for my TechnologyOne client that have been open for almost nine months with no response. I believe the requests are straightforward and presented helpfully (if not, please let me know); I think it's just that no one has had a chance to look at them. If anyone is willing to take a look and respond on even just a few items, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks much. Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Scope Creep, you have now removed this twice, but it seems a perfectly reasonable thing to post here, and such requests used to be more common. What are COI editors trying to follow the rules supposed to do, if the article talk page produces no result for a long time? Or was there a special page for such requests? You say this is the "wrong venue", but what is the right one? Please DON'T remove it again without discussion. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: This is not the venue for it, your unlikely to get any help here. I don't what the proper venue is. What is most galling here, is this editor who is already being paid to update the article, begging us for help, as the process is not going fast enough for her liking, i.e. she can't get her bonus, because her kin is flooding Wikipedia with useless paid content. What is needed is perspective on your part. scope_creep^Talk 22:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree they are "unlikely to get any help here", but that is hardly the point (most requests on wikipedia space are hopeless). She is following the proper procedure we ask COI editors to do, and you have not answered my questions: What are COI editors trying to follow the rules supposed to do, if the article talk page produces no result for a long time? Or was there a special page for such requests? You say this is the "wrong venue", but what is the right one? You may find it "galling" that she is getting paid & you are not, but the proper question to ask is: would these changes improve the encyclopaedia? And if so, can I be bothered to okay/make them? You may not be, but others might. Actually I see that User:Pigsonthewing, a much more experienced editor than you, has now updated the article with some of them. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Nearables

• Nearables (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Siergiej PL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Appears to be a fairly old case of WP:COI. Editor only contributed this page, and may potentially be a paid editor for the company. Could provide more details pursuant to WP:Harassment#Exceptions if needed.

The page also does not seem to contain much encyclopedic information on its own, everything but the one product line described seems to be roughly "Internet of things, with a different name". Might potentially be a good candidate for deletion or merge into another article, however I must admit I do not know the appropriate rules and procedures fully.

Note: I decided to take this directly to COIN instead of user's talk page lack of contributions on the account for 8 years. Aveaoz (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I've started an Article for Deletion discussion. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Negar Mortazavi

• Negar Mortazavi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nov2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Nov2000 is on Wikipedia since 2020 and the only article they edited is Negar Mortazavi (also on fawiki). They keep removing notable controversies about the person and do not respond to talk page messages. there seems to be a connection between the user and the subject as Mortazavi herself denies the controversies on media.

P.S. I don't know where to report their disruptive editing on that article on enwiki (put some light if you know), but the COI case needs to be reviewed here. Thanks. Jeeputer ^Talk 23:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

For the time being, I have upped the page protection to admin-only (since it was already on autoconfirmed protection). I don't know what's right and what's wrong here, and have protected it on the version that existed as of the time I was brought in without regard to what side of the dispute happened to have the upper hand as of that time, but I would stress that this is not necessarily an endorsement of their version — it's just that the editwarring needed to stop right away, so I would obviously request that the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the disputed material be discussed on the talk page by people with more knowledge of the subject than I have. I will, of course, happily reduce it back to autoconfirmed protection again if and when the dispute is resolved, but since there was already partial page protection on it I didn't mess with the existing time. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Thank you. I am trying to discuss but the user Nov2000 does not answer my questions in the talk page. are you going to review the COI issue? Jeeputer ^Talk 15:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Determining COI with any certainty requires tools that I don't have access to, such as the ability to check what IP a logged-in user is editing from, so that will have to be left to the team who have that expertise. My only concern here was ensuring that the immediate edit war stops while the rest of the process plays out. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I see no applicable evidence here. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

There are more applicable evidence which I will gather and send to the admin if needed. Jeeputer ^Talk 22:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Godblesshealth

• Guang Gun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sheng nu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Godblesshealth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Godblesshealth is a single purpose account that cites only the work of a Yating Yu, with links to the ResearchGate copy predominantly displayed. In one such case, the text from the journal article was directly copied (Special:Diff/1070045475). Such behavior is also repeated on Chinese Wikipedia. (zh:Special:Diff/70014420) All of Yu's work has been cited 61 times based on Yu's ResearchGate profile, and the number decreases if self-reference is excluded. An undue weight has been given to Yu. I suspect a COI and would like to invite the noticeboard for discussion. -Mys_721tx (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this with the editor in question? ElKevbo (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This editor appears to have only edited over 6 days in February. Looking at the edits, they do appear to be WP:CITESPAM and could, if confirmed, be deleted. I suspect that discussion is going to get nowhere if this editor has not been active for 9 months.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't really understand the complaint. "cited based on Yu's profile", I don't know what that means, and what does "the number decreases..." mean? Yes, we seem to have a case here of someone creating a Wikipedia account in order to add their own articles--but then, the articles seem to be solid, published in acceptable journals, and on top of that, the editor seems to be long gone. I do not want the baby thrown out with the bathwater. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Like other indexing services, ResearchGate counts the number of citations of an author. The total number of times an author has been cited is listed under their (self-created) ResearchGate profile. WP:WEIGHT requires us to give due weight of a point of view, even if said view is published in a reliable source. Considering that a faculty in Gender Studies has triple digits of citations, a graduate student with double-digits of citations hardly represent a majority view. Yu has also inflated their citation counts by citing themselves in these publications; the number of third party citations will be lower than the total, hence the decrease. Mys_721tx (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh now I get it. "has been cited" meant" has been cited elsewhere, and by including their work here, they upped their citations. Well, I don't believe that a faculty member in Gender Studies needs triple digits, and I think that that is a very unhealthy attitude: I sure hope you are not a dean or a provost somewhere. If the journal is peer-reviewed, then we can accept the article, and if you want to push WEIGHT that far you can do so on the article talk page. As for the editor, as an administrator I am often very critical of folks citing their own work, and had I seen this in February I might have done that. But I do not see any good reason to remove their citations, even if they were added under these circumstances. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Where did you get the impression (?) that "a faculty in Gender Studies has triple digits of citations"? Also, Dr. Yu is not merely a "graduate student" but someone already obtain her PhD and now serves as a post-doctoral researcher at a top 150 university. Also citations in Wikipedia do not really count as academic citations in serious academic instituions. Gnb093 (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Scores on the doors

• Scores on the doors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Phiscoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Creator and primary contributor, who has almost no edits outside of this page, has repeatedly added promotional WP:COATRACK content for the commercial website http://www.scoresonthedoors.org.uk/, e.g. this series of diffs from August 2021, and repeatedly violated WP:ELPOINTS#2 by placing inline external links instead of using reference tags. "Scores on doors" as a concept does seem to be notable (e.g. [7]), so deletion is probably not a viable option. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur that there does indeed seem to be a COI here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Timtempleton

• Timtempleton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TechnoTalk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User:Smartse/TT

Bri, scope_creep and I have long had concerns that Timtempleton (reported here several times previously) is an undisclosed paid editor and recently they were confirmed to be socking with TechnoTalk (reported here in July) to recreate articles and keep them at AFD e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Contentsquare_(2nd_nomination). Considering that, I think it is as close to certain as it is possible to be, without having direct confirmation, that they were being paid to edit. There is unfortunately a lot of cleaning up required given that they've made 18000 edits between them. I've created User:Smartse/TT with a survey of their contributions and I have been finding plenty of problems: 10 year old spam, refspamming from technotalk, misrepresentation of sources (compare with Bluerasberry's version) etc. Many articles meet WP:CORP but there may be others like Kareo with dubious notability. SmartSE (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You forgot called out in 2014, 2016, and 2020 already. Jeesh. I was really miffed about having a respected admin allow TT to exploit the workaround (if it's even worth that term) of salting policy as noted in the 2016 link above. Are we making progress here? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I wish that we had this process automated:

1. autogenerate list of all the companies whose articles were made
2. query Wikidata for email addresses of those companies
3. automatically draft an email to each company, publishing that draft on wiki in public
4. send the email out asking the company to pay to clean the mess that they paid to make in Wikipedia against the rules

What a mess and burden to put onto volunteers. Companies should pay money to clean up after themselves. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I wish. What an absurd conversation that was about datacore. Its like doublespeak, or more accurately doublethink. The list needs to be carefully examined, in light of TT2 adding his brands per WP:ASTONISH and of course the rest. I will work away at it, in my odd hours. scope_creep^Talk 00:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
• Tim here, with a new account. I’d have responded earlier if you hadn’t blocked me. I told you before why I’m doing company edits and articles. I’m doing it to get into companies, so I can do other Marcom work. I’m also doing it for fun. There are few editors as prolific with business articles as I am. If I get one of these companies as a client, then I no longer edit their articles. You can see in the edit history that many of my articles haven’t been edited by me in years. And I see Executive DBA Council was just prodded. That’s a group of schools including where my wife got her PhD. If I was paid, don’t you think I’d have kept it updated? You’re jumping to conclusions. PrematureBlock (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Allegany College of Maryland‎

• Allegany College of Maryland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• ACMnews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has admitted to a connection with the college but has not complied with our terms of service and continues to edit the college's article. ElKevbo (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Technically, they can continue editing the article. A clear disclosure needs to happen though. I see there is already discussion at User talk:Sweetpea05, which is going in the right direction. I don't think there's any action to be taken, other than explaining the user how to disclose properly? MarioGom (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Alice Blue (company)

• Draft:Alice Blue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Alice Blue (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Savitha5267 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Contextualise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two editors have submitted slightly different promotional drafts about the same company. They appear to be two different probably paid editors hired by the same company (or by its agency). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I can definitely see the COI, these two should be asked to reveal if they're being paid or not. 𝘾𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙢𝙖𝙣2917 (talkpage) 16:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)