Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,550,840 edits
Line 667: Line 667:


Or someone else can update the page if you want to let false accusations of someone with a clear chip on their shoulder to keep me from being able to edit it. Up to you, but what is up there now is wrong. Old. In bad need of updating, as the page itself said long before I went in to edit it. I did some work on it, and verified it, based on what a public agency, funded by taxpayers, that gives money away instead of making any, says on it's own web site and blog. And yes, I want CIRM to continue succeeding as a public entity that funds medical research that could help everyone. And yes, I would prefer that the Wiki be up to date as that may help others seeking information on CIRM if they have a particular disease or something similar. As a cancer survivor, I would hope everyone felt the same way. But even if the Wiki isn't correct, CIRM's web site, as that of a public agency, will continue to be, and people can always go there if Wikipedia fails in this case. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mkingsense|Mkingsense]] ([[User talk:Mkingsense#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mkingsense|contribs]]) 23:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Or someone else can update the page if you want to let false accusations of someone with a clear chip on their shoulder to keep me from being able to edit it. Up to you, but what is up there now is wrong. Old. In bad need of updating, as the page itself said long before I went in to edit it. I did some work on it, and verified it, based on what a public agency, funded by taxpayers, that gives money away instead of making any, says on it's own web site and blog. And yes, I want CIRM to continue succeeding as a public entity that funds medical research that could help everyone. And yes, I would prefer that the Wiki be up to date as that may help others seeking information on CIRM if they have a particular disease or something similar. As a cancer survivor, I would hope everyone felt the same way. But even if the Wiki isn't correct, CIRM's web site, as that of a public agency, will continue to be, and people can always go there if Wikipedia fails in this case. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mkingsense|Mkingsense]] ([[User talk:Mkingsense#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mkingsense|contribs]]) 23:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I will also note that MarginalCost's original post stated far more concern with other edits than mine:

"This is my first report to COIN, so I'm not totally sure how to handle this situation. An IP editor changed a figure in the article giving the edit summary "Updating the number of clinical trials we funded", which seems to imply some official representation of the company. The IP went on to remove a picture they considered outdated. Registered user Mkingsense also made large changes that they stated were "based on input from CIRM," but this does not necessarily indicate a COI. What are the next steps, particularly for the unregistered IP? What should be documented on the talk page? Thanks! MarginalCost (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)"

I am not the "IP editor" and I did not remove a picture. I don't know why you would not want those changes made, since they are accurate and verifiable, but OK. Either way, MarginalCost said "but this does not necessarily indicate a COI." And I read the policies and guidelines. And before I had a chance to respond to MarginalCost, Jytdog attacked me needlessly, overly aggressively and changing the story with every post Jytdog made. I thought perhaps they were the same person since MarginalCost doesn't have a user page, but I can see they are likely not the same person. MarginalCost was finally able to jump back in and try to mediate, and again, before I had a chance to respond, Jytdog, who had already said "I'm done...I'm reporting this...you're wasting my time," then took it upon Jytdog's self to continue harassing me. Far from being "done", Jytdog proceeded to spend quite a bit of time on this and personally attack me.

Perhaps Jytdog should step out of this and MarginalCost and I can go back to the original post, to which I never had a chance to respond, and go from there with no unnecessary aggression and nastiness like that brought in by Jytdog.

Revision as of 23:50, 5 July 2018

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    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-wp@wikipedia.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
    Draft talk:Abdulla Al Nuaimi
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Monica Behan
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Shmuley Boteach
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Michael Calvey
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Vincenzo de Cotiis
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Eric Gallager
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Global Citizen Awards
    Talk:Global Strategy Group
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Greystar
    Talk:Harsco
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Jats
    Talk:Christian Kälin
    Talk:Elham Kashefi
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Lucy Komisar
    Talk:Lally School of Management
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Ranker
    Talk:Reworld
    Talk:Rivulis
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Steve Tappin
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Martha G. Welch
    Talk:Yahoo Finance
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    David Michigan

    Following up on User talk:Czar#Recreation of David Michigan at David Michigan (fitness trainer)

    This article was previously created twice by a sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raju Adhikari/Archive) and was recently recreated at another location to circumvent the page creation restrictions. A checkuser on my talk page says that the recent recreation is unrelated to the socks, but the current copy is promotional enough and the page's creation has closely coordinated with this Commons user's image uploads enough to cause concern. Any input? czar 03:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I would take no action after the user's disclosure here: ([1]). The user should answer on whether or not David Michigan has explicitly asked the user to create a page for him, and whether or not David Michigan has asked other people to create a page for him in the past. In any case, this article should probably be sent to AfD. Alex Shih (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't heard back from the user. Article now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Michigan (2nd nomination) (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 17:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    David Ibiyeomie

    Rossifichio is a clear WP:SPA editor with a focus on David Ibiyeomie (a Nigerian pastor) and Salvation Ministries which Iniyeomie founded and is the senior pastor. They've added [poorly sourced and highly promotional material, overly detailed lists and just puts back removed material without discussion. I've asked politely on their talk page to declare their obvious COI, but no response. Would appreciate some outside review and suggestions. Ravensfire (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've noticed this too. I've reverted them before and I thought that I had given them a warning too but looking at the history of their talk page I see that I had not. They don't edit relentlessly but they have been at it for a while. I'm not sure if they are officially retained to edit on behalf of Ibiyeomie's organisation, or whether they are just a fan with a neutrality problem, but either way they need to stop. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Did a bit of digging. Previous SPI under Jack Nyong,think this guy will turn out to be his sock. Evidence of several other socks in revision history. Leave it to you for reporting, not sure how to do it Lyndaship (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    SPI report made. Not sure if I've done it right Lyndaship (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a heads up, I recently bumped into another likely sock on Salvation Ministries. I have already added them to the SPI report. I've also requested page protection due to socking HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Republic (crowdfunding platform)

    Probable undisclosed paid editing. Draft is pending at MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for posting User:Robert McClenon but it was disclosed here. The person has disclosed and put through AfC. They have been nonresponsive to reviewers hence the MfD but there is no bigger issue I think. Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Large farm of query paid editors

    Working on these two topics: Angelique Rockas and Internationalist Theatre. Peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Russell A. Brown

    editors
    affected pages

    More (very apparent) academic self-promotion. SPI filed. Oldest account nonresponsive here. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Philippe Parreno

    The bio has been owned by apparent COI accounts for a long time--this is merely the most recent attempt to restore promotional content. I've taken this to the BLP noticeboard, and requested assistance with copyright violations, but gather that further steps are necessary now. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A Soldier's Story (2015 film)

    Self-admitted COI. Promoting an unreleased movie and adding unsourced content to an unrelated article. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Another round of ACPERM evaders

    I've cast the net somewhat wider this round as the previous heuristic was getting less effective, so expect a few more false positives. Still, there's plenty of spam to go around and quite a bit has been nominated for deletion. MER-C 19:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ErnestCarrot

    And sure enough, there was another large bunch of socks.

    Sigh. MER-C 14:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    MER-C holy smokes, thanks for doing this research. I'm a little distracted by other projects now but if a nomination like that for PCO Imaging comes up again, would you ping me? I would have def voted "delete" on that but didn't see it in time. Obviously cutting the legs (paychecks) out from under the paid editing advocacy editors is important. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And today we have a new user TheRainMandem whose first meaningful edit is to deprod Fiona Scott Lazareff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lyndaship (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Make that two, with another spam page under construction. I prefer not to follow up spam SPIs quickly for BEANS reasons, so I'll keep this in mind next time I run the detection program. I suggest taking the article to AFD. MER-C 18:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've listed it at AfD. I also PRODed Boulevard (lifestyle magazine) yesterday as it has same creator and one of the socks linked to it from this one as his first edit, today I see a new IP editor has done some work on it but not as yet dePRODed Lyndaship (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Some historical stuff. MER-C 16:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    From the latest SPI. MER-C 08:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A week's worth of articles just clearing the ACPERM bar

    I think there are a few socks in this dump. Note that there is another new heuristic for catching accounts that clearly aren't the first ones operated by the relevant editors. MER-C 16:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Hannuri Law

    Reporting for the record. No action needed at this time as the known socks have been blocked. We can expect that more attempts will be made. Since the draft title is create-protected, standard procedure for an AFC reviewer, which is to move a sandbox draft to draft space, will run into the salt block and alert a reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Recommend salting the title in article space also as protection against end run. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be watching some variations of the title such as the obvious redlink Hannuri, and looking out for injected junk at Batterygate. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Another NPPer blocked for sockpuppetry and native advertising

    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seokochin (though not a sock of this farm). The four most suspicious articles are above, but Caldwell Partners looks somewhat dodgy. The politician articles seem to be fine, but you have been warned. MER-C 14:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor Jakenicholson, possible promotional editing

    While checking out a report of an alleged BLP violation, I came to the opinion that the subject Matthew Tye was not notable and nominated it for deletion, only to discover that it had been delete twice already. An examination of the edits of page creator Jakenicholson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indicates a very promotional style of editing. The short edit history of May to October 2017 makes me suspect that there may be other accounts controlled by the same person that have been active before and afterwards. Shritwod (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    Steve Down

    Scope Creep insists on duplicate content:

    In 2017 Down and The Falls Event Center were under SEC investigation and several of company's centers were in financial straits.[9][10][11][12][13][12][14]

    vs

    Beginning in 2017, Down and The Falls Event Center were under SEC investigation and several of company's centers were in financial straits.[9][10][11][12][13][12][14][16]

    Moresie with 85 edits, altering Steve Down article to remove soften or remove litigation stance against down. scope_creep (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your note here. I'm happy to "take out" Steve Down if you'd like, using Wikipedia. But a straightforward review of my edits shows:

    1. Grammar is perfected. 2. I remove a duplicate sentence:

    In 2017 Down and The Falls Event Center were under SEC investigation and several of company's centers were in financial straits.[9][10][11][12][13][12][14]

    vs

    Beginning in 2017, Down and The Falls Event Center were under SEC investigation and several of company's centers were in financial straits.[9][10][11][12][13][12][14][16]

    These sentences are a duplicate.

    3. Add reliable sources. QSR magazine etc. I agreed with you on Huffington Post and Forbes not being reliable sources.

    4. I have no COI. Perhaps review WP:OWN or perhaps a third party can weigh in on Steve Down page. Otherwise I Have no bone to pick here. Moresie (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: still seeing duplicate content and an attempt to WP:OWN the page @ScopeCreep. Moresie (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the duplicate sentence; and left a note on the talk page explaining why. However, you do seem to have made a few more changes than just removing duplicate sentences; I can see that Scopecreep has spelt out his objections on the talkpage to the changes; its your turn to state why the changes you want to make will improve the page. Thats how the Bold, Revert, Discuss thing works. Curdle (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Perfect; thanks for weighing in. Where scope_creep (talk) and I 100% agree: Pages like these need more eyeballs. Thanks for your edits Curdle (talk). Moresie (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr Attempt - GISMA Business School - Head of Berlin Campus

    Hi all.

    I have made an Edit Request on the GISMA Business School page. I have requested the addition of the name of the Head of Berlin Campus. My COI is that I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns GISMA. With thanks, - MrAttempt (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    There doesn't seem to be anything for the noticeboard here, so I'm going to close this case. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Infidgit Consultants

    I reviewed and declined the draft, noting that it had notability issues and tone issues. The submitter thanked me for my "valuable feedback" and wrote: "Already forwarded to my content team." This appears to be clear conflict of interest, more "native advertising" than "undisclosed paid editing", Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    > Infidigit Consultants Pvt. Ltd is an SEO agency
    Clear covert advertising. Deleted. MER-C 17:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    National Iranian American Council

    The user's sole edits have been regerading this organisation and has been edit warring with other users. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Fernando Vendrell

    Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content, addition of non notable films, building a resume. 2601:188:180:11F0:CDA0:623:849E:B032 (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spectra29485

    Pretty clear WP:COI, WP:PAID. Also, the user's first edit back in 2011 was speaking in the plural first person to remove "slanderous" material on the Spectra Records article -- and look at the username #facepalm. FlamesElite (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has denied a paid relationship after I left {{uw-paid1}}. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am somewhat doubtful of this denial, for the following reasons:
    --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drm310:There is a definite connection; per the Beacon Publishing Group article, said company is a subdivision of Spectra music. This is corroborated by several sources online, such as this blog (not the best source, I know) [8] which describes Beacon as a subdivision of Spectra. This article [9] indicates that a high-ranking employee at Spectra has a connection to Beacon, and this article [10] directly states "will be distributed to stores across America via Beacon Audiobooks, a division of Spectra Music Group". My holding of Spectra29485 in good faith has suffered some chipping.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Samholt6: That was enough for me to file a report at WP:UAA. Let the chips fall where they may. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked this account indefinitely per this discussion. Alex Shih (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ken Urban

    User:Johnmichaelkennedy states, "I am a public relations practitioner located in Greater Boston and happy to be both a donor and a relatively new editing member of the Wikipedia community. I am compensated by some clients of mine to update facts and correct details on their own Wikipedia pages. I disclose this when editing those pages." He only edits Ken Urban, but cannot see any disclosure of this connection. Posted a COI notice on his talkpage on 30 December 2017, but he continues to edit the article. Edwardx (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User has now posted a disclosure on his userpage. I have added the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template to Talk:Ken Urban. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we want anything else to happen here? I see the article is tagged for cleanup as well. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Poet's Beach

    Should any templates be added to Talk:Poet's Beach per this version of User:Gangstaoflove profile page? There is ongoing discussion re: COI editing and article improvement on the article's talk page, but not sure if more clarification is needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Recruiting auto-patrolled editor

    Hi, while looking into the problem of blackhat paid editing found an advert on a work ad site looking for an autopatrolled editor to upload precreated and finished articles onto Wikipedia without being reviewed. It said the poster is in Czechlosovakia and is named Vlad, also that they've spent over $4000 on the site so this could have been going on for a while. Another ad was from a new north California legal firm offering $400 for a Wikipedia article on them and if successful to create articles for their clients. Most of the other ads were minor league asking for a wiki article on themselves as individuals or business from $50 to $200, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Good work so far. Can you identify any specific article at this point? If so does it look like any particular editor has been a paid editor? (this will likely have to be a guess - so just point out your suspicion and ask here for help. Don't go making final, fight-to-the-death accusations.) . If you get to the point where you are afraid of outing somebody, ask an admin for help. I'm particularly interested in the Czech connection. BTW Czechoslovakia is now defunct. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly Highstakes00 related: see [11] ☆ Bri (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Also involving Mrkoolblu: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 125#Barkaat Ahmad ☆ Bri (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    UpFront

    Hi, having trouble here with promo edits including a mass of youtube links to videos with advertising. The 2 editors look like sockpuppeting and on their edit history are probably connected to AlJazeera, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Atlantic306 I've ran a check and blocked all related accounts accordingly. Alex Shih (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Aquaria (drag queen)

    I'll assume User:Giovannipalandrani is not really Giovanni Palandrani / Aquaria (drag queen), so not sure which tags/talk page templates are most appropriate here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Another Believer: Maybe consider leaving them a {{Uw-uall}} notice. If they continue to edit their page, then the account should be blocked accordingly. Alex Shih (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Vinay Varma

    Single purpose editor whose username is the subject's first name + the subject's company. Editor didn't respond to a message left on their talk page and continued to edit the page in question. The material they've added doesn't seem ~promotional~ per se, but there's probably a COI here. originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 10:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    Hello, We have declared our COI (Paid COI) in our article talk page, user talk page. Please let us know if anything else required. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vinay_Varma&diff=848176239&oldid=848176177 Thanks Vinay sutradhar (talk)

    Liberty Holdings Limited

    Problem editing seems to be stopped ☆ Bri (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    This article has been extensively edited by IP addresses belonging to "Liberty-life". Cordless Larry (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Stubbified by JzG. Not sure if there's anything else to do unless someone wants to undertake deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now been left a message by one of the IPs above saying that they will stop editing the article, so posting here seems to have done the trick. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Suspicious editing by RemoD007

    Blocked user do to concerns raised here. Article clean up may still be required Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    At the prompting of another editor, I recently looked into connections between the editing of the blocked User:SudhanshuKumar1 (talk) (a sock of User:Sudhanshu6454 (talk)) and User:RemoD007 (talk), a new editor who joined the project several weeks after SudhanshuKumar1 was banned. For convenience sake I will spit this comment into two parts.

    • The above evidence for some sort of connection is decent, but I was able to do some off-wiki digging and uncover more. For example RemoD007 created 3 Dev (a film) and Ankoosh Bhatt (the director of 3 Dev). Interestingly enough, per these two sources [14] [15] the movie's digital marketing is being handled by our old friends at... Digital Sukoon, the company that employed Sudhanshukumar1 to write Wikipedia articles.

    With all of the above being said, a case of COI editing and likely undisclosed paid editing seems clear.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for looking at this case SamHolt6, pinging SpacemanSpiff who blocked Sudhanshukumar1 and Doc James who blocked his sock Sudhanshu6454 to take a look at this one. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It also should be noted that per this facebook post [16] Digital Sukoon is an online marketer for Manmeet Singh, who RemoD007 recently uploaded an image of to the commons [17]. Usually I am able to find that high-quality images have been taken from the internet without attribution, but in this case it seems the photo may have legitimately be RemoD007's own work. This would imply a further connection to them editing clients of Digital Sukoon.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Zmadeba

    Looks a lot like UPE, especially given Julia Hanzl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was previously deleted as spam. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy, I just sent the mandatory notification to the editor ☆ Bri (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Rasheeda

    Rasheeda is signed to her husband's management company D-Lo Entertainment. The above user only has edits for Rasheeda's page (since 2009). Right now this user has been constantly trying to falsify Rasheeda's birthdate, trying to shave 6 years off her age, despite valid sources confirming her real birth date. Pinchofhope (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note that Dlo117@gmail.com is Rasheeda's booking email. https://twitter.com/rasheeda/status/623981877733359616?lang=en Pinchofhope (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've used the COI template on the user's talk page.
    I've also looked at the article, and removed the birthdate altogether. The birthdate was not listed in the source being given for the date. No reliable source was given with a birthdate. There was a claim that there were articles that had another birthdate, but then a judgment in Wikipedia voice as to them being wrong. None of this is acceptable, and it is best that the birthdate remain out of the article unless it can be reliably sourced. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Tigers Limited

    Blocked and deleted by MER-C

    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.

    Fully referenced article made with one or two clicks, well polished. The username clearly suggests they work in PR department. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, Ammarpad. Meantime is the name of PR company that specialises in the transport and logistics industry. Tigers Ltd. is one of their clients. See the list here. Voceditenore (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked and deleted. MER-C 19:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Lady Eleanor Holles School

    Could someone take a quick look at this school article, where someone identifying as the husband of the headmistress has been making changes? It seems to be something of a borderline COI, and I've held back from commenting on it; I'd appreciate more eyes. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC). Full details on Talk:Lady Eleanor Holles School. Rhanbury (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    page creation log now live

    It can be found at Special:Log/create. I thought folks at COIN would be interested in this. I am not sure if this should go to the talkpage, or here. So please feel free to move if you think so. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 19:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael S. Smith II again

    sock blocked Jytdog (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    accounts

    See prior COIN filings

    The sockmaster had the chutzpah to ask someone else if they had a COI (diff).

    Newest account is obvious sock; have filed SPI. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Jordan Fung

    Jordan Fung, User:DragoJ, seems to be exclusively editing pages relating to himself, his school, and his awards/products.220.246.180.24 (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Also see User:Jordan Fung. 220.246.180.24 (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Brave (web_browser)

    I have noticed that user Jonathansampson is constantly writing positive text about Brave. When investigating, I discovered that he is Marketing Manager at Brave (source: Google) - paid and undisclosed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jonathansampson

    User is paid for and working for Brave marketing.

    I have undone the changes until a neutral editor can come in. Thank you for your help, Basicbbr (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    Please share any positive comments I've made about the Brave Browser; my edits have been objective and neutral. With all due respect, you have repeatedly unsupported claims (Brave is not adware, for instance). Your allegation that I am a Marketing Manager is also incorrect; I'm an engineer on the product (happy to disclose this, as I have on Reddit, Twitter, and elsewhere). I sincerely would appreciate a neutral third-party to consider the edits, and weigh in on the quality of our contributions.
    I'll address specific faults with the article on the appropriate Talk page, and we can hash out the details there.
    Jonathansampson (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Virtually every source in that article is either a sales promo, a press release, or an affiliated self-published source. I don't think it would survive AfD. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guy, can you please share with me which of my edits were objectionable? I referenced two sources to my knowledge: one regarding history collection, and the other regarding the larger ads trials program. The first source I shared was the privacy policy for the program, and the second was the announcement. These seemed appropriate, since another editor was misrepresenting the topic. If details from the announcement aren't appropriate, and the privacy policy itself isn't appropriate, what type of source do you suggest is appropriate for accurately representing the topic? Jonathansampson (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is correct, what I found was Senior Developer Relations Specialist and Author @ Brave.com official blog. I interpreted (maybe incorrectly?) that you were responsible for the image of the company and that you could own investment into BATs. I do understand that it is important to keep a nice corporate image. When I saw the article it was really a big ad, with flowers everywhere, I tried to go more neutral, maybe it was too much of a shock. So I replaced Controversy with "The future of Brave", and used more positive words. I think it's fine and we can arrange this on the talk page. I would appreciate if we can take a more talk approach, rather than just delete statements. Basicbbr (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Guy is away holding the place together, I will reply. This isn't really the place for discussion, but most if not all the reference are technical Churnalism, that don't satisfy WP:ORGIND nor WP:NCORP. There is no secondary source that discuss it independently of the product, and therefore indicate it is not notable. scope_creep (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's appropriate to delete the page; the Brave Browser is referenced all across the web, and merits a presence on Wikipedia. I am an engineer on the browser, that fact is in no way being obscured. My primary concern is with demonstrably-false information being added to the post by an individual who has only edited the Basic Attention Token and Brave Browser pages, and whose account appears to have only recently been created. Basicbbr, I would be more than happy to work out any issues on the Talk page, but you have yet to show any edit I made that wasn't neutral. I am not here to advertise Brave, I'm here only to represent it factually. If I fail to be neutral, I welcome the criticism and whatever may follow. With all due respect, your edits do not sound neutral (and your history here gives me some concern as to your motives). You created a Controversies category, and populated it with misleading information, for instance. Jonathansampson (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not believe to be impartial either; it is important to understand that computer software replacing ads may be perceived as controversial or even illegal in some countries. As you seem particularly worried by my edits, I will not do edits anymore on your page but I encourage you to talk with editors to reach NPOV. Thank you for disclosing the COI. Basicbbr (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I absolutely appreciate the NPOV interest; I sincerely don't wish to co-opt Wikipedia for marketing purposes. I have updated the Talk page, and will continue to do so. Please feel free to engage with me there, and we can work out the best, most neutral, explanation for what Brave is, and what it's doing. Jonathansampson (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Please be aware that special measures apply to Basic Attention Token. MER-C 19:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Horse and Rider

    Can someone keep an eye on this article? The user, owner of a replica covered in the article, recently published a press release stating the thing to be worth millions,[18] all the while editing the article to remove any criticism or doubt. He does not believe that there is a conflict of interest in any way. I'm at a loss. --Felcotiya (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Felcotiya: I have left a note on Jwpetty1951's talk page reminding them to start a discussion at Talk:Horse and Rider (Leonardo da Vinci) if they desire changes to the article (considering they have a clear COI), and reminded them to conform to both WP:CON and WP:COI. Hopefully this results in a productive discussion. I have also notified them of this discussion, and Felcotiya I will remind you that it is a courtesy (it may actually be a requirement) to notify another editor if they are mentioned here at COIN. Per your request, I have also added the article to my watchlist in case that an issue arises again.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounded familiar and voila: WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 116#Horse and Rider same time last year ☆ Bri (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Amb sib

    Amb sib is linkspamming cellosaurus (web.expasy.org/cellosaurus/) and has been doing so for years. This is the editor's own database as stated here "(such as mine, the Cellosaurus)".

    Some of the many, May 2018 [19], April 2018 [20], March 2018 [21], Oct 2017 [22], March 2017 [23], Oct 2016 [24], Aug 2016 [25], July 2016 [26], Nov 2015 [27] [28] (a massive linkspam in nov 2015), Nov 2015 [29] where it may have started.

    Editor is the primary editor of Cellosaurus, and baring minor edits the only editor. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't call it link spamming, more a case of referencing but I do see your concerns. I don't think it is such problem though, Amb sib is indeed the PI for the database, it is part of a collection of databases maintained by the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, which gives it merit to source Wikipedia articles, don't you think? --Andrawaag (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The Cellosaurus is not a "personal" resource. As stated in its home page it is part of the neXtProt resource developed by the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics. It is one of the service offered by the SIB to the ELIXIR European life infrastructure:

    https://www.elixir-europe.org/services

    It is one of the resource key to the fight against cell line misidentification:

    http://iclac.org/databases/

    While, as a group leader at the SIB and a founder and developer of [[UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot|Uniprot], ENZYME, PROSITE, neXtProt and other resources I personally spend time on the Cellosaurus this is not "my" resource.

    I am not sure if you are aware of the work being done in the life sciences in the last 30 years to establish core resources to help scientist carry out research. This is a key element of modern research and the contribution of databases such as Swiss-Prot or the Cellosaurus are recognized by the community as exemplified by the lastest ABRF award:

    https://abrf.org/awards/abrf-award-outstanding-contributions-biomolecular-technologies

    So linking Wikipedia pages representing biological objects to biomolecular resource is essential. This is also true of the integration of these resources in Wikidata. Recently all the Cellosaurus cell lines were entered in Wikidata as part of an effort to have life science resources contribute to a FAIR infrastructure.

    Its true I added these links myself instead of asking another of my group member or other Wikipedia contributors to do it. If you prefer that it be done by someone else I will ask the community to do so. It seems to me a waste of time to delegate this task and took upon myself to contribute to the Wikimedia movement.

    The Cellosaurus has now been described in a perr reviewed publication:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29805321

    But I guess you will say that as I am the sole author it is conflict of interest :-)

    As an example of the use of the Cellosaurus to authenticate cell lines and thus clean up experimental errors, see a very recent example published a few days ago:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29873307

    On a personal note I resent your accusation of "linkspaming": cross-referencing to scientific resources is not only the reverse of spamming but one of the strength of modern biological sciences.Amb sib (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Adam Griffith (American football)

    Can someone please create this article? I know the topic is notable, but I am too affiliated with this person to feel comfortable writing their article. Thank you. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Post your request at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession. Be sure to list some reliable sources that will help an editor to write the article. - Donald Albury 17:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Native promotion?

    There's a full paragraph on a save-the-bees campaign at Honey Nut Cheerios sourced to General Mills (reference #1). Plus their commercial on YouTube cited as a source (#6), more GM sourcing (#7), and a press release external link. Not surprisingly, there is a full section on "taglines" (that's new) and another on product advertising.

    Haven't tracked down where it came from, maybe another person will want to. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I had a look. The General Mills saving Bees section, wtf? Removed it, sourced to a press release, and nothing to with a cereal. scope_creep (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Handy Backup

    This article, and its predecessor Novosoft Handy Backup, appear to have been mostly edited by COI editors (perhaps the same person.) --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    California Institute for Regenerative Medicine

    This is my first report to COIN, so I'm not totally sure how to handle this situation. An IP editor changed a figure in the article giving the edit summary "Updating the number of clinical trials we funded", which seems to imply some official representation of the company. The IP went on to remove a picture they considered outdated. Registered user Mkingsense also made large changes that they stated were "based on input from CIRM," but this does not necessarily indicate a COI. What are the next steps, particularly for the unregistered IP? What should be documented on the talk page? Thanks! MarginalCost (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I have reverted their horrible edits. The IP is registered to the institute but needs to explicitly declare. I have left the "mandatory paid editing disclosure" notice for both of them and will follow up on the COI process with both. I am also listed the history of conflicted/paid editing on the article talk page... Thanks for bringing this. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is obvious that Mkingsense has some connection with CIRM due to the diff that MarginalCost cites above. I asked them to disclose and they have just thrown chaff instead of simply disclosing. I gave them the paid editing notice, and they said here I have zero COI with this. I am receiving zero compensation from CIRM. which is obviously untrue. They appear to be interpreting COI only as "paid" and I have no idea what they mean by that. (As we have seen people like interns and PR people for some reason often say they are not paid.) And there is obviously some external relationship under which they "received input" and came here to implement it.
    Based on the sheer awfulness of their edits (completely hijacked the page into a proxy for CIRM's website) and their combativeness, I suggest that this person be indefinitely blocked. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also plagiarims; eg some was copy/pasted from here Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest Jytdog be permanently blocked as this person has clearly had many issues with many other editors, and has had some COI violations in the past. Jytdog is the one who copied and pasted information about financial COIs into Jytdog's accusation that I have a financial COI. I do not have a financial COI, or any other COI. I have read the COI Guideline, the FAQ for Organizations and the Paid Contribution Disclosure. No matter how much Jytdog wishes I had a COI, I do not. How can someone disclose something that does not exist? I am not an intern or a PR person. I'm a volunteer here, just like Jytdog supposedly is - though seems to have had trouble with in the past. I want the information about CIRM to be correct, which is, I would like to think, Wikipedia's goal as well. What is up there now is out of date and incorrect. Everything I included is publicly available on CIRM's web site or blog (or elsewhere, as I cited, various third party reports, etc.), and I added numerous citations in the edits I made, painstakingly going to those web sites to make sure the links worked. I can add more citations if required - happy to do this work as long as nobody is trying to bully me as I do it, especially someone who uses statements like this when trying to act like a pious guardian of something they themselves have besmirched in the past: "They appear to be interpreting COI only as "paid" and I have no idea what they mean by that. (As we have seen people like interns and PR people for some reason often say they are not paid.)...

    Based on the sheer awfulness of their edits (completely hijacked the page into a proxy for CIRM's website) and their combativeness, I suggest that this person be indefinitely blocked."

    Or someone else can update the page if you want to let false accusations of someone with a clear chip on their shoulder to keep me from being able to edit it. Up to you, but what is up there now is wrong. Old. In bad need of updating, as the page itself said long before I went in to edit it. I did some work on it, and verified it, based on what a public agency, funded by taxpayers, that gives money away instead of making any, says on it's own web site and blog. And yes, I want CIRM to continue succeeding as a public entity that funds medical research that could help everyone. And yes, I would prefer that the Wiki be up to date as that may help others seeking information on CIRM if they have a particular disease or something similar. As a cancer survivor, I would hope everyone felt the same way. But even if the Wiki isn't correct, CIRM's web site, as that of a public agency, will continue to be, and people can always go there if Wikipedia fails in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkingsense (talk • contribs) 23:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I will also note that MarginalCost's original post stated far more concern with other edits than mine:

    "This is my first report to COIN, so I'm not totally sure how to handle this situation. An IP editor changed a figure in the article giving the edit summary "Updating the number of clinical trials we funded", which seems to imply some official representation of the company. The IP went on to remove a picture they considered outdated. Registered user Mkingsense also made large changes that they stated were "based on input from CIRM," but this does not necessarily indicate a COI. What are the next steps, particularly for the unregistered IP? What should be documented on the talk page? Thanks! MarginalCost (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)"

    I am not the "IP editor" and I did not remove a picture. I don't know why you would not want those changes made, since they are accurate and verifiable, but OK. Either way, MarginalCost said "but this does not necessarily indicate a COI." And I read the policies and guidelines. And before I had a chance to respond to MarginalCost, Jytdog attacked me needlessly, overly aggressively and changing the story with every post Jytdog made. I thought perhaps they were the same person since MarginalCost doesn't have a user page, but I can see they are likely not the same person. MarginalCost was finally able to jump back in and try to mediate, and again, before I had a chance to respond, Jytdog, who had already said "I'm done...I'm reporting this...you're wasting my time," then took it upon Jytdog's self to continue harassing me. Far from being "done", Jytdog proceeded to spend quite a bit of time on this and personally attack me.

    Perhaps Jytdog should step out of this and MarginalCost and I can go back to the original post, to which I never had a chance to respond, and go from there with no unnecessary aggression and nastiness like that brought in by Jytdog.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=849023699"