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
→Anil V. Kumar: Replying to Drm310 (using reply-link)
Line 210: Line 210:


==wikiprofessionals inc==
==wikiprofessionals inc==
{{Archive top|result=Moved to [[WP:AN]]|status=moved}}
;Articles
;Articles
*{{pagelinks|Wissam Al Mana}} (Pages listed in the Wikiprofessionalsinc.com portfolio)
*{{pagelinks|Wissam Al Mana}} (Pages listed in the Wikiprofessionalsinc.com portfolio)
Line 511: Line 512:
::G5 tag was removed by article creator, apparently before the evidence has been considered. Certainly before there has been a response to the evidence by a third party. ☆ [[User:Bri|Bri]] ([[User talk:Bri|talk]]) 14:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
::G5 tag was removed by article creator, apparently before the evidence has been considered. Certainly before there has been a response to the evidence by a third party. ☆ [[User:Bri|Bri]] ([[User talk:Bri|talk]]) 14:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
*Another one – according to {{U|Smartse}}, Delyan Peevski is linked to the same firm, also through a customer testimonial [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADelyan_Peevski&type=revision&diff=855801392&oldid=851992828]. [[User:Bri.public|Bri.public]] ([[User talk:Bri.public|talk]]) 19:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
*Another one – according to {{U|Smartse}}, Delyan Peevski is linked to the same firm, also through a customer testimonial [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADelyan_Peevski&type=revision&diff=855801392&oldid=851992828]. [[User:Bri.public|Bri.public]] ([[User talk:Bri.public|talk]]) 19:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
{{abottom}}


== Cathy Marie Buchanan ==
== Cathy Marie Buchanan ==

Revision as of 18:11, 23 July 2020

"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
    Talk:Asia Society
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:AvePoint
    User talk:Beran-jale
    Talk:Carbfix
    Talk:Brian Chesky
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Connections Academy
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:Fundbox
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:Gregmark Records
    Talk:Steven Grinspoon
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Irish Cave Rescue Organisation
    Talk:JLL (company)
    Talk:Scott Kurashige
    Talk:List of sequence alignment software
    Talk:LPL Financial
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Operation Santa Claus
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Pod Point
    Talk:Runner's World
    Talk:The Student Room
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Augusta Read Thomas

    MCPCG

    Articles and drafts are about non notable companies founded by Mason Piscitelli, who was also added to the high school article [1]. User appears to be here primarily to promote Mr. Piscitelli's endeavors. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Stony Brook University

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

    @Orangemike: this edit makes the user sound like a paid employee: "We've tried to reach out numerous times on the old logo used for this page, but haven't heard from any editors on if it can be swapped out to the one that's being used now. There have been two separate updates to the logo since that one, so this hasn't reflected updates to the imagery. This page explains the new logo. https://www.stonybrook.edu/brand/design-visual-identity/logos-2/" ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The strength of the evidence that this editor is employed by this subject and violating WP:PAID makes me believe that he or she should be blocked until he or she directly and clearly addresses these concerns on his or her Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Which block template would you recommend? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familiar enough with the block templates to make a recommendation. If there isn't already a "there's strong evidence that you're violating WP:PAID but you are refusing to address the issue" template then it might need to be created. ElKevbo (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Orangemike: how about that fancy new pblock on the Stony Brook University page? The only problem seems to be them editing SBU pages.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you notice they refer to "our legal team" here? -- Bri.public (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bri: good catch. They also extensively edited the page for an SBU president here and in other edits.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Orangemike: Sorry. A bit late to the party, but noticed this thread. {{Uw-upeblock}} tends to be the template of choice for unpaid editing blocks, if you come across a similar situation again. OhKayeSierra (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Smile Foundation

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

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

    Greghenderson2006

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

    The editor lists Alexander Henderson as their father on their user page, so I am adding the three Alexander D. Henderson pages that they have edited. This is reminding me a bit of the Mitzi.humphrey family memorial efforts.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, they have been adding various forms of this link, which the user lists on their user page as their own site.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ThatMontrealIP, there's quite a lot at [2]
    It's perhaps worth noting that the editor in question makes exaggerated claims about his subjects, such as that Cary S. Cox is "best known for inventing the ... the cotton gin ". (His patent is from 1928, Eli Whitney patented the first modern cotton gin in 1794) Vexations (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vexations: I have removed all mentions of hendersonfamilytree.com as a) it was published by the editor who added it. Not a reliable source or appropriate EL. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Another one of these cases. My hand is currently not on the block button, but it twitches closer and closer as I note how almost everything he has contributed is connected in some way to his family (List of Pilot boats? Oh, that looks okay...wait a second, why's this Joseph Henderson linked everywhere...?). There do appear to be some unrelated pages in his contribs, though, and I don't think this is a WP:NOTHERE situation. I will give him some time to explain himself here. I also recommend that those experienced in image licensing take a look at his Commons uploads, I've already see a few doubtful "own work" cases. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GeneralNotability: maybe you could speak to this user on their talk to encourage them to discuss here? They are ignoring requests to stop editing the family-related pages: today's edits. I agree they have made some positive contribs in the past, but they seem dead set on ignoring basic COI principles and continuing to promote the family.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Agree. See their newest creation Carmel Art Association.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user in quesiton has added a COI declaration with articles, but it is still unclear as to whether these are all the articles. They still do not seem to understand that their editing has created a lot of work for other editors who now have to go through and check each of the articles on family members that they edited.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. I have looked through a number of this editor's articles and they contain excessive quotes from obituaries and trivial mentions which make them read much more like memorials than encyclopaedia articles. I've made edits to several but they will need a lot more careful scrutiny. Melcous (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK I found the COIN page. You guys are doing your job and I appreciate this. I have been creating Wikipedia pages for many years have loved it! However, in the last two days, you have laid into me with messages and warnings. I am slowly getting it. I can of course improve the pages, but not sure what to do here with so many messages of COI and possible deletions. I thought Wikipedia was a place to add information on important subjects like Sandy Hook Pilots, Attorney Generals, and Developers of Airparks, Patents, companies, etc. When I write a Wikipedia article, I try to follow best practices by asking for help, sticking to neutral language, and having other editors review my work. I have signed a COI Declaration on my user page. What can I do to improve the articles and repair this relationship? Greg Henderson(talk)
    Greghenderson2006 it seems a bit disingenuous to say you "thought wikipedia was a place to add information on important subjects like Sandy Hook Pilots, Attorney Generals" etc when the vast majority of your edits here have not been to do that, but to create and maintain articles about your family members. What you can do? The first step is pretty simple: agree to stop editing articles on topics connected to your family members. Melcous (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And please, Greghenderson2006 stop WP:SPAM spamming the External Links sections of articles with links that go to an Amazon.com sales page to your own self-published book. Wikipedia is not a place to try to sell your "book". Netherzone (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netherzone:, I agree it's a good chance of WP:NOTHERE situation. Have a look at his edits on Pilot boat which involves inserting Henderson mixed with buffer to make it less obvious. Disclosing his COI isn't a pass to make edits for the purpose of inserting things to show his ancestors name visibility Graywalls (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Greghenderson2006: thank you for your post above. The reason that we are concerned about your edits is that we don't allow substantial content editing of articles by those who are directly related to the articles.
    @Graywalls:, I saw that also - and there was another boat article with 14 mentions of one of his relatives that I saw you cleaned up. Even the articles that seem unrelated, when you look through them up pops another COI entry. This category he created on Commons says it all.[3] All roads lead to you know who. Netherzone (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you have asked about adding sources at Cary S. Cox. As long as these are independent sources, doing so is fine in my view' the COI policy allows involved editors to make minor non-controversial factual corrections or small additions to the article. You should keep in mind that anything that looks like promotion of your family is probably not a non-controversial item. Any significant changes need to be proposed on the talk page, usually through the WP:REQUESTEDIT process.
    What is not OK is creating articles about your family members, pushing them to article space and then continuing to edit them for years. If you want to write articles about family members you can do that via WP:AFC, where the article will be reviewed by an independent editor.
    Similarly not OK is adding links to books that you have published, unless it was an independent publisher and you add the links very judiciously. The same goes for the family history website that you operate: we are not interested as you are publishing your own material, and ostensibly could be seen to be promoting it via Wikipedia.
    To sum up, the advice here is that you have to stop directly editing articles on your family unless the edits are very minor. Larger edits need to be discussed or approved via Requestedit. New articles on family members need to go through AFC. Does that all make sense? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ThatMontrealIP Yes, it makes sense. I appreciate the time you have made to educate me on these issues. I will follow the above advice. Greg Henderson(talk)
    Thanks, that is all we needed to hear. It is all about keeping the encyclopedia neutral. We appreciate your future adherence to the policies.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The disclosure on his user page needs to be clearer and articles by listing articles with COI separately from generic my articles listing. Also, I feel like the anchor text on his user page is more along the line of use of Wikipedia for webhosting and brushing up against WP:NOTAWEBHOST policy. Graywalls (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point,t he user should have a list on their user page of articles for which they have a COI with. That would be "best practice".ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Diff/947316726 This insertion about Henderson related stuff into the generic article perfume is also a COI concern. This Special:Diff/828212184 one is also inappropriate. Graywalls (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am starting to think this user should be blocked:

    • They have not given us a listing of COI articles on their user page, despite what seems like 20 warnings; See the numerous reuests just above this. They do say "I have a conflict of interest in many of my Wikipedia articles." but it is up to us to find the ones they have a COI on.
    • They !vote at AFD without disclosing their COI while !voting.
    • Same thing at [the Carmel Art Association AfD], where they edit comment is "My vote is to keep it" and does not mention COI anywhere. Mentioning COI is important for editors unfamiliar with the COI saga.
    • Same thing at the AFD for Cary S Cox: no disclosure for unfamiliar editors or admin closers.
    • Ten days after this thread started, they've admitted they are a connected contributor on Carmel Valley Airport by adding the tag.
    • I just found another article, William_Helm which is obvious COI, but they have not listed it on their user page as a COI article, and haven't tagged the page as connected contributor. At one point they did seek an OTRS release for some of the content, which was copied from their family history web site, so they clearly have a COI.
    In short, they have been using Wikipedia to promote their family for years, and now that we have figured that out, they are not being straight up about their COI in talk page discussions and have stonewalled very clear requests for disclosure. The user is WP:NOTHERE. Pinging GeneralNotability for their opinion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ThatMontrealIP, ugh...I agree with your assessment that they haven't been forthcoming following the previous discussion and that they're pretty much only here to write about family history, but I know I can be quick on the block trigger so I'd rather another admin review and block if needed in this case. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also see the user's pattern supports the assessment he is WP:NOTHERE to build the enclopedia, but here with an agenda to make articles and insert contents about those that relate to his own family. His disclosure looks deliberately vague and no kind of disclosure is a pass to increase the prominence of a particular group for their own purpose. Graywalls (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in agreement that their contributions indicate WP:NOTHERE. Aside from the obvious COI articles, when I've looked through his edit history of contributions that seem to be unrelated, such as Brooklyn Bridge, Garden State Cemetery, Statue of Liberty, etc. only to find that his edits amount to adding info about a family relative, and do not contribute to the overall quality of the article. I've cleaned up this trivia on multiple articles, as have several other editors. Citations are often low quality, linking to Familysearch.com, his personal family website, or his self-published books or publications. He has been editing since 2007, but still seems unfamiliar with (or disinterested in) our basic policies and guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reviewed Brooklyn Bridge, and Statue of Liberty and removed his contribution after seeing the relative insignificance, promotional language and apparent COI intentions. There has been the use of non-neutral phrase like "Joseph Henderson, a harbor pilot regarded as one of the most experienced and trustworthy of New York's Sandy Hook Pilots" in multiple articles, inserted by the editor in question. It shares the editing pattern of covert COI similar to Mitzi.humphrey case mentioned earlier that prevents other editors from noticing unless they're looking for it. Graywalls (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GeneralNotability:, I think it's most appropriate to bar him from editing on anything related to his family, or addition of any contents even abstractly related to his family is perfectly reasonable. He could still pursue his interest in genealogy in something that is unrelated to Henderson, Cox, Ford, and whatever that does not remotely relate to his own ancestry. Graywalls (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think a ban or block is the only way we are going to prevent the Henderson promotional memorial editing here. I had a discussion with them on their talk page today where they refused to provide a list of articles they have COI with, just saying that it was most of them. Then they added a connected contributor tag to Archibald Murray Campbell, and promptly added a source along with some puffery "he was one of the richest (physicians)", which is plain old family promotion. They also marked the edit as minor, with the summary "m (Minor addition of citation requested." This editor's refusal to play by the rules is getting to be a royal pain in the something or other. They just do not get it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, that a ban or block is in order, unfortunately, I don't see any other way to deal with this situation. I have never suggested blocking or banning before, so I did not come to this conclusion impulsively. He continues to edit articles with which he has a COI. He has not disclosed on his talk page all of the articles that he has a COI with, just a smattering. 95% of his edits are connected to his family, their businesses, associated businesses and landmarks, he is solely here to promote his family legacy and ancestry. WP:NOTHERE. He has failed to reveal his COI in AfD discussions. He does not seem to want to abide by policy/guidelines, and has not been listening to the recommendations that several other editors have made to him. He has been given substantial time to mend his ways, as his first warning was in 2013, seven years ago. His COI editing has increased dramatically since then, and it is wasting the time of many editors. Netherzone (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bnguyen1114 and Kamala Harris

    In his own interests and those of the subjects, Bnguyen1114 is now subject to a topic ban. SarahSV (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2020 (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.

    Previous discussion on the Kamala Harris talkpage.

    This situation arose because The Intercept wrote a piece called There’s a War Going On Over Kamala Harris’s Wikipedia Page, With Unflattering Elements Vanishing on July 2, 2020. Bnguyen1114 was mentioned in the article by his username only. On his talkpage, Bnguyen1114 has stated that he has been doxxed as a result of the article.

    Bnguyen1114 himself has said the following about his possible COI on-wiki:

    • I'm just a constituent of Kamala Harris who volunteers for Democratic candidates[4]
    • a California Democrat who has worked in a volunteer capacity for many candidates[5]
    • I am not affiliated with the Harris campaign, but I do volunteer and attend Democratic events[6]

    However, the material which cannot be linked here due to WP:OUTING, actually details that he had a far more direct COI while editing the Kamala Harris pages.

    WMF CEO Katherine Maher also has commented this issue in Twitter and stated that conflict of interest editing is against Wikipedia policies.

    So far Bnguyen1114 has continued to edit the Kamala Harris talkpage. If the nature of his COI is more than "just a constituent" per the information elsewhere, how to proceed? Should functionaries process the private evidence?

    In any case, the COI is "apparent" without a doubt. His 200 first edits were adding endorsements to the Kamala Harris campaign.--Pudeo (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Being a member of the Democrat party, heck even volunteering for Democrat party events isn't a COI. A lot of people might be members of a political party, it costs a few bucks to be one and doesn't carry really any obligations.
    You mention that you have private information which can show a COI, which cannot be posted here due to WP:OUTING. You can email your information to: paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Private information can be sent here, volunteers for that email address are bound by confidentiality agreements. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I sent them an email. --Pudeo (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I request that an administrator delete Pudeo's sentence invoking the authority of Katherine Maher. Given her status as chief executive officer and executive director of Wikimedia Foundation, which owns and hosts Wikipedia, Maher's public off-wiki insinuation that Bnguyen1114 is guilty of conflict of interest editing is outrageously prejudicial and should have no place in this COI discussion. NedFausa (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome to object to Maher's statement; you are not welcome to edit another's comments to remove the statement. ElKevbo (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I will note that Bnguyen1114 has recused themselves from editing Kamala Harris due to an apparent COI. Unless there is proof of paid editing, I'm not sure what the goal is here. PrimaPrime (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the goal in throwing Bnguyen1114 under the bus is twofold: signal Wikipedia's virtue and appease The Intercept. Such are the times we live in. NedFausa (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He hasn't really recused, he said that he will recuse "until some editors go through it". Since then he has participated on the talkpage and argued about content. Plus, he has racked up hundreds of edits which will need to scrutunized if there is a COI. That's what this noticeboard is good for. --Pudeo (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Bnguyen1114's last edit, four dozen unique editors have closely scrutinized Kamala Harris and cumulatively made nearly 200 good-faith contributions. It's absurd to suggest that your COI noticeboard report, filed five days after The Intercept′s exposé, was needed to remediate his overzealousness. Repairs are ongoing and will continue just fine without formally scapegoating our fellow editor. NedFausa (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't really been active other than adding Robert Redford and Ady Barkan's endorsement to Joe Biden's page. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you want me to say I will recuse indefinitely? I will recuse indefinitely. What more do you need to know about me? In 2017, I donated money to Ralph Northam. In 2018, I wrote letters, phonebanked, and textbanked for Claire McCaskill. In 2018, I volunteered to knock doors for Josh Harder. In 2019, I volunteered on Kamala Harris' presidential campaign. In 2020, I phonebanked for Joe Biden's presidential campaign in the run up to the New Hampshire primary. I've taken pictures with Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Jill Biden, and Jay Inslee. I mean seriously, I'm an open book, people. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bnguyen1114, thank you for that information. The above means you have a conflict of interest in relation to these people and you should not edit articles about them on Wikipedia. You're welcome to make suggestions on the talk pages, but you should signal your COI when you do. SarahSV (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bnguyen1114, thank you for being up front. Can I just ask, did you do any of the editing in coordination with the Harris campaign? You have said earlier that you have volunteered for them, but the siginficant issue in situations like this is whether there was any coordination or direction. It sounds like there isn't, but just to be clear it would be good to know. Thanks for bearing with us here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there's no coordination. As I've explained before, I worked this project while in quarantine with long stretches of free time. I haven't been anywhere since the Stay At Home orders have been issued, not even my own office. I saw that Harris' page missed a great deal of information, so I began adding it on my own initiative. The same way I started adding campaign endorsements to hers and Joe Biden's page when the primary was still going on. Moreover, there is no Harris campaign. She suspended in December. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Thanks to Bnguyen, to Slim, and to user:Drmies who I think summed up Bnguyen's edits quite well with this comment: "Bnguyen seemed to be a COI editor who's prime interest was the flooding of these articles with every bit of information, whether relevant, reasonable, well-sourced or not--not overly promotional stuff, or I would have blocked them, but just too much stuff. It's the kind of editing that turns articles into swamps." It was my impression that this editor did not intend to bias the article but perhaps (and hopefully) unknowingly put in so much "stuff" that the article was indeed swamped. I know that I tried to wade into that swamp to improve the article several times but quickly felt I was being sucked under in quicksand and could not go on. Gandydancer (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the right outcome. Restricting Bnguyen1114 as an arbitration-enforcement action from editing articles having anything to do with Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Claire McCaskill, Josh Harder, and their opponents, based on Bnguyen1114's self-disclosure, is reasonable. Since he is not blocked, Bnguyen1114 may now contribute to Wikipedia however he likes, providing he does not breach the limited restrictions that SarahSV has imposed—and, of course, adheres to our other policies and guidelines. NedFausa (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please confirm this is a permanent sanction. If so, I will abide by it, though I don't think there's any reason for me to contribute to any wiki article going forward if this is how volunteerism is rewarded. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You've only been restricted from editing a dozen or less articles. There are still 6,117,931 ( that's 6,117,943 - 12) articles that you are free to edit.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatMontrealIP: I take your point, but your count is way low. Bnguyen1114 is restricted from editing articles having anything to do with Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Claire McCaskill, Josh Harder, and their opponents. Wikipedia presently mentions Joe Biden in 2,620 articles, Kamala Harris in 815, Claire McCaskill in 379, and Josh Harder in 138. And their opponents! My god, Biden's likely opponent in November, a guy named Trump, is mentioned in 18,549 articles. NedFausa (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That sill leaves millions! Lots of volunteer opportunities.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sadly, just seven hours after administrator SlimVirgin imposed arbitration-enforcement restrictions on him, Bnguyen1114 has defiantly flouted those restrictions with this edit. By thumbing his nose at our COI process, Bnguyen1114 has earned an indefinite site block. NedFausa (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks from the block log like it's actually a one-week block, not an indefinite block. No matter; a one-week block is sufficient for now. —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2020 (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.

    Romesh Wadhwani

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

    @SuperGoose007: agree about the likely COI. The edior summarised removal "at child's request". I'd agree with this if this would be about welfare of a minor, e.g. WP:CHILD. However, the subject's daughter is an adult and details of her wedding are widely published, including wedding glamour pics, etc. A sentence about his daughter in this respect are not undue. The editor has been warned correctly. Let's see how they respond. Some of the edits need clean up.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 23:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Easchroeder response to COI--I also put this on my user page but putting this here too, since I'm not totally sure where I'm supposed to be responding.
    The page for Romesh Wadhwani (the founder and chairman of SAI Group) is wildly out of date. This is coming up this week because the Wadhwani Foundation announced an initiative so people are looking him up on Wikipedia and it incorrectly cites his current role as head of STG. He left STG in 2017.
    The page is also missing info about the Padma Shri (awarded Feb 2020) and a bunch of other items. I'm happy to provide external citations for each needed change. I don't know how to get the information updated so would love some help in that.
    My main concern is getting Romesh's info up to date. I do not work for "the Wadhwani Family." I work for SymphonyAI Group.
    The secondary concern is the mention of Melina and Patrick. Patrick (Melina's husband) works at SAI (so the information about him is wrong anyway). They do want their mention removed from Romesh's bio. I did not say welfare--I said security concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easchroeder (talk • contribs) 00:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Easchroeder, many thanks for the clarification. If you are employed by SymphonyAI, a company founded and led by the subject of the article, you are a paid editor under Wikimedia's terms. Any edits to articles about the company, its products, key personnel, etc. are subject to disclosure. For details, see WP:PAID and WP:COI about how to disclose and suggest edits as paid editor.
    In a nutshell, the wishes of people connected with the subject are irrelevant as long as there is sufficient publicly available coverage in reliable media and a mention is not undue or otherwise violates Wikipedia's guidelines. If the place of employments of the subject's son in law needs to be corrected, that's fine. Removal of mention is not necessary as there is sufficient coverage about the daughter and her relations. A sentence is not undue weight and it is relevant.
    Factual updates are fine, but they must be free of puffery. "Fast growing", "leading AI", "driving ... operational excellence", etc. are all marketing hyperbole. Whatever is referenced will also need reliable secondary sources. Company websites, press releases or closely authored articles are not sufficient. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 00:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Got it, thank you ProcrastinatingReader -Easchroeder

    wikiprofessionals inc

    MOVED
    Moved to WP:AN

    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.

    Articles
    Editors

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

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

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

    Well, I practically have a incomplete list! They have a profolio at (can't post link because of blacklist) and that they are all page creations. so, one could look into the page creation log of each one of the pages and find out. The thing is, there are way too many people and I am quite busy at this time. I would also like to post a excerpt of my conversation with the company here:
    conversation
    [17:43] Joe: with the enwiki's page creation log, it appears that they have been created by different users.
    [17:43] Joe: are they all with your company?
    [17:43] Will: Mostly yes
    [17:43] Joe: User:Belmop?
    [17:44] Joe: is that user a part of the company?
    [17:44] Joe: hello?
    [17:45] Will: Kinda share the page reference so I may check
    [17:45] Joe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Belmop
    [17:46] Joe: hello?
    [17:47] Joe: hello?
    [17:47] Will: Let me check please
    [17:47] Joe: ok then
    [17:47] Will: No Its not
    [17:48] Joe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HappyKatsu
    [17:48] Will: Yss
    [17:48] Will: Yes*
    [17:48] Joe: like it is a part of the company?
    [17:49] Will: No but We have good relations with them since long time
    [17:49] Joe: Like are you paying them to edit?
    [17:49] Will: Yes
    [17:50] Joe: ok then.
    (The rep admits one and Denys one of the accounts.) So, that is the evidence for now. Also, it would be very helpful if someone could look through the page creation log of all of the pages in the profolio. BTW I'm Joe and it is not my real name The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 19:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I will notify those users. I am not sure if what they say is true or not. It would be quite easy for them to pick any editor and say "this is one of our paid editors?.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, that's not all, there are much more because that they have a profolio that we can track with the page creation log, but I can't post the link due to blacklist.The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 19:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You can add the names of the pages they claim to have edited, just paste them into a post here without the actual link to the portfolio page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure there is also a friendly admin who would receive the link by email.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The creeper2007, Probe them a bit. Ask them if I am an account they use to edit Wikipedia. We all know where my affiliation are so it will be a way to test and see if they are honest about it. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyberpower678 Like, should I ask them if they use your account to edit? Not sure what you mean The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 20:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The creeper2007, yes. Exactly. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyberpower678 After a long conversation, they said that they did not use your account to edit. Here's the transcript:
    conversation
    [20:48] Jason: I will email you all the details
    [20:48] John: ok do you need my emails
    [20:49] John: its (burner email here)
    [20:49] Jason: Thanks
    [20:50] John: im not seeing it
    [20:50] Jason: Will share everything with you so will take a while
    [20:50] John: ok then I will wait online here
    [20:52] John: almost done?
    [20:53] John: Hello?
    [20:53] Jason: It will be sent to you within 2 3 hours from now
    [20:53] John: ok I will wait here
    [20:54] Jason: Okay
    [20:54] John: and why does it take 2-3 hours?
    [20:54] Jason: We have protocols to follow I have forwarded your query
    [20:54] John: what kind of protocols
    [20:54] John: and are you connected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cyberpower678
    [20:55] John: hello?
    [20:55] Jason: No
    [20:55] John: ok then thank you!
    I'm John in this instance.The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The creeper2007, so this likely increases the chance that they are telling the truth about the first two users. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @The creeper2007: Regarding the portfolio of articles, you don't have to paste the whole link. Just remove the part from the beginning through "wikiprofessionalsinc.com" and post the rest. Or you could just paste the list of articles (though this is not as good as having the links to them). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the help! The portfolio's address is wikiprofessionalsinc(dot)com/wiki-portfolio/ The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 21:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Is an admin looking at this already, or is there any value to my posting the list of articles and/or researching the contributors? It doesn't seem as simple as looking at page creator (though for many of them, it is). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the list of articles at the top of this section. These are the ones that they mention in the portfolio link. Who knows if these pages have any COI or paid editing at all, as they could easily say something was their product when it is not, but it bears examination.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with ThatMontrealIP - there is no way to be sure that they aren't lying about what work they've done to impress potential clients. Neil Young? Really? BD2412 T 00:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: That's linked to the wrong Neil Young. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know which Neil Young it is (or which spelling of Neil Young)? I'll pick a handful of these to look over. BD2412 T 02:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I went to the website, and I see four testimonials there, from Sam Alvey, Ekaterina Zakharieva, Full Tilt Poker, and Dechert. BD2412 T 02:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Alvay, for example, was created by User:Udar55 and largely expanded by User:Ppt1973, both of whom seem to have been a fairly consistent MMA editors since long before this article was created. If there was paid editing in the article at all, it was probably something more minute, like adding or removing some key item. BD2412 T 02:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I did create Sam Alvey's Wiki page, but have created a ton of MMA fighter pages. However, I have no idea who or what this company is. Udar55 (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: I have corrected that one as it have should read Neil Young (video game executive). I checked the others and they are correctly named. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. Created by User:HappyKatsu, which looks like a fairly shady account. Their second-ever edit was this highly precocious addition of a ref tag (I didn't even learn the {{!}} trick myself until I had been here for several years). They made 265 edits over a period from November 2017 to July 2018, and their created pages were Brian Farrell (video game executive), Frank Gibeau, Project Alamo, Mike Verdu, Aaron Loeb, ‎Kevin Chou, Eric Schiermeyer, Roger Dickey, Bill Jackson (video game designer), Neil Young (video game executive), John Schappert (video game executive), and Mark Skaggs. These are all in the area of video game design or social media operation, and each one is created with an edit asserting the notability of the subject (e.g., "Added Kevin Chou page, notable for founding Kabam and growing it to over $400MM in revenue and then selling it for between $700MM-$1B. Also notable for his foray into eSports with the Overwatch League and the $25MM pledge to UC Berkeley"). BD2412 T 03:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatMontrealIP:, can you tell me how to find their portfolio? BD2412 T 03:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412:Here you go! Also, again, this link is not linked to. The chat rep gave it to me. wikiprofessionalsinc(dot)com/wiki-portfolio/ The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 03:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Very glossy. I have no confidence in their honesty in putting out this list, but I will go through them all, probably a handful per day for the next week or so, and I'll flag those that are suspicious. If User:HappyKatsu is a model, they are using dedicated throwaway accounts to make groups of articles within a relatively narrow field, and each account will have a disproportionate number of articles created relative to their total number of edits (i.e., very few edits to topics other than their own created articles, with those tending to be the addition of links pointing to the created articles). BD2412 T 03:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: I agree about having no confidence about what they are claiming. At the same time, the video exec biographies that you point out above do have the atmosphere of promotional/paid editing. Such an easy business to start: they have millions of example articles they can claim as their own.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I looked through a few of the users, many appear to to make 10 edits marked minor and then start creating the page, and then cease editing The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 04:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Investigation of wikiprofessionals inc

    Note: Articles believed to have been created by this entity (or otherwise under COI circumstances) are marked [X]. BD2412 T 22:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • [X] Wissam Al Mana was created by User:Qatar1123, who only made a handful of edits, mostly that page and then disappeared. Funny story: the second edit to that page was by me, gnoming away at disambiguation links.
    • Anne-Marie Baiynd was created by User:Gene Hobbs, a long-time well-established editor in the area who was around from 2006 to 2018. Other than a few IP edits, the rest of the editors who have contributed to the article are equally known. I would not consider this a likely candidate for paid editing.
    • Ciro Guerra was created by User:Lugnuts, a well-established Wikipedian, and was created well before the period in which this company seems to be active. If there's paid editing going on with this article, it would be somewhere later in its history.
    Thanks BD2412. Looking at the edit history, I created this back in 2009, inline with a load of films and directors linked to the 2009 Cannes Film Festival. If you need any more info from me, just ping/drop me a note. Thanks again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lugnuts: The one thing I would ask is that you take a quick look at the page history and see if there is any obvious removal of negative content or addition of boosterish content. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we open a SPI into the matter? SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 15:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SuperGoose007 and BD2412: Well, there would likely to be groups of socks from each ip. also, it is also likely that they have teamed up with well established Wikipedians. Please see transcript below:
    Transcript
    • In the discussion about the users the company uses*


    Joe: like it is a part of the company?
    Will: No but We have good relations with them since long time
    Joe: Like are you paying them to edit?
    Will: Yes
    Joe: ok then.

    It can't hurt, but let me finish going through these initially so I can pull out all the suspicious editors. BD2412 T 15:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    BD2412, perhaps pop like a [X] or something before suspicious entries, so the 'likely not related' entries can be distinguished from the 'perhaps problematic' ones? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I will do that when I get through the list. Almost done. BD2412 T 16:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SuperGoose007:: SPI filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belmop. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Next group:

    • [X] James D. Marks, created in 2012 by User:Danielj55, whose only edits appear to revolve around the creation of this article, and making links to it.
    • Ali Azayku, created in 2007, with no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
    • Ben de Lisi, created in 2009, with no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
    • Helen DeVos, created in 2017, but by User:Edwardx a well-established Wikipedian, and has no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
    • Robert Citrone, also created in 2017 by User:Edwardx, and has no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
    • [X] Pete Flint, created in 2014 by User:Edcowin, whose only edits appear to revolve around the creation of this article, and making links to it.
    • [X] Linx Cargo Care Group, created in 2018 by named paid editor User:Belmop
    • [X] Standard Media, created in 2019 by User:Spizbo, who only made a handful of edits, mostly related to this and another company, Media General.
      Should probably be merged into a section at Media General, who acquired them, anyway. Insufficient notability on its own. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • [X] Odibets, created in 2019 by User:Kripticjay, who only made a handful of edits, mostly related to this topic (which is their only page creation).
    • [X] XING Mobility, created in 2018 by User:Sam.w.90, who made fewer than two dozen edits, many related to this topic.
    • Big Red Group, created in 2017 by a well-established Wikipedian, and has no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
    • Caliburn International, created in 2019 by a well-established Wikipedian, and has no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
    • Dreamscape Immersive, created in 2017 by a well-established Wikipedian, and has no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
    • Blendtec, created as a redirect in 2006, and expanded into an article in 2010, no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
    • [X] Russell McVeagh, created in 2006 by User:Lawgeek18, who had all of seven edits (of which three were page creations in the New Zealand legal services area). There was an attempt to introduce promotional content in 2017 by User:Tessatelle, who only ever edited this article.

    BD2412 T 15:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you think I should alert the company after the investigations(so they won't interfere) to give them a chance to provide their thoughts on this matter?The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 17:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the point, frankly. They are up front about their claimed activities, so what is there for them to explain? BD2412 T 17:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: The thing is, you would never know if there is something until you ask The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 20:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On the one hand, this is true. On the other hand, presuming that they do not yet know of this investigation, we don't want to give them an opportunity to cover their tracks, to the extent such a thing is possible here. I imagine that if we are able to query some of their current work, that will alert them enough. BD2412 T 20:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If User:Lawgeek18 is one of their paid editors, then we need to list the other two articles created by that user. Or am I missing something?

    Thanks. Schwede66 20:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Last group:

    BD2412 T 17:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break

    I'm going to propose deletion of several under WP:G5 criterion. It might help if we had a formal community ban of this outfit, if there isn't one already. I looked at WP:AN and didn't see one (yet). ☆ Bri (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bri: Agree. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 21:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that some of the stuff they claim to have created is junk, and who knows what the quality is of stuff they haven't claimed, I strongly agree. BD2412 T 22:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to WP:AN to generate wider consensus. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 23:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fairly confused what's going on here. As I said at AN, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC: Wikiprofessionals Inc, and paid editing, Russell McVeagh was created in 2006. The editor was only active for that short time, so paid editing can't be ruled out, but if this farm only came about in the early 2010s, how on earth would they be responsible? The other major edits are by User:Tessatelle who may have had a COI but seems to have failed (rejected by User:Drmies), Special:Contributions/Sammy2008 who seems to have a wide ranging interest in NZ (and Tongan) law over a long period of time i.e. probably wasn't a paid editor, an IP from the Lower Hutt library system [7] and Special:Contributions/MarkoMetal who seems to have been identified as editing for Wikiprofessionals Inc back in 2018. But that editor is interesting because they added [8]? As I said at AN, would the law firm pay to add that to the article on them? I guess it's possible it was recognised there was no way it wouldn't be covered so they tried to add something as innocuous as possible before someone else did, but IMO there are many open questions about who is paid who for what in that article. Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've mentioned this discussion and the AN one at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the conversation it is mentioned that HappyKatsu is involved, but Belmop is not a "named paid editor"; also Standard Media is a subsidiary of Standard General, not of Media General (which was sold to another company before Standard Media was founded). It's also possible that this is just a random list of articles and accounts provided as an experiment to see what is deleted and what isn't. Peter James (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC outcome

    RfC just ended with a site ban for WikiProfessionals. Plus, anything they created is eligible for deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional articles

    @Bri: I think you would be better off directly contacting admins, because that this thread is moved to AN and was closed. The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 22:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I sent my evidence via email to paid-en-wp and will tag it g5 for any admin to consider. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    G5 tag was removed by article creator, apparently before the evidence has been considered. Certainly before there has been a response to the evidence by a third party. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2020 (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.

    Cathy Marie Buchanan

    Despite [10] and notices on her talk page, she is continuing to add her current and forthcoming works to articles and to edit her own article, adding quite a bit of unsourced or self-sourced material. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Tagged page for COI, added another warning to user page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed that user General Notability had already used the extremely handy partial-block button to limit the user's editing of the Cathy Marie Buchanan page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Since her response was to go edit other pages and write about her connection to them, I'm going to go ahead and upgrade that to a full block. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    SocialChorus

    Hello, I have a conflict of interest related to a software company called SocialChorus, so I don't intend to make any direct edits to Wikipedia myself. I have created a draft for you all to review at User:JeffreyArthurVA/sandboxB. Could an uninvolved editor review this draft and, so long as it meets your criteria, move it to mainspace? This falls into the category of business software companies along the lines of something like Slack_Technologies so if it would be best to bring this over to an area such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Technology I'd be happy to do so. Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @JeffreyArthurVA: thank you for your disclosure. This is not the page to submit articles for review. I moved your draft to draft space and attached an AFC template. You will see a blue button that you can press to put it in the review queue. You need to also look at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure to make sure that you have the proper disclosures on your talk page, in case this is paid editing. Question: is this paid editing? You should also be disclosing your COI there for the SocialChorus article. Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello and thank you. I will submit it for review through the process you've recommended. I'll clarify that this is not paid editing; I do however know many people in the business software industry, including the founder of this company, so I wanted to err on the side of caution and refrain from making any direct edits myself related to it. Much appreciated. JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again for the disclosure. It might be wise to put something like the above on your user page. The draft itself is tagged for COI so reviewers know to check carefully, and some other editor will remove that template once they have checked it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do, that is a great idea. I get how important it is to be clear with disclosure so I will update my user page to reflect this. Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JeffreyArthurVA, there is an easy template for that, which creates a little box with the COI info on your user page. See item #3 at WP:DISCLOSE.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fantastic, that is much cleaner than my bullets. I'll add that. You have been quite helpful -- thank you. JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    McKinsey & Company

    There are obvious COI issues on the McKinsey & Company page, with some edit-warring. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The article 111k and needs to be shrunk. scope_creepTalk 17:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What a ridiculous response. You went to the article and helped the COI accounts by scrubbing ALL the negative information (scandals, controversies) from the lead and by restoring ludicrous puffery language such as McKinsey helping "the world’s leading businesses... and nonprofits"? As for the substance of your remark, the solution to the size constraints of the McKinsey is obviously not to reduce the lead to one paragraph (!) and conveniently remove text from the lead about the organization's controversies (which takes up most of the space in the body), but rather to trim the body of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this what's to be expected when one comes with obvious COI issues to the COI noticeboard? The editors here will promptly go and help the COI accounts puff up articles and whitewash negative content? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good article apparently. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Toptal

    Both accounts have recently edited Toptal. We could be dealing with SPAs with COI. While their edits are not disruptive in nature, it may be worth having the admins remind them of what they can/cannot add to the page considering their COI.

    @Infogapp1: You need to notify those editors they are under discussion. You can use the template in the red box at the top of this page. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bri: That's done. thanks — Infogapp1 (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagine both accounts are related to the subject, but tidying up an image isn't too big of an issue (though I've left a paid note on their talk). I'd say just keep an eye on the page. As a sidenote, do note that you shouldn't out other editors; that comment was suppressed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProcrastinatingReader: Hi, yes. Thanks for the reminder and it's noted. I meant for it to make it easier to double-check the report (like the requirement for diffs), and shouldn't happen in future reports. — Infogapp1 (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Naked Elvis

    Good day everyone! I recently reverted flagged Sesquipedalian69 for {{subst:uw-spam1}} after adding a self-promotional external link to the article Naked Elvis. After that, the user dropped by my talk page to demand that I revert my previous revert of his edit, in doing so admitting that he is personally interested in the page, as he himseld played Naked Elvis as seen in this talk page discussion. I came across said edit as I am currently enrolled in the CVUA program and would like to know if the situation is a potential conflict of interest problem.

    Gardo Versace (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Gardo Versace, as COIs go, this isn't that bad. That doesn't mean the link is appropriate, however; off the top of my head it violates WP:ELNOT and WP:YOUTUBE, especially the latter - Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GeneralNotability: Thanks for clarifying that up. Will ping @Sesquipedalian69: so that he'd also be aware why I removed that link in the first place. Warmest regards 15:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    New York City Police Department

    The New York City Police Department has had issues with confirmed COI accounts recently. Today, a freshly created account started a RfC, which leads me to wonder whether COI accounts are allowed to start RfCs, as opposed to making edit requests? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not hard evidence that is a COI account as far as I can see, but an SPI is in order if you suspect they are abusing multiple accounts. Added links and notified.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Katey Cattlehand Pluck

    Article Katey Cattlehand Pluck has been edited by User:Katey-cattlehand-pluck, including adding herself to the 1993 and February 3 articles. Editor identifies herself as the subject of the article in this edit, saying This article is about me, including my childhood memories.

    I'm not convinced the article meets WP:GNG, but I'm not going to pursue that until we deal with the potential COI of a person editing her own article. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tarl N.:, it's already at AFD and doesn't look long for this site. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tarl N., please note that you must notify editors when you discuss them at this noticeboard. I've taken care of it for you this time. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:David H. Baker (animal nutritionist)

    Rndilger recently created Draft:David H. Baker which was speedily deleted as WP:G11 and as a copyright violation. I left them a message about their COI and they responded correctly by declaring their connection on their user page. Since then, they have been in touch with me on my talk page to ask for advice. So far so good. But it is clear that they are here to create a memorial 'to honor his deceased mentor'. I have told them that this is not appropriate, but they are insistent. I would be grateful if you could advise the editor. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Curb Safe Charmer: I left him a message. He is far far to close the person and its beyond COI really. I'll move the article along out of draft. The subject is in the National Academy of Sciences, so no problem with the notable. See how editor takes, but he needs to withdraw. scope_creepTalk 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Dr Basil Hunnisett

    Harpysett has written a draft and was struggling to find in depth coverage elsewhere and good reliable sources. Some of the references they provided after my first review were uploaded scans of documents that only someone close to the subject would have, so I left them a message asking them to declare any conflict of interest. They have now disclosed that the subject of the article is their father. They have made a persuasive argument on my talk page that the father's work is widely cited and I will assess that, but please could you advise them on the COI aspect. My gut feel is that this editor is too close to the subject based on their determination that there should be a Wikipedia article about them. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Curb Safe Charmer: are you more concerned about COI or notability? I have the article a little trim, and in doing so he does seem to be a widely cited authority (or at least his boook or books are widely cited). COI-wise, I would think the standard process of letting them edit the draft but requiring requesteedit after it is published would apply. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatMontrealIP: On the notability front, in my initial assessment I thought the subject was not notable as there is very little in depth independent coverage about him. However Harpysett has put forward new evidence that they are widely cited even if Google Scholar doesn't show it (as we know, Google Scholar doesn't evenly cover all specialisms). So I will re-assess that at AfC. My concern is about COI and whether they are too close to the article to be able to be objective, and the level of original research that the draft currently relies upon. Compare with the COIN report about Draft:David H. Baker directly above this one. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I agree they are a bit close to be neutral. But I have not seen anyone stopped from editing in AFC due to COI. They should be declaring it on their user talk page though. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Karlie Kloss

    User:Hipal keeps editing the page to make it positive and they keep removing any significant historical and noteworthy moments of her career that paint her in a negative light.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jaydoggmarco why is this a conflict of interest? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 09:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jaydoggmarco, you added material based on crappy sources. You have a bit of a history of that. Maybe don't? Guy (help!) 10:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jaydoggmarco: Can you please withdraw your completely baseless accusations, stop edit-warring, and revert your addition of the poorly sourced trivia to the BLP article, and work to create consensus? Thank you. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Help would be appreciated on the article. Discussion at Talk:Karlie_Kloss#Political_views. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It wasn't me who added the sources it was another user, Hipal keeps shifting the goalposts and no matter how good sources were Hipal would not allow the user to add the material. It comes across to me that Hipal had already made up his mind and is not going to let information about her political views get added to the article no matter how well sourced it is. And how do i have a history of "adding based on crappy sources". Hipal only contributions seem to be reversions and edit warring Jaydoggmarco (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're not even going to attempt to support your accusations of a conflict of interest? Read WP:BOOMERANG. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I already have, I've stated that no matter what sources are provided and even if they meet RS you seem determined to not let information about her political views in the article, The link to the talk page i feel is enough evidence.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no evidence at all. Nothing. Unfortunately, all you've done is attack me in an attempt to resolve a content dispute. Please rethink your approach. Such behavior could result in a block or ban. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ly Kimlong

    The user was blocked because of shared promotional name. The user changed the username but did not disclose the WP:COI as explained by unblocking admin RickinBaltimore. The Ly Kimlong fails notability and thus was listed at WP:AFD. The user tried to remove the notices with un-acceptable explanations in edit summary. See here. Also, same message was posted in User talk:Hout Ly. See this ~ Amkgp 💬 09:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That's actually paid editing. Hello, I’m the President of the Cambodia Chess Federation. The Cambodia Sports Ministry wants me to write 2 articles. One is for the CCF and one for our champion Ly Kimlong. And I suppose it's actually undisclosed paid editing, since they haven't disclosed this in the way required by the TOU. I'm not gonna spam their talk with even more messages (they have 3 about this incident from you). Let's just see if they respond to the COI message (which contains the paid part anyway). If they continue editing without proper disclosure it'll be up to the admins. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's not to forget that they were told to disclose and use AfC as an unblock condition, they did use AfC, it got rejected, so they just created it in mainspace themselves. Pinging the admin who issued the original block (RickinBaltimore). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ProcrastinatingReader In response to WP:COI notice, the editor has posted the following response on his/her talk page First of all, I’m just trying to write articles about cambodian sportspersons. I’m starting with this chess prodigy then I will move on to other people. I’m not trying to write an article for my colleagues or friends. The Cambodia Chess Federation as well as the Ministry of education, youth and sports are trying to list our national champions on Wikipedia and try our best to get ready for sea games 2023 which is host by Cambodia. Writing articles for our strong national sportsperson will make other countries know that Cambodia has good talents! Hout Ly (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC). Links here. The statements are not convincing. An admin and others should look on this ~ Amkgp 💬 11:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, again the editor has emphasized that Feel free to contact the ministry of education, youth and sport of cambodia. They want me to write articles about all famous cambodia national champion. I’m starting with this chess prodigy then I will move on to the old champions Hout Ly (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC) (reply). See diff
    It suggests the editor is unwilling to comply with Wikipedia rules and regulations! ~ Amkgp 💬 11:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Since they're not really hiding anything, I think they're just misunderstanding how to properly disclose and follow the COI policies. Perhaps a friendly non-automated message pointing out the areas they're not getting would help. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I left another note on their page regarding what they need to do to edit with their admitted COI. Hopefully the get the message here, and follow what I asked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No this account is not a shared account. This is my personal account. https://www.chess.com/member/namtarn
    https://www.facebook.com/108090605896115/posts/3298261826878961/?d=n
    https://english.cambodiadaily.com › ...Search on for Cambodian Chess Champions - The Cambodia Daily
    These are a few links I found in about 15 minutes. Ly Kimlong himself will join this thread later today Hout Ly (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC) (reply)
    Hi I’m Ly Kimlong. I didn’t know about this until mr. hout told me yesterday. I personally don’t know much about wikipedia. I believe it’s Wikipedia rights to delete this page. Thank you for writing about me in the first page. I have submitted my own version of the page but got rejected too because lack of references. The problem is that we in cambodia dont use fide rating we have national ratings. All the tournaments here are national rated not fide rated and for articles there are a few on facebook posted by independent accounts not so much attention on chess in cambodia. This is why I think mr hout ly created this page. To get foreign attention and ready for sea games which will be my first sea games representing cambodia sea games 2021 in vietnam. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ly Kimlong (talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC) (reply)
    Please Dont ban mr hout. I believe he is just doing the work the government told him to do. I take all responsibility for all of this action. Thank you wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ly Kimlong (talk • contribs) 02:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC) (reply)

    Here are the final diff of the conversation.

    @RickinBaltimore, ThatMontrealIP, ProcrastinatingReader, and Pawnkingthree: I think the above are enough. They are violating rules purposefully. Please visit User talk:Hout Ly to know the full incident. ~ Amkgp 💬 09:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy @331dot: for any additional input as he/she regularly interacts such cases at AfC Help desk ~ Amkgp 💬 09:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what has changed since RickinBaltimore's message on their talk, they've made no mainspace contributions and agreed to have a paid editing notice placed (they agreed to someone else's offer to do it, as it appears they can't figure it out and/or haven't read WP:PAID). We're already aware he's a paid editor, he just appears to confirm that further in this message. The message by Ly Kimlong is on a separate account, so it's not a shared account violation.
    This is messy, and I have a feeling at this stage that the articles being created will be unable to show notability and won't ever reach mainspace, but if they're willing to follow the AfC process responsibly I'm still not sure further administrative action is needed at this stage. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with ProcrastinatingReader; if they have declared and are using AFC, that's what we want and is allowed. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    331dot But then statements like The Cambodia Sports Ministry wants me to write 2 articles and he is just doing the work the government told him to do is a clear violation of WP:COI and WP:PAID. Isn't it ~ Amkgp 💬 10:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They've declared, that fulfills their WP:PAID obligations; as long as they only submit drafts for review and avoid directly editing about the people they are writing about, they are fine as far as policy is concerned. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm perfectly OK with this as well. If they are doing what they are supposed to do, no need to do anything else. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ancestris, User:Yannig35-38

    User edits for Ancestris, evidently on its AFD. HiwilmsTalk 11:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Strictly speaking, although they have disclosed in the AfD, the disclosure hasn't been made in the required format. But I'm not sure how much this matters since it looks like the article will be deleted anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary

    Although this editor has only made two edits, they are both to this article and immediately follow identical edits made by another editor who self-identified as an employee of the subject (you have to look at the history of the article to see this; the exact edit was deleted as a copyright violation so I cannot link to it). I asked Amorcos on their User Talk page if they are connected to the institution and they have responded to me via e-mail in the affirmative. I won't say more to avoid violating WP:OUTING but this editor's connection is a clear COI and their editing of this article without a disclosure of their relationship would be a violation of WP:PAID. Moreover, in their e-mail messages - they continue to send me e-mail despite me explicitly requesting that they respond here in Wikipedia - they are also demanding that I cease editing this page because I am not "authorized" to do so by the institution. I think it might be helpful if someone else can open a discussion with this editor; they do not seem to understand what I am saying or welcome me saying it. ElKevbo (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the duck test here is sufficient to show those two editors are connected, especially given they both introduce copyvios from similar URLs in a short period of time, on this otherwise dormant article. Offhanded note, to paraphrase DGG, it always seems to be the more 'noble' organisations (schools, churches, hospitals, etc) with more iffy COI violations than typical corporate orgs like startups. Anyhoo, left a template on their talk. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done some searching and I am satisfied that Alpopovici and Amorcos are two separate individuals working for the organization. The IP editor I listed, based on its history and behaviour, is one or both of the named editors editing while logged out. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Timothy Ballard

    The user "operationundergroundrailroad" made edits to the page of Timothy Ballard, who is CEO of Operation Underground Railroad. Appears to be COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fubeka (talk • contribs)

    I've reported the username Operationundergroundrailroad as it appears to be the same name as Ballard's organization Operation Underground Railroad.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor user:Mporenta added a whole bunch of promotional links without declaring. scope_creepTalk 21:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Anil V. Kumar

    Apparently self promotional account. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Listed at WP:UAA, will likely be blocked per WP:CORPNAME. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Drm310. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Red X User blocked by Orangemike. —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Little Platoon

    Dear Admins or other arbitrators. I'm here to ask for guidance. I am working in the Australian Parliament. And I am contributing to articles about various MPs, some from the progressive side, some from the conservative side. I am moved around a lot. Sometimes I write about the MP I may be working for, sometimes I write about MPs I know from around the place. I don't take instruction on what to write, no one approves what I write. As per my user page, I have disclosed the above, but I feel I can't disclose who I may be working for at any one time. It will stop me from writing freely.

    Recently I decided to be brave and do a major re-edit of an article on a highly controversial MP, Angus Taylor. There have been all kinds of edit wars on this article, and some of it has got really nasty. But it was such a mess and I really wanted to fix it up. So, I jumped on Talk:Angus Taylor (politician) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) disclosed that I have an interest, but that I wasn't going to disclose who I work for in any given week, because that would ruin my anonymity and it would inevitably lead to a situation where some MP started telling me to change things. And I'm not okay with that. I want to write the truth. I get good sources. I keep it balanced.

    If you see the talk page, I notified everyone who seemed to be interested, got some encouragement, and I proceeded with the project. Once I was done a few weeks later, I, of course, received a bunch of suggestions and corrections, all of which were very reasonable, and they have all gone through.

    One of those editors @Damien Linnane: has been particularly helpful, pointing out where I was in danger of committing coat-racking (which wasn't something I fully understood until today) and a couple of other best practice things. Our interactions have been very respectful and productive.

    But there's one matter where we may now be stuck. It's been suggested that today, with my employment situation, I may have an unacceptable COI. I thought a lot about that value when I started editing, and I set out on my user page what my situation is. I disclosed this when I began the edit and only received positive encouragement. But maybe it's not okay. I feel that I've disclosed as much as I can without messing up my actual role. I would probably have to leave off the project if it is unacceptable. Can I get a perspective on this?

    I hope I have done this the right way. I am very new at all the conventions and so on. Thank you for looking at the material and for thinking this all through.

    The Little Platoon (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Just responding to being pinged here. I'm impressed by The Little Platoon's professional response by bringing this discussion here. Something that made me initially suspicious was the fact someone has previously openly admitted to being a paid employee of the Australian parliament editing the article in question on the instruction of the article's subject. Additionally one of the subject's family members had a similar COI and even made legal threats: see here, and also see the COI tags at the top of the article's talk page. If there wasn't so much history with COI at this article it probably wouldn't have been an issue. I'm now, however, inclined to believe that The Little Platoon's desire to edit the article in a neutral manner is genuine, and that previous edits that were undoubtedly biased may have been unintentionally so. That being said this appears to be a rather unique situation so I think bringing the discussion here was the right choice. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Damien Linnane! Yes, looking at the history of that article, I can see there has been a lot of contention. I'm really glad to see the quality of all the editor interaction has seriously lifted. The Little Platoon (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Little Platoon, thanks for disclosing and coming to COIN. I have a questions regarding your employment situation. You're not required to answer any, but any you can answer would help. Who exactly employs you? eg Is it a firm, that is contracted by the Australian Parliament or by MPs individually? Or do you work for the Parliament directly? Or are you self-employed/a freelancer who contracts for individual MPs? What's your job title (eg is writing your full time job)? Who decides which MP you're writing about at any given time, is it the MP/you, or some kind of central writing department? Do the MPs know that you (individually) wrote on their articles? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProcrastinatingReader:If I answered those questions everyone would figure out who I was in the Parliament! And people would start asking me to change things or to say certain things. Right now, no one gives me instruction and no one approves what I do. Look, maybe I've been a bit naive and maybe this isn't going to work. I think I've set my boundary as thoughtfully as I can. I've declared that I as a contributor to wp I have a connection. I could go further — like the remarkable @Damian Linnane: and identify myself completely — but then I just wouldn't be able to write about the subjects because they would want to exert an influence on the articles. My hope is that I keep declaring that there is a connection, to maintain my anonymity, and, more importantly, to stick to what's important - balanced views, good sources. If that's just not good enough, then I will accept that, as much as I enjoy editing, and am passionate about this subject area, this just isn't going to work. I will accept your judgement.The Little Platoon (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't possibly know your working situation, so if those questions would reveal your identity then you're free not to answer them (which is why I did begin with a disclaimer that you don't have to answer any). Per the WMF Terms of Use, As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. It's hard to judge whether you're in compliance without those answers. If revealing your employer, clients and affiliations automatically outs your identity, or even just your employer, then I'm personally not sure what to suggest. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Little Platoon, so this is quite the interesting situation. First, I'd like to thank you for being so forthcoming on this and asking for advice. My opinion on this is that since you are not taking instruction on what to write and do not seem to be doing this as part of your job, this is not a paid editing situation. However, you are still very, very close to what you're writing about. I think that as long as you continue to suggest edits on the talk page and declare your relationship (just declaring "I'm a staffer in the Australian Parliament" should be enough). And by all means, if you have concerns about whether you are acting in compliance with the rules, feel free to ask here (or post on my talk page). GeneralNotability (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProcrastinatingReader:@GeneralNotability: Okay! I was half expecting the coup de grace by coming here, and I felt just a bit sad that I would no longer be contributing. But I'm hearing you say proceed with caution - and with continuing disclosure. My particular thanks to @Damien Linnane: for prodding me along - the article in question is so much better for his interaction, and I feel better for having come to COIN.The Little Platoon (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @The Little Platoon: you are very honest to be disclosing your COI here. But I have to say, and this is not really a COI comment, You put yourself at the mercy of the press and the public in doing so, as this is a public discussion. This comment is not at all related to Wikipedia policy, but if I were you I would log out and never log in again while employed by the parliament. If someone in the press figures out who you are by deduction, I can't imagine that will be good for your personal situation (example 1, 2, 3, 4,5). Just my 2 cents of advice.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Waakye

    the COI section has been removed ☆ Bri (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2020 (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.

    There appears to be some COI editing going on on that page related to the Waakye in a jar. I cleaned it up a bit, but I have neither the time nor inclination to keep track of it. Particularly this IP edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waakye&type=revision&diff=965780441&oldid=964313926 comes across as marketing to me. 77.172.168.139 (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like the COI section has been removed. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2020 (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.

    O'Donovan family

    There's a bad case of WP:OWN here; IrishDonovan has claimed some sort of official title in the clan, and DEMANDED that nobody but an O'Donovan or their designee be permitted to edit the article. The IP starting with 2601 has recently added death threats to their edit summaries. (Yes, death threats.) Orange Mike | Talk 05:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Death threats???? I haven't given any death threats??? Were is that Orange Mike?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishDonovan (talk • contribs) 09:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Orangemike may not-unreasonably have guessed that this IP is yourself? Sylvia de Jonge (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    quantum radar

    It would be helpful to have external input and advice on the wikipedia article quantum radar. This article has been the basis for immense controversy within the US government about the existence of a technology known as quantum radar. Earlier versions of the article indicated that this technology already exists and could be used to detect stealth bombers. It has alarmed the military and intelligence communities because one of the first articles found when performing a google search of "quantum radar" is quantum radar. I have now played a role in reducing these claims, but it seems important to label the technology as "speculative" because it does not currently exist in any usable form. It is also important to reflect a wider body of research work on the topic, other than those of the researcher Stefano Pirandola. There is a user Spirandola who has outed himself on the page as the researcher Stefano Pirandola employed by Univ. York and who has a contract with the European Commission to perform theoretical and experimental work on this speculative technology [[11]] as indicated in [[12]]. My impression is that he qualifies as a paid editor on this topic, due to his financial interest mentioned above (thus an interest in promoting quantum radar as an actual technology). I'm trying to sort out the issues on the talk page but the conversation is failing to go in a positive direction. I am seeking the advice of senior Wiki editors who are in a position to help sort out this problem. The main thing is to stick to WP:NPOV. Mwilde (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mwilde: I have notified Spirandola as required (see the top of this page. I also added you to the list of editors above as it seems you are both accusing each other of having a COI. I have to say the discussion between the two of you at Talk:Quantum radar is incredibly hard to follow as both if you fail to indent your conversation, make huge long posts and several posts are unsigned. It's hard to see where one item begins and the reply follows. Would you care to sum things up in a few short sentences? If Spirandola can also say what is up here in a few short sentences that will also help. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the discussion on the talk page seems to be about your respective expertise and opinions on the topic. Are you both aware that one does not need to be an expert to edit Wikipedia, since we rely only on independent published sources? The fact that you are experts helps some, but isn't necessary. It's the sources that count.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatMontrealIP: Thanks for your reply. My main concern is presenting the technology of quantum radar correctly as a speculative technology, as well as presenting other contributions to this research besides those of Stefano Pirandola. We have been successful in editing many aspects of the page (compared to yesterday) but there are still these outstanding issues. I think that others who do not have a COI need to be brought in (and who could not be considered paid editors) and examine the page to be sure that it sticks to WP:NPOV and does not mislead the general public on this important issue. I will go ahead and indent my posts to make them easier to read. Mwilde (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the talk page indenting, and the indent on your post above. Do you consider yourself to have any COI on quantum radar? This sounds like a content dispute, with the added item that one or more of you may have a COI to deal with. We only deal with COI on this page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for your help. I do not take COIs lightly. I have written an important research paper on this topic in the past (published in Physical Review Letters) but I have not pushed for it to be included on the quantum radar page. So I am not sure if I have a COI but would prefer to err on the side of caution given that Spirandola accused me of having one. I am glad to see that a senior wikipedia editor has arrived to the page and has started making some edits to help resolve the COI issue. Thanks for your help. Mwilde (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatMontrealIP: I have been trying to improve the page by removing the hype, and explaining the current limitations and challenges. However, in doing so, I have been accused of being a paid editor by user Mwilde, which I find rather surprising. Contrary to what claim by Mwilde, I am not promoting quantum radar as an actual technology. I was in fact using the terminology "debated" because I wanted to stress different points of views on the topic. There are researchers that do not think this is speculative. Indeed there are preliminary experimental implementations that are undergoing a great debate in the community. However, it seems that this debate should be hidden and the word "speculative" imposed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spirandola (talk • contribs)
    @ThatMontrealIP: I have been trying to improve the page by removing the hype, and explaining the current limitations and challenges. However, in doing so, I have been accused of being a paid editor by user Mwilde, which I find rather surprising. Contrary to what claim by Mwilde, I am not promoting quantum radar as an actual existing technology. Work is in progress in this area, as in many other fields of quantum information and computation (that we do not call "speculative"). In the page, I was in fact using the terminology "debated" because I wanted to stress different points of views on the topic. There are researchers that do not think this is speculative. Indeed there are preliminary experimental implementations that are undergoing a great debate in the community. However, it seems that this debate should be hidden and the word "speculative" imposed (so that only one side is wrongly expressed in the page). Another point is that user Mwilde does not like the presence of papers published by me and my collaborators in the page. I believe that most of those references were added when the page was created (I think these are likely to be considered as the the foundational papers). I have added a couple of references in the last 24 hours, one experimental from a Canadian group and a review of mine, Seth Lloyd and others which discusses the challenges and limitations of quantum radar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spirandola (talk • contribs)
    @Spirandola and Mwilde: Ok, both of you need to disclose any conflict of interest here. The content of the article and its neutrality are different issues form COI. Regarding COI, it might be a paid editing conflict, for example, to be taking research money and then adding that research to the article without disclosing it. Similarly if you are adding material that quotes your own work, that could be seen as a self-promotion COI. Experts are welcome here, but see WP:SELFCITE. So, ignoring the content dispute, do either of you think you have a COI? If so please disclose that clearly below. I have the sense that you are both well-intentioned, but one or both of you need to disclose whether you have any COI, in order to clear up the COI claim. After that you can go to the NPOV noticeboard if necessary. You can declare any possible COI below, skipping the article content issues as we do not deal with that here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatMontrealIP: Thanks for your help with this. I don't think that I have a COI on this article. The grant of mine that User:Spirandola mentioned is expired now and its topic had nothing to do with quantum radar. The paper [[13]] that I wrote about quantum illumination is related to quantum radar, but I have not promoted it in any way on the page. Mwilde (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mwilde: Thanks. Ok then, Spirandola I know you have mentioned some COI on the talk page, but could you describe whether you think you have a COI on this subject? Are you completely neutral here?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatMontrealIP: The paper of mine that I have added is a 2018 paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.01969.pdf published in Nature Photonics, well before the grant that Mwilde is mentioning and exploiting as a basis for making his accusations against me. That 2018 paper acknowledges completely different fundings, not related with quantum sensing and quantum radar. In fact, the paper acknowledges "...support from the EPSRC via the ‘UK Quantum Communications Hub’ (EP/M013472/1)" which was a grant on quantum cryptography expired a year ago. That being said, removing that paper would go exactly in the opposite direction of what we all would like to achieve here, i.e., the reduction of the hype. That paper covers the topic of quantum radar and, before of any other, discussed the limitations and experimental problems behind this technology.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spirandola (talk • contribs)
    Alright then, to sum up, neither of you seem to have direct COI, although Spirandola has added a paper of their own authorship, which could be seen as promotion. It sounds like you two need to get it together on the talk page to discuss whether that paper is admissible, and engage some extreme WP:CIVILITY. Other than that this does not sound like much of a COI issue. Thanks for explaining yourselves. Take it to NPOV or some other noticeboard if you cannot work out the content dispute. And Spirandola for the umpteenth time, start signing your posts properly per WP:SIGN. Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatMontrealIP: Thx for your help. I would appreciate if all the accusations of "paid editor" of Mwilde are removed by the talk page of quantum radar. I find these offensive, besides being incorrect. Also I would kindly request that he removes the claims that I would be promoting a speculative technology for financial reasons, which is clearly false and offensive. On the contrary, collaborators and I are currently exploring the limits of these research ideas both theoretically and experimentally. Research is just ongoing and needs clarifications, as is the case for all the other quantum techs.Spirandola (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spirandola and Mwilde: Removing claims of paid editing isn't something we do here on this page, but if Mwilde agrees they could remove the entries on the talk page by striking through the claims using WP:STRIKE. Doing that kind of thing sometimes has the effect of showing good faith and reducing conflict.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatMontrealIP: Thanks again for your help in resolving this issue. The issue remains that User:Spirandola is currently simultaneously funded by the grant [[14]] as indicated in [[15]] while making edits to a page related to the topic of the grant. As you indicated above, "Regarding COI, it might be a paid editing conflict, for example, to be taking research money and then adding that research to the article without disclosing it." It is not clear to me that this issue has been resolved simply if User:Spirandola declares that he does not have a paid editor COI.
    @ThatMontrealIP: Thanks for all of your help in addressing the COI concern. Spirandola has now removed all references to his work on the quantum radar page and so I consider the COI issue to be resolved. I apologize for taking all of your time with this and thank you again for your help. I think this has helped with the integrity of the quantum radar page.
    off-topic SPI discussion
    There is a further issue. There is a user User:QuantumTHEO whose main edits to Wikipedia during the past five years (as found at Special:Contributions/QuantumTHEO) have been to promote the work of Stefano Pirandola and to add detailed expert knowledge to Wikipedia articles on the papers published by the same person. Especially on the quantum radar page, a major edit [[16]] was made to the page before the paper "Microwave Quantum Illumination" was published in the journal. It is not clear how anyone but Pirandola or someone on his team would have such detailed knowledge of the publication process for this paper. Thus, there is a possibility of a strong connection between the researcher Stefano Pirandola and the Wikipedia user QuantumTHEO, and it is not clear to me that we have a full picture of COIs for the quantum radar page. Looking further into the history of edits on the page quantum radar, some of the other main contributions of QuantumTHEO were to add other references to the works of Stefano Pirandola and ones which have been funded by the grant mentioned above. So I am still concerned about a paid editor COI on this page. Mwilde (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mwilde: If you think someone is operating multiple accounts, then take it to WP:SPI where admins and checkusers will investigate. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatMontrealIP: Looking at the contributions added by User:QuantumTHEO. These have been the following: [17], [18], Quantum Radar, [19]. None of these is related to the grant mentioned by Mwilde. These are old references/links from 2015, not related to a grant started in 2019.Spirandola (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mwilde: I noticed that account: the complete rewrite of the stub quantum radar in 2015, comments on your articles in quantum illumination, an unsuccessful attempt to create a BLP, blanked today, etc. Perhaps an SPI report might be helpful. Mathsci (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatMontrealIP and Mathsci: Thanks for your advice. Indeed, I suspect that there is an unfortunate case of sockpuppetry here. I should add that there is an additional user User:Hub2307 whose sole contributions to Wikipedia over the past two years, listed at Special:Contributions/Hub2307, have been to add references and attempts at BLPs for Stefano Pirandola. It does seem necessary to begin a WP:SPI. Thanks for the heads-up. Mwilde (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @ThatMontrealIP and Mathsci: Thx for helping with this issue. As you know sockpuppetry takes various forms. One form that seems to be used by user Mwilde is logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address. This is against the policies of Wikipedia and should lead to ban the user. From the relevant page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry) we read that: "Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sockpuppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse."

    I invite you to check some of the anonymous contributions made by Mwilde either to covertly promote his book "Quantum Information Theory" on Wikipedia or to delete papers of mine from Wikipedia pages (besides the sockpuppetry there is a form of stalking going on from this user)


    1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1700:A20:19E0:4462:29EB:C7C2:7943

    From this address Mwilde:

    - covertly added his group at Lousiana state university to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_information&diff=prev&oldid=818528557

    - deleted my name from the Quantum Illumination page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_illumination&diff=prev&oldid=818528271

    - deleted a paper of mine from the Quantum discord page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_discord&diff=prev&oldid=818526596

    - deleted another paper of mine from the Quantum Illumination page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_illumination&diff=prev&oldid=818526139

    - Moved his book "Quantum Information Theory" to the top of the references https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_information&diff=prev&oldid=818525947


    2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/104.58.44.156

    From this other IP address Mwilde:

    - removed again a paper from the Quantum Illumination page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_illumination&diff=prev&oldid=836436737

    - Made other edits around my name in the other two contributions

    This IP 104.58.44.156 is from Baton Rouge, Lousiana where he usually lives and works.


    3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.129.147.195

    From this other IP address Mwilde: - Again moved his book "Quantum Information Theory" to the top of the references https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_information&diff=prev&oldid=859628546 - Removed a paper of mine from the Quantum Illumination page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_illumination&diff=prev&oldid=859627532


    This IP 185.129.147.195 is from Moscow, Russia. In those days, he was visiting the Steklov Mathematical Institute (see http://www.mathnet.ru/php/presentation.phtml?option_lang=eng&presentid=19523).


    It does seem necessary to begin a WP:SPI. There are also potential problems of CoI. Is it OK for him to promote his book on Wikipedia? I think this is probably now a problem of WP:Paid editor, because he clearly receives money from selling his book. Having visibility through Wikipedia will help him to increase his income.Spirandola (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the issues presented by User:Spirandola in item 1) above, the first one is no longer relevant. That page has now simply removed all groups working on quantum information science. The second one preserved the reference to the paper of Stefano Pirandola and just removed his name from the main text---the issue was his undisclosed self-promotion of his name on this wikipedia page and many others. The third one corrected the reference to include the proper reference to the literature on the concept given there. The fourth one corrected a misleading suggestion that a key result in the literature was derived from a paper of Stefano Pirandola's---no evidence was given to support that claim. The last one occurred after Stefano Pirandola repeatedly deleted my book from the list of textbooks in quantum information science. I have listed my book on my userpage User:Mwilde. It is a standard reference in the field of quantum information science, having garnered over 1000 citations according to [Google Scholar]. It has been used to teach quantum information in many leading courses around the world, and so it should be clear that it is of value. Given the fact that this book is posted online and available for free on the arXiv [[20]], let me indicate that I receive very little money from its sales. In many cases of pages where my book was listed on wikipedia, it is the arXiv preprint which was originally listed and someone else changed this to link to the published version. If it is necessary to change all of these references to the arXiv link exclusively, that is fine with me. I would receive no money whatsoever if someone downloaded the PDF from the arXiv. Let me also indicate that my contributions to Wikipedia are extensive as listed at User:Mwilde. As such, I believe that User:Spirandola's suggestion to ban or delete my account is completely unwarranted and would do a grave disservice to the larger community of scientists. Mwilde (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Mark Wilde, it is not allowed to covertly use IP address in this way to promote your book. Your book was in the right position, below those of famous scientists whose books and reviews are widely recognized (with many more citations than yours, e.g., Nielsen and Chuang book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Computation_and_Quantum_Information which has almost 40000 citations.) Why did you covertly move it up using an IP address instead of your user account Mwilde? Did you want to show that someone else were putting your book in evidence? Even if there is a draft of your book on the arXiv, Wikipedia may represent a good place for making publicity and increase your income from the sales of the published version WP:Paid editor. This shouldn't be allowed and also represents a huge COI to resolve in the various pages where your book appears (besides your misuse of IP address). In various deletions mentioned above you were targeting relevant papers, such as the two-way QKD protocol that inspires all the following illumination-based protocols for communication. This is completely wrong.Spirandola (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Tanjaret Daghet

    A band and a music producer, contributing to eponymous articles. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've softblocked the band account (for a UPOL violation), hamdan has pretty clearly identified his COI while saying he doesn't have a COI. I've given him a direct warning about it. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, GeneralNotability. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Symon Sadik

    UPE sockfarm repeatedly recreating the draft article about this Bangladeshi film and fluffing the articles of the principal cast. I'm not sure if that's the main focus of this promotion or not, but these articles at least should be reviewed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Randomdragonpakistan

    User's only activity is creating promotional articles. The user received a COI talkpage notice last year as well so its is very likely a paid editor because I also found him selling his services on Fiverr - don't know if its safe to share the link here due to OUTING. --Saqib (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Republic TV and Arnab Goswami

    After making 12 trivial grammar changes to gain autoconfirmed status, Lisa.Corden made a series of promotional edits to the Republic TV and Arnab Goswami articles. Here are the two most promotional ones:

    • Special:Diff/968104669 on Republic TV: Promotional editorializing, adding phrases including "known for daring business deals", "smart business moves", "healthy balance sheet", and "appears to be well funded"
    • Special:Diff/968617102 on Arnab Goswami: Addition of "The Felix Scholarship Goswami received is meant for outstanding students from India to pursue graduate studies in any subject at the University of Oxford."

    After asking Lisa.Corden in User talk:Lisa.Corden § July 2020, they claimed in User talk:Newslinger § Hello Newslinger that they are not a paid editor. Considering Lisa.Corden's editing pattern, including the trivial edits made to gain autoconfirmed status, I have serious doubts about the veracity of that claim. — Newslinger talk 16:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Newslinger:
    Ms. Corden might misunderstand what "paid" means. For example, maybe she's an employee of Republic TV, and thinks that's not considered "paid".
    Alternatively, maybe she's a friend of Mr. Goswami. That's a definite COI, though not paid.
    I've now templated her with {{welcome-COI}}, which in turn links to the simplified WP:BPCOI and WP:PSCOI guides for COI users.
    Anyway.
    A.) Perhaps it might make sense to block Ms. Corden as a promotion-only account?
    B.) Alternatively, we could try asking her what made her interested in writing about Mr. Goswami on Wikipedia.
    C.) I wonder if it would make sense to try upgrading Arnab Goswami from semi-protected to extended-confirmed protected, at least temporarily.
    Regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, those are all possible scenarios. The behavioral pattern that is most striking is the fact that Lisa.Corden made just over 10 trivial edits to gain the autoconfirmed permission before editing the Republic TV and Arnab Goswami articles, both of which are semi-protected. This type of behavior, when accompanied with highly promotional editing, is strongly associated with paid editing. Lisa.Corden is invited to explain themself here.

    I don't think the editing activity on the Arnab Goswami article is disruptive enough to justify extended confirmed protection at the moment, but unless Lisa.Corden stops editing promotionally, the account would be considered a promotion-only account, as you have noted. — Newslinger talk 01:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Omni Air International

    The editor User:PbobsonOAI3303 is edit-warring to scrub reliably sourced content from the Omni Air International article. The username, coupled with the editing behavior, suggests they are a COI editor Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A little logical Google searching shows a strong COI for user PbobsonOAI3303. If what I saw was correct, then this is also UPE.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    PbobsonOAI3303 disclosed their relationship to Omni Air International on File:OAI logo footer.svg, but needs to follow the paid-contribution disclosure requirement for their other edits. PbobsonOAI3303, please read the notices on your talk page and follow the plain and simple conflict of interest guide for your future edits on topics that you are associated with. — Newslinger talk 01:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    COI for Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy

    Hi, It was suggested that I explain my association to the topic the article draft: accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy. I am a psychotherapist and I practice AEDP as one of my modalities. I am not paid by the AEDP institute for anything and I do not financially benefit by association to the aedp institute because I am not a supervisor or faculty. Since April I am associate editor for the internal journal, but I was not when I began writing the wikipedia article in 2016. I don't have a conflict of interest because I am wanting the same as wikipedia: to provide well-written articles on topics of curiosity to people and students. AEDP is listed in the different lists of sources where one goes to "find a therapist" such as psychology today and ZenCare. It has been mentioned in popular media such as new York times "on the couch" series. And in a New York Post article. So I have written what aedp is, how it developed, what an aedp therapy looks like. There isn't a one place that collects the information in a thorough and researched manner. Carrieruggieri (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Carrieruggieri: You started this draft four and a half years ago. The current reviewer message is "STOP". The extended time spent on the draft as well as the reviewer message strongly suggests this subject is not notable. While you are allowed to edit and submit via AFC articles for which you have a COI, but not to significantly edit them in mainspace, the COI issue on the draft is sort of irrelevant, given that it is strongly unlikely that we will publish the article. I see you have also extensively edited Diana Fosha. Do you have any conflict of interest there?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I see you did manage to get Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy published at one point, but it is now a redirect to Diana Fosha. It also seems like you have not disclosed any of your conflicts (e.g. I am associate editor for the internal journal) on your user page. On Wikipedia a conflict of interest is, broadly defined, a professional, personal or employment connection to the subjects you write about. You certainly have those and should be declaring them on your user page. Pinging Robert McClenon as he did many of the AFC reviews. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been instructed to describe the COI on the talk page, which I did. but it wasn't seen. so I was instructed to post it here. This is the first time someone tells me to put it on my user page. I hope it doesn't appear that I've been trying to conceal anything. I have answered the COI numerous times - each time I was asked about it.

    regarding the notability - no-one except Robert McClenon has suggested the topic is not notable. I have asked again for someone from WP: PSYCH to take over the article. Some of you have a sort of reprimanding tone, like I'm trying to get away with something. Carrieruggieri (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I never intended to say that the topic was not notable. I did say that there should be an article, just not the article that was submitted. I am being quoted as having said that the topic is not notable because of the limitations imposed on me by a template. In order to Reject the draft, I had to say either that it was not notable, or that it was contrary to Wikipedia. The former is less wrong. The draft is not encyclopedic. I did say that there should be an article. However, the draft that I rejected is much too long, as well as being non-neutral. I suggest that this thread be closed. The conflict of interest has been disclosed and discussed. The issue is the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Robert McClenon! When I personally reject a draft about a fully-notable subject, I think I tend to write that it's contrary to Wikipedia. I think that rejection reason is less wrong. Still, I think it would be nice if AFCH could allow us to write free-text rejection reasons. If you wanted, you could suggest it at WT:AFC. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Priya_Darshini

    Hi there! I'd like to request a review of the Priya_Darshini article. Can someone tell me what the conflict of interest is, or what the voice or bias seems to be? Perhaps I can help remove the bias, or make it more appropriate for Wikipedia. I will propose my edits on the TALK pages then, because I understand that I have a COI as an editor due to being Facebook friends with the subject. (Apologies if I'm not doing it right! I'm still learning how to handle and help with COI notices appropriately here in the editing community.) Also: can I add a photograph of her, if I have all copyrights to that photograph, or is that a COI? Nickgray (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nickgray: Being Facebook friends is a pretty pervasive thing and not necessarily a huge COI. Discussing the article and possible changes with the subject, or collaborating on content, or knowing the person would be a COI. Do any of those apply?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, your only edit to the page was to update a minor detail with her Facebook info. (Facebook is not the most WP:RS, BTW). The COI tag refers to Pbjamesphoto, the creator of the article, who someone thought had a COI at the time it was tagged for COI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @ThatMontrealIP: OK, thank you. I do not know who Pbjamesphoto is, but my question was more along the lines of: Even if he had a COI, how is the article wrong? I couldn't find any apparent bias in what was written, and I wanted to try to fix any if there was some. To your earlier question: None of those apply to my intent to remove the COI notice and this edit request. This was all started because I corrected her birthdate and place of birth (they were incorrectly listed in the InfoBox). And I can 100% confirm she never asked me to remove the COI, in fact she never mentioned it (and likely has no idea what it means), and it was only me poking around after fixing the birthday and birth location, trying to be a good helper to improve the article. I would also like to add a better photo of her via WikiMedia but I do not know if that will be a further COI for me, since we are Facebook friends and previously colleagues about 6 years ago. The subject did not solicit me to make these updates and I am definitely not getting paid for anything here: honestly I just wanted to help a Facebook friend and I hope I don't get in trouble for that! Thanks for helping me be a better community member and answering my questions. Nickgray (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nickgray: Thanks for that explanation. If you are former work colleagues then that is a pretty clear COI. The idea of editing to "help a Facebook friend" also indicates that, while well-intentioned, you would not be a neutral editor of the article. You are better off avoiding the article, for the sake of Wikipedia's neutrality. If you want to make changes to the article, or question the COI tag, the way to do that is to ask on the article's talk page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatMontrealIP: OK, that makes sense. I will bow out, then, and leave it be! Perhaps someone else will take up the cause. Do you think that adding a photo of her would be OK, though? Or is that a COI? Thanks again for helping me out here and explaining everything. Nickgray (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a pretty clear COI so you should not edit the article per WP:COI. You can suggest the addition of the photo on the talk page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    off-topic
    @ThatMontrealIP: Good idea: I will add a photo on the talk page. But I have a question: once I add a photo on the talk page, how does someone find it and then promote it to the main page? Is there a place on Wikipedia where I can request an unbiased person to review my edits? Or do I just have to hope that someone randomly finds the article, looks at the talk page, sees my suggestions, and approves them? Just curious to understand + want to do it right. THANK YOU again for helping me here!! Nickgray (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nickgray: I would suggest uploading the photo to Wikimedia Commons, which is the preferred location for files. Once that is done there is a button with some code that says "use this image on wiki". Paste that code into the talk page and ask if it is appropriate for the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatMontrealIP: Got it, will do. But: Who do I ask? Do I just leave a comment on the Talk page, and then hope that someone happens to visit the talk page with the authority to accept my suggestion? Or is there some place on Wikipedia that I can make requests to people like you, to sort of say, "Hey! Am I doing this right? Is this OK?" Nickgray (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to reply on your talk page, as this isn't really the place for basic editing advice.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GSS: Sure! I have met them both through the internet and also in real life. Neither have asked me to create or edit their pages, and I have never received any type of payment for my edits on this platform (to their pages or to any others). I do not feel that the personal and non-vested knowledge of an individual, especially when a business relationship is not present, causes a COI. I welcome your suggestions as a trusted mod and volunteer for how I can be a better member of the community here! Thanks for your work and support of Wikipedia. Nickgray (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    and what about Noah Kagan whose draft you moved the same day you uploaded File:Noah headshot.jpg claiming "Emailed to me by the owner as a JPG file attachment" so, do you have any personal relationship with him too? GSS 💬 18:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GSS: Yes, Noah Kagan is also someone known to me personally and we are Facebook friends (but no business relationship, and no request for edits was made). I emailed him asking for a photograph and full release of copyright so as to abide by WikiMedia photo release rules (which he granted). Please see my profile page for more information on me, or for examples of my writing on my personal blog. I welcome your comments or suggestions here! Nickgray (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nickgray: You can still have a COI without a business relationship. As the COI policy says, do not create or edit articles on friends or family members. We are not here for that, as it compromises the neutrality of the wiki. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatMontrealIP: OK. I understand now that one can have a COI without a business relationship, and that I should not create or edit articles on friends or family members. That doing so would compromise the neutrality of the wiki. Nickgray (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevin Deutsch

    Reverts / edits by Harringhome1977: [24] , [25], [26], [27], [28] (essentially whenever I attempt to restore a neutral version, I get instantly reverted)

    Unsure whether this should go to COIN, Edit Warring Noticeboard, Sockpuppet Investigations, or just ANI. The article Kevin Deutsch has a steady stream of single-purpose accounts and non-logged in IP address edits show up and edit the article to flatter Deutsch and to downplay any criticisms of him, and aggressively revert any edits otherwise. This is problematic for a suspect who is mostly only notable due to the scandal they were involved with (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Deutsch). Originally they took the form of just removing criticisms, but Mr. Deutsch (or his meatpuppets) eventually switched to just burying the allegations in a wave of denials from Deutsch and including more flatting, irrelevant, fannish bits. Now, to be sure, negative aspects of living people is an issue of special scrutiny, and even an editor with a COI can bring up legit issues... but... the Deutsch SPAs go above and beyond, portraying articles talking about serious accusations of journalistic malpractice as if they were actually articles about how wonderful Deutsch was and how he actually proven innocent in the end. Now, to be sure, the article already includes Deutsch's denials, but Deutsch's SPAs would like to stick these denials front and center, and misleadingly write the Wikipedia article as if Deutsch's quoted denial is coming from the news article's author's slant, rather than the author merely reporting what Deutsch said. If you're bored, this Washington Post article is a reasonably fast read from The Washington Post that reflects the state of things - nobody bothered to do a deep investigation, but there's severe questions afoot. Disclaimers were added to the end of many of his articles that they could not be verified, rather than a full retraction (i.e. maybe they were real, maybe they weren't). He wasn't "convicted", but he certainly wasn't exonerated either.

    See this old ANI discussions linked above wherein Deutsch's socks were indefintely blocked before. I decided to take a break from the article and hope someone else would "protect" the article against Deutsch's consistent POV attempts, but the bans haven't stopped him. Ideally, a very long semi-protection of the article would help as well, as Deutsch has simply switched to new sockpuppets in the past after being banned. Unfortunately, Deutsch has lots of time on his hands, and thus forces long time-wasting reports like this. He's long since forfeited any expectation of good faith discussion on the talk page, although I humored Harringhome1977 slightly anyway only to be met with the usual blather of "I'm right and you're wrong" without engaging with what the sources say or Wikipedia policy. See earlier sections on the talk page archives for the 2017 good faith attempts to work with Deutsch on including his side in the story that sadly failed (Talk:Kevin Deutsch).

    Also note that the edit history of the article is confusing, possibly intentionally so. For example, an IP address the only ever edits about Deutsch switched up whether he was named after his mother or his father, I restored the original version, and then Harringhome1977 rides in to "correct" the flaw the IP address introduced (probably himself, yes) for counter-vandalism credit or something that he himself introduced ( diff ). Additionally, Harrinhome1977's most recent edits in this latest stage were actually harmless, merely swapping out the photo, but that hardly matters since he quickly switched to defending the pro-Deutsch IP address edits. He also outs himself a bit with saying "We've been through this", despite claiming not to have a COI: hypothetically Harringhome1977 is a newbie who just stumbled across this article, so no he hasn't been through this with me, but, well, WP:DUCK sockpuppet. SnowFire (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Does the article even meet notability guidelines? His "high profile" book Pill City doesn't have good sales records on Amazon. It looks and feels like a promotional page. --SVTCobra 03:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Deutsch. Deutsch is utterly non-notable as a freelance journalist and author, he'd have never gotten an article on that. (That's part of what I'm reverting on - apparently he's a freelance journalist for a Wordpress blog these days! Yeah, this isn't LinkedIn, get a secondary source that verifies this matters.) Only reason he has an article at all is the scandal where he was accused of fabricating lots of stories, and many of these storied failed verification after checking, and people who actually know Baltimore thought that "Pill City" is either a work of fiction or so heavily anonymized that it might as well be a work of fiction. Since the scandal, Deutsch hasn't been able to get any position of note as best I can tell. SnowFire (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear SnowFire:
    The last semi-protection was 3 months, but it's expired now. Perhaps a new semi-protection, of a year or more, might be a good solution. Unfortunately, I'm not an admin, so I can't semi-protect anything.
    By the way: Even if you're right and the other party is wrong, edit warring can annoy others and can erode Wikipedians' goodwill towards you. In the future, instead of edit warring with brand-new accounts, maybe a better option would be to list your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements?
    Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and if you read the talk page archives, you'll see that I attempted to work with the person-behind-this-account in good faith for quite some time, which was difficult because the user was rather hostile and insistent on their version, but we did get a mild compromise through for a time before that fell apart. I'm about 99% sure this "new" account is just a sockpuppet, though. If nothing else, it's clearly a WP:SPA with no interest in anything other than Deutsch. If you're interested in attempting to help work toward a consensus on the talk page, I'd be happy to have you and be willing to listen to your input; it just needs to reflect the actual sources, which Deutsch's sockpuppets don't like to do (since the sources are, admittedly, hostile to Deutsch). SnowFire (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SnowFire: I'm a bit busy with other things, and would rather not commit to doing that. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, we've been through all this. A consensus version was hashed out months ago after much back and forth, without conflicted parties. Vandalism continues by single user intent on violating living persons policy and deleting high-value sources/articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harringhome1977 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Procedural comment: Note that I made the required notification of Harringhome1977, but he removed it, which is his right. No such "consensus" in favor of Harringhome's preferred version ever happened, as can be seen by checking the talk page (if it looks like I'm talking to myself sometimes there, it's because I had to respond to only edit summaries at the time), so this is just made-up. If you did want to develop a consensus, you'd have to actually make an argument for why your version is better, rather than simply state that it's the right version. SnowFire (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As an independent contributor unconnected to the article subject, I remain committed to using accurate phraseology/terminology, as it appears there are malicious editors monitoring and revising this living article subject's page. I've used direct quotes and revised the article only in places where the language was inaccurate, the consensus version was ignored, or revisions violated Wikipedia's living persons policy. Please see the outcome of the 2017 Pill City controversy, as stated in a correction at the bottom of the Rolling Stone article/source. It states: "This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources." RS is a major news organization and their description of the case's outcome could literally not be any clearer. Hence, my changes. I'm simply interested in the truth, nothing more.Harringhome1977 (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      • No, you're not an independent contributor, you (and the various banned other accounts) are single-purpose accounts who show up only to edit Kevin Deutsch. He's a quite minor figure, the odds of genuine independent WP editors popping up who only care about him are low. As for being a "malicious" editor, I've edited Wikipedia for 15+ years in lots of domains, and only ended up in this topic because I saw the disruption and whitewashing going on.
      • Rolling Stone added an addendum, yes, not a correction, due to Deutsch sending his reply and request for clarification. They did not retract the article; far from it, they say that the article now includes the clarification. So it's nonsense to act as if the rest of the article is meaningless and only the addendum matters; rather, the full article can be taken as Rolling Stone's comment, and the full article is... well... its subtitle is "Reporter Kevin Deutsch has been accused of fabricating sources in stories for major publications – so where’s the outrage?" Which is what Wikipedia's article talks about - the accusations of fabricating sources. Again, this objection is already reflected in the Wikipedia article, which never says he "formally" accused, and Wikipedia instead cites the actions that did happen - accusations from others, disclaimers put on articles, and some text retracted from already posted articles. The problem is that you are trying to present this one sentence as if some sort of commission investigated Deutsch and found he was innocent, which is not the case here. Deutsch wasn't "formally" accused of lots of stuff, but the article covers what did happen. Or should. SnowFire (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone who takes the time to look at the Rolling Stone clarification will see it is quite clear and unambiguous. It states, verbatim: "This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources." RS is a major news organization and their description of the case's outcome - what the above commenter calls their addendum - could literally not be clearer. And since it's the most recent/freshest journalism in the story, it becomes the the vital part of that story. Especially in a case like this, which appears to have been litigated entirely in the media/online.

    You refer to Deutsch's comments in the article, which appear separate from Rolling Stone's clarification of its initial claim. The story makes clear the allegations of fabrication were made by MEMBERS of the media and others in the press/government/social media sphere, rather than in actual stories FROM major news organizations. Several news organizations including RS reported on the questions being raised about Deutsch's work, according to what I've read here, but none of the publications themselves actually went as far as to allege fabrication or state it occurred. Many sources cited in this article raised questions by giving accusers in press and government a platform to make their accusations against the article subject. And raising questions - not formally alleging crimes or unethical acts - is the press' job. It's an important distinction, and the key to understanding this clarification. 

    Rolling Stone in its clarification clearly states these publications never made any claims Deutsch fabricated.  Thanks.Harringhome1977 (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikimayor and page-creation-log retention

    Wikimayor

    Hi!

    Although some of his creations look somewhat spammy to me, and although about 45% of his articles have been deleted, Wikimayor claims he has no COI.

    Some of his possibly-spammy-looking creations include:

    I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

    Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Page-creation-log retention

    Dear all:

    I'm not an admin.

    I was looking at the list of articles which User:Wikimayor created. Three of them were deleted and then recreated. I was wondering who first created them, and who recreated them: was it Wikimayor every time? So I tried checking the page creation log. Unfortunately, that log dates back only to 27 June 2018.

    Why doesn't that log date back farther? Did page creation logging only begin in June 2018? Or were old log entries erased at some point?

    Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    At 6 million articles with talk pages, the full page creation log would run to 12 million/50, which makes 240,000 pages of results, each with 50 items... I am guessing that has something to do with limiting a full list of page creation views.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you try Special:WhatLinksHere for namespace user talk? I think you'll find something interesting for Dupe Olusola. Also in user: namespace you often find CSD logs e.g. User:Passengerpigeon/CSD log/archive-1 where Abimbola Adebakin is logged. - Bri.public (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dechert and Andrew J. Levander

    Dechert is claimed by banned wikiprofessionalsinc.com homepage, with a customer testimonial from the law firm. A SPA has edited that article and created Andrew J. Levander as well. Another SPA has expanded both. For community consideration whether a) this is COI/UPE editing and b) whether the accounts may be connected to wikiprofessionalsinc.com and should be considered banned. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew J. Levander. The law firm, however, is notable . DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul McAuliffe

    Username alone is a clear evidence of COI. Editor seems to be a single purpose account. Has existed only to create the article for which the user's account name matches and edit it - the only two edits that aren't on this page are edits concerning Mr McAuliffe himself on the pages for his surname and his former political party. The COI warning was raised on the user's talk page in January 2020 - this went ignored by the user, who went on to edit this page around thirty times after this. Seems an evident COI to me and should be dealt with. ser! (let's discuss it). 19:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Red X Blocked as a username that matches the name of a well-known living person. Pmcauliffe can request an unblock after verifying their identity, and only if they agree to adhere to the conflict of interest guideline. Thanks for reporting this.​ — Newslinger talk 01:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Faxon Atherton

    This particular article had not received much attention until June 2020 and now only one editor has added and removed a lot of information from it. The username suggests it may be a family name. While it may be too early to post here, I wanted to make editors aware of this. The user has edited no other pages that do not contain the last name of Atherton in them. There is one exception which is Bill Hudson (British Army officer), however, the rolled back their changes as the initial entry was -62 the add entry was +62.

    Thanks, Bakertheacre Chat/What I Baked 22:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Faxon Atherton was born in Massachusetts. He’s a historical person, with article worthy of expansion. There is no conflict of interest. I am not a relative. I am British. My recent edits are not limited to any Atherton last name. I created and researched a philanthropist called Atherton Curtis. Curtis being his last name. I frequently review other articles.
    The Bill Hudson article I attempted to include a photo from Wikicommons that was on a foreign language article. I couldn’t get it to work. They had spelled Hudson wrong - Hadson... whatever they cause I couldn’t get it to work so rolled back my change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adin-Atherton (talk • contribs)
    @Adin-Atherton:, this board is for conflicts of interest. Do you have any connection to the Atherton article subjects? Being a family member would be a connection, obviously, per our WP:COI policy. Also, please don;t forget to WP:SIGN your posts.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Faxon Atherton was a US citizen who died in the 1800s. I am aware of COI policy. I am not a family member. I have researched and enhanced or created a few articles. All articles I research are historical. No living persons. All my efforts include citations and are based on solid facts. It is a hobby dig and find interesting characters. There is no financial interest on my part. Again I am British, not American like Faxon D Atherton (born 1800s). I share the same last name as do another 50000 people living probably. Please kindly remove the COI. Duly signed (I’m learning). Thanks, User:Adin-Atherton
    @Adin-Atherton: thanks for that. First, when you sign, the easiest way to do it is to use four tilde (liek this: ~) symbols in a row, which will automatically provide your user name and the time of your comment. Second, thanks for your disclosure. I have to say these articles, or the couple I looked at, are really quite well done. Congrats on that. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adin-Atherton and ThatMontrealIP: Thanks for your statement. I recommend that maybe a username change may be in order so this doesn’t become an issue in the future. You can find out more at Wikipedia:Rename. Thanks, Bakertheacre Chat/What I Baked 03:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, using your real name is sometimes not a good idea, per the reasons at WP:REALNAME. Perhaps fanofallthingsAtherton? However keeping adin-atherton is allowed, just might bring this question over and over again.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm bringing attention to the account Buzzards-Watch Me Work[29], which has likely been operating many sockpuppets on pages related to US congressional politicians. I'd really appreciate assistance in identifying other accounts who edit in a similar way as these socks. Many pages on House representatives are poorly patrolled, which means that a well-organized sockpuppet ring (I strongly suspect that these are WP:PAID editors) can do a lot of harm without anyone noticing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Edgardo M. Latrubesse

    User Amazon3112 appears to have a COI with Edgardo M. Latrubesse. The user has engaged in a promotional pattern of editing at that page, and has also added citations to the work of Latrubesse at the pages Araguaia River and Cerrado. I'm somewhat sympathetic to some of the editing at Edgardo M. Latrubesse, where part of the desire seems to have been to minimize a (reliably-sourced) sexual harassment complaint, and perhaps should have raised a COI complaint earlier. User has not responded to a query on their talk page, and just reverted to add back promotional and WP:UNDUE material on the Edgardo M. Latrubesse. Pinging @Tom Radulovich: who I reached out to because of his work on tropical rivers including Cerrado; pinging @David Eppstein: who is familiar with the situation from AfD and prior discussion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Should have included above: other accounts that may be run by a connected user include User:Megaalluvialfan and User:Latrubesse. (Possibly a case of forgotten password? These accounts have not recently edited.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A solution suggested to me on a previous case of insistence on autobiographical editing was a partial block of that user from the relevant pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for asking, and for trying to sort out what's going on. I'm not familiar enough with Mr. Latrubesse or his work to opine on the article about him. The edits to Cerrado and Araguaia River citing journal articles by Mr. Latrubesse seem factual and appropriate, but I'm not subject-matter expert.Tom Radulovich (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tom Radulovich, thanks for taking a look. I'm still a bit concerned about WP:SELFCITE, but am unable to distinguish WP:EX from self-promotion on the river articles. I added primary source tags and made some other corrections. On the biography, it seems to me that the editor should request COI edits on the talk page for what they are trying to do. David Eppstein, a partial block could perhaps be a good solution here. Would they still be able to edit the talk page? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Russ Woodroofe:
    Amazon3112 has made 20 edits, some quite substantial. Still, the user has never written an edit summary or a message on any talk page.
    • I've removed the old generic welcome template from the user's talk page. I've replaced the template with {{welcome-COI}}, which in turn links to the simplified WP:BPCOI guide for the unenlightened.
    • I've templated the user with {{uw-paid1}}. The user may or may not be paid. But, either way, receiving {{uw-paid1}} may force the user to at least tell us something about the COI situation.
    Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mandatory user page disclosure?

    I've posted the above question at the COI talk page. Hopefully that is the right place for a discussion?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Fecal incontinence

    Blocked by Orangemike ☆ Bri (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2020 (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.

    Company promoting its products. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyright© 2020 Personally Delivered. All rights reserved. ?! ☆ Bri (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2020 (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.

    User:Tom at Starshipit

    Disclosure completed per Marchjuly ☆ Bri (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2020 (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.

    Is a user named considered an acceptable declaration for COI/Paid editing? The account originally was named User:Starshipit, but was subsequently changed to User:Tom at Starshipit; no other declaration/clarification of COI or PAID editing was made (I did add a {{Connected contributor (paid)}} to the article's talk page). The account is an WP:SPA, but isn't really active (only 5 edits). Its last edit was to add a logo to the article's infobox (which seems fine), but it also removed a prod tag and notability tag from the article (which may be a bit suspect). Since pretty much anyone can de-prod an article (even in bad faith), I only restored the notability tag and then added one of UPE. I don't think this is a case of a bad faith editor trying to "use" Wikipedia for blatant promotion of their company, but I'm not sure if the change in username is sufficient to meet WP:PAID. If it is, then any issues with the article can most likely be handled pretty much as such issues would be for any other article without any COI/PAID concerns. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor in question has responded to a message I left on their user talk page about this and has added a {{Paid}} template to their user page and has also changed their username once again; so, this seems resolved and the thread can be archived unless someone wants to add something more to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2020 (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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=969154174"