Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)

Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes:

This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:

1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.

2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.

3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.

Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.

To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:A&P Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association Talk:American Water Works Talk:Timothy Archambault Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Bastion Collective Talk:BeiGene Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Boku, Inc. Talk:William Bolcom Talk:Doug Bremner Talk:Bruce D. Broussard Talk:Lady Jean Campbell Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Martin Casado Talk:Cboe Global Markets Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Character.ai Talk:Brian Chesky Talk:Cheyne Capital Management Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:City of Whittlesea Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Crispin Porter + Bogusky Talk:Cyberattack Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Edmund de Waal Talk:Derby della Lanterna Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Michael Douglas Talk:Edelman (firm) Talk:EF Education First Talk:EMarketer Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:Engine No. 1 Talk:ESAB Talk:FairVote Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Steven Furtick Talk:Gibson Dunn Talk:Global Strategy Group Talk:GLX Digital Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Graph database Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Evan G. Greenberg Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:Roy Hamilton III Talk:Richard Harland Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:Hong Kong Free Press Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:Barry Irwin Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:Labaton Keller Sucharow Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Alison Lawton Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Lemelson Foundation Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Anthony Marinelli Talk:Mascot Books Talk:Masdar Talk:Milwaukee Electric Tool Talk:Monero Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Norwest Venture Partners Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Open Source Initiative Talk:Operating system Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Pacific Equity Partners Talk:Lubos Pastor Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Poster House Talk:Programming language Talk:PureTalk Talk:Qiagen Talk:QIAGEN Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Quarter Pounder Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Marc Rowan Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Security AppScan Talk:Simprints Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Software Talk:Software license Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation Talk:Stikeman Elliott Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:The Inter Faith Network Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Tricentis Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:Union Pacific Railroad Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Versapay Talk:Vow (company) Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Wasserman (company) Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Maya Wiley Talk:Andy Wright (music producer) Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Gediminas Žiemelis Talk:Alice Zorn

A1 Belarus

A1 Belarus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bahach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user seems to be tied to the telecom provider. Global edits show 90%+ edits on all Wikipedias about A1/Velcom itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Bahach). Criticism of the provider supported by reliable sources tend to be deleted or toned down.

Draft:Zeyan Shafiq

Draft:Zeyan Shafiq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
hums4r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello sir, i am mutahir and i am basically from kashmir, i have started my wikipedia journey recently,i am a quick learner and i have learned a lot of things related to wikipedia till now. i am trying to create wikipedia articles for notable persons from Kashmir since they dont have enough presence on wikipedia but they are very notable. i started by creating Draft:Zeyan Shafiq which was unfortunately declined for (Adv) and since i approached the subject myself to gain some more information(for eg: his current academic information,his current living location and other information the reviewers might have thought that it is a (COI) but it is not a (COI) i am planning to create wiki pages for all those kashmiri people who meet the wikipedia notability guidelines(So for getting more info to make my article very accurate and good i might even contact the subjects of next articles as well,This shouldn't be called as COI) because i dont think anyone from kashmir is trying to do this, i reviewed my first draft Draft:Zeyan Shafiq and understood what (adv) actually meant, i had given very less information and it looked like an advertisement. i later researched again and edited all the incomplete information myself and i wrote down everything in brief, i am a new editor here so i might do more mistakes but i don't have anyone to guide me properly, if you can assist me and tell me what is wrong in my article now, i would really work more hard on those issues and i will correct them. the only reason why i am requesting this help is because my article got declined but i wasn't guided on how do i improve it properly. my reviewer gave me reason and i followed it but i don't still understand where i am lacking and i want to improve it. thanks sir

Hums4r (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OP cross-posted this topic at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Draft:Zeyan Shafiq Need Admin Help regarding editing and publishing. He has already gotten responses there, so there is no need for any discussion here.

@Hums4r: Please don't post the same request for help in multiple forums. This is referred to on Wikipedia as "forum shopping", and is considered bad practice. While I'm sure this is just a beginner's mistake, please keep it in mind for the future. Thank you. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drm310: I’m extremely sorry for this, i will certainly try to avoid all of this, i have already learnt a lot of things, I’ve done a lot of mistakes and i look forward to never repeat them.. thanks Hums4r (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done, Hums4r. Wikipedia has a lot of rules... new editors make mistakes, learn from them, and become better. I was exactly the same. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dear editors/ admins, i have a query on COI Edits.

Zeyan Shafiq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hums4r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Dear Experienced editors/ admins, I am Hums4r, a new editor on wikipedia and a quick learner, at first i used to post a lot of queries on noticeboards but I’ve learnt a lot in these days and I’ve tried to reduce it, but today i am facing some issues regarding COI, I created this article Zeyan Shafiq, since i am from kashmir and this subject is a notable person from kashmir, at initial stages when i knew nothing, i tried to keep everything neutral but i failed since i had no idea about wiki policies and writing style, later this article was completely cleaned up by Admin (@Fences and windows) and posted to mainspace, since i had no idea about COI, i had to contact the Subject of this article to get some more information(like about his current life), I declared my COI immediately even though i never had such close connections(i accept it was still my mistake). I wanted to contribute and enrich article which were based in kashmir, i was told by few editors to not edit (Zeyan Shafiq) due to COI, i wanted to curate my article properly since it was my first article, and give all the reliable sourced information available on news. So i posted this suggested edit on my talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hums4r#Edits_on_Zeyan_Shafiq) and i was redirected to the COIEDIT page by an editor. And he told me that i am not barred from editing on COI articles, so I’d really appreciate if someone can give me an idea on the same, Everything that i write is thoroughly checked and is completely neutral without any COI right now, but I don’t want to ruin my image in the community so i wanted to seek advice from some experienced person on this query. I am trying my best to update all the kashmir related articles to their latest versions by including all the new information that i get from news sources, but since this particular article has COI with me, so i wanted to ask what should i do in this case?
For eg:- I researched about Mehvish Mushtaq who is another kashmiri notable person, i found some new notable things that she has done and i want to update it on her article, but what should i do if i find new notable things in Zeyan Shafiq case?

Thanks for ur time and extremely sorry if these are silly questions. Hums4r(Talk to me here) 03:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fences and windows Hi Dear,hope you're safe and doing good, sorry for disturbing you again, since there was no reply i thought of tagging you to get some response on this query, i am badly confused with this query, since this doesn't allow me to make any changes to the page even when i have the required sourced information, so wanted to get experienced advice on this. thanku very much Hums4r.(Talk to me here) 05:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hums4r, you already got advice at User talk:Hums4r#Edits on Zeyan Shafiq which is sound. Note that https://www.thenews.com.pk/amp/774708-exciting-framework-is-in-the-offing-for-e-sports-fawad-chaudhry doesn't contain any new information about Zeyan Shafiq: it takes that reporting from the earlier Vice article that's already cited. Original reports are the best sources. Fences&Windows 13:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fences and windows, this is the answer is was looking to know, thanks again. So basically we have to look for articles with major portions about the subject to be reliable, since this article had a short part so I thought this information could be added as (as per original source)“ In December 2021, Shafiq Started a new division of stalwart esports in pakistan region under the name of “Stalwart Freestyle” to curate pakistani players in competitive esports. Since this is informative i think should be added to the Stalwart Esports section in the page. Anyways if you think this is incorrect, I’ll drop this here. Thanks for helping out again, you’re amazing. Take care. Hums4r (Let's Talk) 13:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was reported by Vice in October: "Under a new entity called Stalwart Freestyle, the teams will now be exploring gaming content in the region." [1]. Citing the new article that refers to the Vice article makes no sense - cite Vice directly. Fences&Windows 14:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

QRep2020

User:

QRep2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pages:

TSLAQ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Elon Musk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Tesla, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User QRep2020 created the article TSLAQ, a Tesla short-selling group, in their first month as editor. TSLAQ is the Tesla ticker symbol + "Q"... the NASDAQ notation for bankruptcy. The name QRep2020 presumably stands for "Q Representative 2020", which implies undisclosed WP:COI. Using the TopEdits tool [2] you can see this user appears to be a WP:SPA that edits primarily in the articles TSLAQ, Elon Musk, and Tesla, Inc., Ken Klippenstein (journalist known for publishing information related to Tesla), and PlainSite (publishes Tesla leaks). There appears to be an overwhelming trove of problematic bias with this user. More disturbingly, and I don't want to out a potential identity, but there is a real-life lawsuit filed against a user QRep2020 has repeatedly edit warred with by a man with interest in all the same articles as QRep2020, and this man would have clear financial COI.

I have not personally been in any edit confrontations with QRep2020, but the user has repeatedly been asked to reveal bias and has not done so. The most recent example being Talk:TSLAQ#This_is_the_most_hilarious_WP:COI_article_I've_read. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all of QRep2020's advocacy has been for adding information critical of Tesla and removing information critical of TSLAQ, with a specific focus on short-selling. I'll include some specific diffs:

TSLAQ - Removing POV template [3]
TSLAQ - Removing COI information mentioned in source article (The Funicular Fund is the same group as Cable Car Capitol) [4]
Elon Musk - Adding a whole section about how Elon Musk dislikes short-selling [5]
Elon Musk - Edit comment "Musk’s lack of respect for the SEC statements updated." [6]
Tesla, Inc. - Adding controversies [7] [8]
Tesla, Inc. - Adding reference to TSLAQ and adding a lawsuits section [9]

Again, QRep2020 appears to have a financial COI regarding the topic of Tesla and Musk, and an even stronger COI regarding TSLAQ specifically. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have declared that I have no financial ties to Tesla, short or long. The subject matter I tend to focus on here on Wikipedia is highly contentious, no doubt, but my edits are always in neutral tone and comply with the standards of Wikipedia. As noted, there is a neutrality template on TSLAQ right now that we are resolving on the Talk:TSLAQ. As I have declared elsewhere I am not a member of TSLAQ, and, if it really has to be said, I have done nothing wrong here. Stewarding pages, especially ones that one has created, that are attacked on a regular basis is something that is honored on Wikipedia. Similarly, the quality of my sourcing speaks for itself and I will note that other editors have heavily edited these three pages without being singled out. QRep2020 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absent evidence that Qrep2020 has a COI this should be closed. Many editors work in areas where they have an interest in the topic. That doesn't mean they have a COI per Wikipedia. Having a narrow interest or a particular personal POV is not a COI (else so many editors in AP2 would have to step down). As for the added content, if consensus on those articles doesn't support the edits in question they should be removed but that is a content question, not a COI question. Tesla/Musk appears to be a sensitive topic to some. I have made very few edits in this area yet I was also questioned about COI. Springee (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am specifically focusing on QRep2020 because the username and editing behavior indicates this user is a representative for TSLAQ. It goes far beyond simple interest and into problematic WP:ADVOCACY. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have asked and they have said no that is all we can do absent some hard evidence to the contrary. Repeated accusations of COI absent proper evidence is a personal attack. If the material is otherwise problematic then you can raise the issue at ANI. Springee (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect that a user's refusal to acknowledge COI is the sole basis for COI determination. As stated in the header, COI determination is based on COIN consensus. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to see that article while reading Musk's article after becoming the richest in the world, so I have no particular interest or bias regarding this topic, hence I'd consider myself an uninvolved editor. When I saw the TSLAQ article I saw a clear cut case of WP:ADVOCACY, then noticed almost half of the edits to the article are by this guy, with around 90% of edits (by character count) being made by only two editors [10]. If COI can't be proven, it's clear there's a case of WP:SPA anyway, with pretty much all of his edits being negative towards a single topic. When seeing SPAs, the usual case is them being a FAN of something, this case being the opposite is quite strange. Given that the article is stock related, and this group benefits from Musk related properties to do bad, it isn't a far reaching conclusion that he may be financially involved. Loganmac (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SPA is an essay and more to the point, not actually against any rules. An editor is allowed to have a narrow focus. I don't see an issue with the TSLAQ article and don't see it as advocacy as the material is covered by RSs. Absent some real evidence that a COI exists here this should be closed. Springee (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: SPA is not policy, but instead references existing policy. Notably the Arbitration Committee ruling quote in the lede: single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the issue COI or editorial behavior in the form of POV push? I might think Hudson Hawk is the worst movie ever. My sole purpose on wikipedia may be too put negative things about the movie in where ever possible. That doesn't mean I have a COI with respect to the movie. If my attempts to push the content into article are otherwise disruptive there are other options for that. Springee (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: In this case we're talking about a user with a username which overtly states they are a representative for a group that is short-selling Tesla. The editing behavior matches. I'm pretty sure WP:DUCK applies. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It stands for "Q Groups Reporter", as I am investigating Q groups related to Tesla, GSX, Nikola. I have explained this before... QRep2020 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@QRep2020: Do you have any other potential causes for COI, such being involved in a lawsuit against Tesla / Musk? You don't need to be specific, but if you do not declare COI, I will send additional evidence to a functionary and they can make a final determination. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but is that a threat?

I know exactly what you are angling at, by the way, and it is outrageous: You are implying that I am Aaron Greenspan of Plainsite. Well, I am not Aaron Greenspan and I am party to neither a lawsuit against Elon Musk nor Tesla. Aaron Greenspan has disclosed that he shorts or shorted Tesla; I have stated time and again that I do not have conflicts of interest based on financial investments or anything else. If you send a "functionary" court records or press releases or whatever for Greenpan's lawsuit against Elon Musk, etc. and then link to Plainsite or my edits on Lawsuits_involving_Facebook or whatever else on Wikipedia, they will see it for what is: A laughable excuse for evidence. And what I described must be at least the brunt of the "evidence" because I am not Greenspan and I have no association with him and no associations with his company, foundation, etc. Furthermore, if a functionary does happen to entertain this ridiculous notion, I will gladly reveal to them - and them alone - indisputable evidence of how I am not Aaron Greenspan. QRep2020 (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 1,000 lawsuits currently filed against Musk and Tesla. QRep2020 brought up a very specific lawsuit filed by a very specific individual. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of the dozens of film references related to Musk in RS, I chose to mention Spaceballs in his article. Thus I am Mel Brooks. Strong logic... ~ HAL333 17:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody knew who I was talking about. I secretly told ST47 "I think QRep2020 is [redacted]", and then hours later -- out of 1,000 possible suspects --- and unprompted --- QRep2020 defensively posts to say they KNOW I am talking about [redacted], that they know about that specific lawsuit I mentioned, and that they are definitely NOT [redacted]. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is meaningless. There is a spray-tanned man with extravagant hair who lives in a white house. There are thousands of people who fit that description, yet we all know who I am referencing. ~ HAL333 21:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: We all know who Trump is. [redacted] is not even notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. The lawsuit is even more obscure. Bad analogy. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

QRep knows who [redacted] is because they wrote about [redacted] in an article... There are plenty of obscure things that I am now familiar with because I had to research, cite, write, and revise content about them in an article. ~ HAL333 22:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this lawsuit [redacted] calls himself a journalist. QRep2020 is a self-labeled reporter. [redacted] sues a Wikipedia user over a specific edit. QRep2020 reverted that edit. [redacted] started Plainsite. QRep2020 created the Plainsite page. Perhaps QRep2020 is simply a user with similar interests to [redacted], but it was enough of a match to bring up at COIN. If QRep2020 continues to receive complaints from experienced editors about possible COI regarding TSLAQ, I will escalate to ANI. --Elephanthunter (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greenspan can call himself what he wants but what he does and what I do are very different things. If he wants to mention Wikipedia edits in his complaints, I cannot stop him and, frankly, more power to him for calling out blatant vandalism on Wikipedia's content. I will also note that I have not been asked about providing evidence that I am not him by ST47 or the like and so that speaks to the arguments' viewed credibility. In addition, as stated elsewhere, content that was and is on TSLAQ and of a more "general" critical nature - what is often attacked on there to begin with - will be redrafted for another, separate article: Draft:Criticism_of_Tesla. Substantiated input welcome. QRep2020 (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, by the time QRep2020 had mentioned this individual, I had already emailed ST47 regarding that same individual and lawsuit. --Elephanthunter (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also going to point out that Springee was brought here via WP:CANVASSING. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for advice or recommendations on someone's Talk page is not canvassing. And you forgot to include the link. QRep2020 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. QRep2020 seems pretty legit and above board from my quick glance of their contributions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment setting aside the contribs, to me the comments that QRep2020 have made above make them sound far too invested (pardon the pun) in the subject to be objective. Their statement "I am investigating Q groups related to Tesla, GSX, Nikola" tips things here: we are meant to be neutral Wikipedia editors, not investigators. The Arb Com ruling single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. would seem to apply. "Impression" is a key word there,and scanning their Xtools report, I get the impression that they may be here with too narrow of an interest. Possibly (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is adding facts presented by independent, third-party sources I find when I investigating for other purposes promoting an "agenda"? The name reflects what I do, not necessarily all I do and not necessarily what I do for Wikipedia in totality. Do editors need to declare themselves generalists? QRep2020 (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)See, that's the thing. investigating for other purposes and your editing interests gives me the impression that you are coming to this with a non-neutral view. There are enough editors who are saying the same thing above and in other discussions to say that you are creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral. Possibly (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: I think QRep2020 is using "investigating" how we might say studying or looking into. They don't seem to have gotten the Wikipedia lingo quite yet, but I don't think they are using the word to mean something akin to WP:OR. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

edit: And perhaps consider how often the pages I work on or made are attacked or flooded with "joke" vandalisms. Are those sad realities not cause for vigilance? QRep2020 (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's extremely dubious, bordering on farcical, to claim that the name "QRep" is any sort of evidence that the editor is a "representative" of TSLAQ. How can a "loose collective" of short-sellers and skeptics even have a representative? The whole idea is absurd prima facie. Besides that, QRep2020 has denied any COI and there is no other evidence supporting the claim, so it seems clear that this COI should be closed. QRep2020 has certainly edited in a narrow area of interest, but I think it's untrue that he is advocating or pushing a non-neutral view. His edits are always fair and well-sourced. A quick scan through his edit history on the TSLAQ article shows many edits where he made edits against the grain of the alleged advocacy.[11][12][13] He has been responsive and collaborative on the talk page, even when other editors have failed to be WP:CIVIL.
Lastly I would like to note that, as mentioned earlier, Elon Musk is now the richest person in the world—overall there is much more vested interest in promoting Tesla than criticizing it. Musk himself has a well-documented history of attacking critics[14][15], reporters[16][17], and whistleblowers[18][19], and his supporters will often go to extreme lengths to defend him[20][21][22]. I think these facts help to understand the broader context surrounding the sometimes aggressive push-back against information critical of Tesla and Musk on Wikipedia. Stonkaments (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For context, this editor is the other half of the 90% of edits to the TSLAQ article, and they have collaborated on other articles [23], judging timing, in a battleground-like approach. Loganmac (talk) 07:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From my experiences editing with QRep2020, I can confirm that they are an editor of the highest caliber. I have not seen anything that suggests that QRep has any kind of bias. Most of the referenced allegations on the talk-page are just from Musk fanboys. The climate there is similar to the Trump talk page - where IPs and newcomers take issue with the inclusion of criticism from reliable sources. It's really quite offensive that this complaint was even listed. ~ HAL333 17:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While you say QRep2020 is neutral, you have provided no evidence to that point, or to counter the evidence I have posted above. Beyond that, the complaint was listed because there is evidence to link QRep2020 to a specific person who has financial COI concerning Musk and Tesla. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I have not seen anything that suggests that QRep has any kind of bias. I provided no evidence because I don't have to. I don't need to publish a research paper or spend 10 years in the field to say that Bigfoot isn't real. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on you to prove it, which you haven't. ~ HAL333 21:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: So far you've made comparisons to Trump, Spaceballs, and Bigfoot... while it did make me chuckle, it doesn't counter hard diffs I have provided and the details in the lawsuit. You've had your opportunity to expand your point, but I honestly don't think the evidence exists. QRep2020 has been pretty hard-lined on this highly politicized topic. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not convinced by the evidence presented:

QRep has added content to Wikipedia that is critical of Musk, Tesla, etc.
QRep also added info about Person X and is able to recognize that you were referring to them in your initial allegation.
Person X is critical of those same things.
Thus QRep is Person X.

That evidence/line of reasoning really isn't all that strong. I still have quite a reasonable doubt. ~ HAL333 22:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How come Qrep2020 is still allowed as a user on Wikipedia with such clear breaches of COI and NOTHERE? NOTHERE clearly states narrow self-interest accounts are NOT allowed. It is getting so much more clear when we look at the editing history of Qrep2020 - then there is no doubt about the breach of WP:SPA: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/QRep2020 As we can see if “narrow interest” ever applied to a user it is this wiki edtior. The articles he has most contributed to is: 1. TESLAQ, 2. Elon Musk, 3. Tesla, 4. Ken Klippenstein (a person that has had disputes with Elon Musk), 5. Plainsite (a website that has had disputes with Elon and Tesla). Should we continue? Further down at number 7 we find “List of lawsuits and controversies of Tesla inc.”. If this is not proof of violation of Wikis rules then no it is not possible by anyone to breach them... BoMadsen88 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the same time period that QRep2020 has edited 167 different pages, you have made a single edit that does not directly relate to Elon Musk or editors who have contributed to Elon Musk. Who's really the single purpose account here? ~ HAL333 23:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I am not the only one who has noticed the same about this user QRep2020. The users Elephanthunter and BoMadsen88 are absolutely right. --JShark (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Hsien Loong

Lee Hsien Loong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Kohlrabi Pickle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, I hope this is the right forum to ask this. I am looking for clarity on whether I have a COI that needs to be declared. I want to do a major revamp of the article Lee Hsien Loong, with a view to taking it to GA and FA. The subject is the Prime Minister of Singapore. In preparation for the revamp, I recently wrote to the Prime Minister's office, encouraging them to release higher-quality photographs of him for the page. Does this direct communication create an external relationship requiring a COI declaration? I would think not, but I thought it was important to confirm. Thank you in advance. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-admin comment) Hi, @Kohlrabi Pickle: I do not think this is a COI that requires a declaration. WP:EXTERNALREL says, "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest (similar to how a judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator is undermined if they are married to the defendant.") If you are asking for a better photo to improve the encyclopedia, then it is not a COI. A COI would occur if have a personal relationship or get paid to edit the article. However, for transparency's sake, I would leave a note on the talk page explaining that you asked for better images, and who you contacted. See WP:COI for more details on Wikipedia's policy on COIs and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for information on how to ask for copyright permission for images. Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Z1720, I appreciate it. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Marie Gutierrez

Anna Marie Gutierrez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Amgnyc8764 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From October 2020, wherein the this user entered Wikipedia, she edited only 1 article and there is something wrong because this user erased some of my edits there and she use Wikipedia for her own vested interests. The user stated in one of her edit summary that she a.k.a. Anna Marie Gutierrez is alive but some articles online said that the said person is already dead since 2009. Thank you. Jayjay2020 (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From one of the edit comments by Amgnyc8764: "I’m not dead. They had me dead 1964 2009. It’s not true what was said here. If you need to verify this information please contact Anna Marie Gutierrez. The article has only had one source in the past six years, from blogspot. Possibly (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I see no attempt to engage this user on their talk page about their edits, nor notification of their listing on this board. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Patrick

Kristin Patrick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Eros Innovations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Kristin Patrick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Jakeswish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The subject editor created Eros Innovations, which was first tagged for G11, and was then nominated for deletion. The subject editor was asked by two editors whether they have a conflict of interest, but did not answer. Eros Innovations was then deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eros Innovations, and the subject editor does not appear to have answered the question about conflict of interest. The subject editor then created a draft about Kristin Patrick, who is the president of Eros Innovations. The draft was declined, and the subject editor then created the same article in article space. The article has now been nominated for deletion. The subject still has not answered whether they are being paid by Eros Innovations and/or by Kristin Patrick (or by an agency representing them). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-admin comment) I have posted on Jakewish's talk page asking him explicitly if he has a conflict of interest with Kristin Patrick or Eros Innovations. Sometimes direct questioning with a non-template gives a response. Z1720 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before I posted my questions, @Possibly: issued a warning for COI/UPE. I still posted my questions below the warning. Z1720 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: You don't have to be an administrator to comment here nor do you need to explicitly mark your comments as being from a non-administrator. ElKevbo (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I received a response from Jakeswish on their talk page, they have a COI with Kristin Patrick.[24] I'm going to follow-up with info about declaring their COI and using Template:Request Edit. @ElKevbo: I know that anyone can comment and I don't need to declare my non-admin status, but I don't want to inadvertently give the impression that I have extra tools. I welcome feedback on my talk page if you think I should stop including that notice. Z1720 (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheppard (band)

Sheppard (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Tennineeighttwo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have a strong suspicion User:Tennineeighttwo may have connections to the topic of this article. Their only edits are to remove information that does not portray the band in a good light (i.e potential referenced connections to Australia's immigration detention program) 203.18.34.190 (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Tennineeighttwo to join the discussion on Talk:Sheppard (band) about their removal of content. I also asked them about a possible COI. Z1720 (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tennineeighttwo has stated that they do not have a COI. [25] I proposed WP:DR on Talk:Sheppard (band). 203.18.34.190 has opened a report on WP:AN3 [26] Z1720 (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecialist

Heat 1000°, light 0 lumens - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

H Collective (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Erik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am wondering about this WikiSpecialist company. On their client list, they have posted that their clients really appreciated the H Collective page, originated by User:Erik, who has built and maintained the page as WikiSpecialist stated he was doing here: https://web.archive.org/web/20201101014155/https://wikispecialistllc.com/

And then of course User:Algkalv’s page here: Maliina Abelsen.

Do we simply ignore long term editors when their work is posted as examples on fraudulent websites? Or can I work for them as a new employee? 2605:8D80:521:8BB6:346E:2E7F:AA0C:CAB1 (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing companies have lots of pages to randomly choose from. Do you have some evidence that these editors are paid editors, IP editor? I tend to take a report like this, from an anonymous editor with three edits, as highly suspicious. Possibly (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive313#Website selling Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 151#Wikipedia Procreative Writers, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 143#Wiki Specialist LLC. In essence, I wrote something completely absent of any connection to either company, and WikiSpecialist took credit. However, there is more about the xXx acquisition that can be included that I'm sure the company won't like, here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Possibly above. There have been numerous instances wherein sellers of Wikipedia editing services have claimed responsibility for articles that they could not possibly have done based on the timing of the work on the article. We know that these companies are not honest brokers by the nature of their work, so we have no reason to give credence to their marketing claims. BD2412 T 03:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How naive is this board. Erik is the classic hire for paid editing firms and is giving the classic answers. Really? H Collective, THAT’S the perfect target decoy? Come on, just understand you don’t really care about this. Nobody can report people on this site because of the graft on COIN, but some people care enough to at least let you know that purely nabbing pre-500 accounts only nabs you the off/shore scammers. And never the user:Eriks. Who posted a classic short paid article in the post 2017 period where the market got hot. Literally, you really believe that???2605:8D80:521:8BB6:346E:2E7F:AA0C:CAB1 (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several similar reports, as linked above. They are mostly a waste of time when they come from anonymous IP editors with no edit history here. Continuing to cast aspersions with no evidence will get you blocked. Possibly (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you exactly why I created the article. I was working on The Parts You Lose, and here I link to the company, considering creating an article for it because a quick WP:SET showed that there was coverage about it. I try to get rid of red links by creating articles whenever I can. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned on the talk page, I've revised the history section partly to include the lawsuit involving THC and xXx. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And still I got this lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_paid_for_a_page_here_and_it_never_happened Just thought you cared...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:522:5250:E45D:E5F5:A748:C607 (talk) 2:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

We've been over this before. These paid editors have literally millions of articles to claim as their own. Someone let me know the next time this IP shows up and throws baseless accusations against long term veteran editors so I can block them for disruption. Sro23 (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the IP's comments here are also in violation of WP:CASTING ASPERSIONS. Undoubtedly if they show up again, they'll be using a different IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SDSU Fowler College of Business

SDSU Fowler College of Business (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Slfinch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Slfinch almost certainly has a paid editing connection to SDSU Fowler College of Business; WP:OUTING prevents me from saying exactly why I believe this to be the case but I cam confident that other editors can very easily make the same connection that I have made based on the editor's Wikipedia username and available information about the college. In April, I explicitly asked her if she has a connection to the college and she ignored the question. Yesterday, I explicitly warned her against violating WP:PAID and she also ignored that warning. If she continues to edit in blatant violation of our policies while ignoring other editors, she needs to be blocked. ElKevbo (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They were doing minor updates of enrolment figures (might be ok via COI policy) and a table of tuition fees. I deleted the tuition fee section, which really should not be there. However, none of these edits were OK as they have not disclosed. Googling the user name and the article name leads you to a pretty quick conclusion that something like a pBlock would be good here, for using Wikipedia for promotion. Possibly (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they were warned back in 2016 about the same thing, and actually made some unsuccessful talk page requests. However they have made about 25 edits directly to the article since then. Possibly (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This editor continues to ignore this discussion and warnings on her Talk page while also continuing to edit the article. A block is in order. ElKevbo (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fences and windows: Could you have a look at this account? They have ignored COI inquired for the past 4 years, 11 months and 7 days. Possibly (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Possibly. I've added a partial block. They've edited the article after a final warning without engaging with any of the queries. Whether or not they were expected to do edits as part of paid work, the COI was not being properly managed. Fences&Windows 00:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sholam Weiss

Sholam Weiss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
National Heritage Life Insurance Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Yossischlussel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2600:1002:b024:8fea:de9:6516:a14d:8bdd (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
47.17.126.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
74.65.205.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
204.128.182.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
204.128.182.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The article on Sholam Weiss, recently the subject of a presidential pardon, is a mess. It appears to be subject to extensive COI editing and the lengthy list of maintenance tags, added by another editor, speaks for itself. It requires experienced eyes. Note that it is tagged for paid editing, though I did not place that tag and am unclear as to its basis. I have commenced a discussion on the Talk page about starting over from scratch. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a pass at the article and removed a lot of offtopic and COI information. I moved lots of information from the lede to the body of the article. I could not access the New York Times articles today so I was hesitant to assess that information. I hope others will take a look at this to help improve the article, especially because the "Best Review" magazine article has some business jargon that I struggled to understand. Z1720 (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 Yes that helped a great deal, and your editing encouraged me to dive in and deal with other issues. But now, as you know, the article is under attack by IPs and SPAs intent on whitewashing the subject matter. Previous COI editing has beset this article in the past and rendered it a disgrace. I have requested semiprotection at WP:RPP. I hatted my discussion on stubbing the article as it no longer seems necessary. Coretheapple (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The COI editing is back. IPs and User:Yossischlussel. [27] [28] [29] Coretheapple (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:Coretheapple}} Yossischlussel (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC) I am an independent journalist who has studied the Sholam Weiss case extensively, I will not allow anyone to spread false information, slander and use unrelated personal (mis)information. I urge you Coretheapple to please stop with the bias and ago driven agenda and report correctly based solely on facts. Yossischlussel (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Yossischlussel:, if you have concerns about something in the article, please discuss it on the talk page. This helps other editors assess if the information should be kept or added to the article. Also, please do not engage in personal attacks. Instead, focus on the content that is the problem, not analysing the bias of an editor. Z1720 (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yossischlussel: If there is "false information" you need to specify just what is "false" about it, not sling mud about "false information" and "slander." Whether you are a "journalist" or not and whether or not you have "studied" Weiss is immaterial. If you had perused Wikipedia's rules as I recommended previously, you would have seen that original research is not permitted. Edits such as this do not remove "false information." They remove properly sourced text, from The New York Times and Washington Post, that is unflattering to the subject. Of course it is unflattering. He was convicted of multiple felonies and sentenced to 845 years in prison, which was imposed as he fled the country and galivanted through Europe and South America. Your edits have the effect and the obvious intent of whitewashing the article subject.

I note that in the edit linked above[30] you changed text to mischaracterize what is stated in the source (The New York Times), changing "Weiss and others" to "its owners." If you have a complaint with The New York Times, take it up with the New York Times. Such editing is unacceptable and must cease. The article has a long history of that. I note that a few weeks ago the article was tagged for "paid editing" by one of a previous cohort of editors who were coping with rampant POV editing in this article. So please spare us the lectures and insults and desist from your tendentious editing. Coretheapple (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly say that this edit by @Yossischlussel: is totally biased, to the point of just denying reality. Semi-protecting the article would help. Letting the Weiss propaganda machine know that denying reality is not acceptable and will be dealt with swiftly and vigorously would be even better. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did another pass at the article. Some sections were biased for Weiss, others were biased against. I tried cleaning up the language to avoid labels and reduce the amount of direct quotes from the articles. I also tried presenting the language in a disinterested tone as recommended in WP:WIKIVOICE. Can another, uninvolved editor, take a look at the article and see if we can remove the tags at the top? Also, I agree with Smallbones above a semi-protection of this article might be warranted but I think there's some biased language happening both for and against Weiss. Z1720 (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "paid editing" tag was placed there by an editor some time back because of overt POV editing in this article that was clearly on behalf of the Weiss propaganda campaign. I became involved in this article all of five days ago. The tag was removed by me after the article was cleaned up, and was just reinserted by an IP with the following edit summary: Undid revision 1003178681 by Coretheapple (talk) Coretheapple appears to be a paid contributor from Mr. Weiss's enemies. He should be banned from this page. His edits are libel and vandalism against a living person. The same IP attacked me on my talk page a few days ago. [31] Let's be fair but not wear blinders. Coretheapple (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Coretheapple: I am sorry if my comments implied that you are a paid editor. It was not my intention but that's on me; it's my responsibility to ensure I'm clear in my comments. I saw @74.65.205.121:'s edit summary on my watchlist earlier today and was going to send a warning to but felt like that might inflame the situation. I am still concerned that the article is still not NPOV and would still like a non-involved editor to read through the prose again, and think the article needs to be protected to cool down the rampant POV-pushing that's happening. In the meantime, perhaps we can replace the paid tag with a POV tag? Z1720 (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Yes, that was the implication. I appreciate your apology, but I did not appreciate that and your ignoring of the edit summary and of the behavior of the IPs and SPA on this page. In addition to my concern over that edit summary, I have to say with all frankness that I don't think you improved the article. The version that you rewrote can be found here. You removed a cogent explanation of the fraud that was quoted from the Times, and we really should be discussing that on the talk page and not here, as the content of the article is beyond the scope of the COI notice board. Also your suggestion, which you put on the talk page, to remove a hunk of text favorable to Weiss makes no sense at all to be honest. Coretheapple (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tags as the edit summary indicates they were placed there in bad faith. Tags placed in an article for disruptive purposes are removed, full stop. Also I have reinstated the previous explanation of the fraud as I think as rewritten it is dramatically less useful to the reader and also contains an inaccuracy at the top. Let's go to the talk page to discuss this. If you feel there are remaining POV issues, that is the place to make the case, not here. Coretheapple (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I honestly have no particular horse in the oage, but considering the length of time COI editing has been taking place on that article (dating back to 2009 if the talk page is to be believed), this might honestly be worth an ECE protection. The user who I was dealing with was happy to edit war me and 2 other people. When blocked, they revived a bunch of socks so if anything, it's clear there are some individuals who are really invested in making sure they own the article. I don't have the time frankly to babysit that page, and IDK if anyone else does either... BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 17:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sholam Weiss has been semiprotrected for two months. However, I see that National Heritage Life Insurance Company, the article on the company that Weiss looted, is in much the same state as Sholam Weiss a week ago due to determined COI editing, and unfortunately requires a top-to-bottom rewrite, for which I note it has already been tagged. I concur with BrxBrx that these kinds of extreme COI situations pose an unfair burden on editors. Coretheapple (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NCH Software paid editing

NCH Software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Debut Video Capture Software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WavePad Audio Editor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Switch Audio File Conversion Software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
VideoPad Video Editor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Express Burn Disc Burning Software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Prism Video Converter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:PhotoPad Photo Editor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (moved to draft space as covert advertisement)
Express Scribe Transcription Software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (speedily deleted)

Onepunchcard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)
Tiredimmortal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)
Merrymonger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (stale)
Hanoverfiste1964 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (stale)
Michaelmark2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (stale)
MellowModern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (stale)

Onepunchcard and Tiredimmortal have recently been blocked as undisclosed paid editors. Two of their articles (Photopad Photo Editor and Scribe Transcription Software) have already been dealt with, but they have left behind several more related articles and some apparently abandoned single purpose (or near single purpose) accounts. Some of the articles do a good job at appearing well cited at first glance, but they seem to over rely on unreliable sources and trivial mentions. What should be done with the rest of these articles? AFDs? Move the lot to draft space? MrOllie (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ehudakineah

Jason Tom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ehudakineah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Most edits in some way lead back to Jason Tom. This editor is now adding unnecessary and excessive external links to articles related to Jason Tom, see [32][33]. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a note that Ehudakineah tried to delete this section. - MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth doing a closer look to see if the subject meets GNG. The University of Honolulu sources aren’t independent, and as for the couple of seemingly independent coverage I’m not sure how established the outlets are. For example, the Metro may be comparable in reliability as the UK’s metro, which is classed as unreliable on RSP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very old AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Tom. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering hte original creator was paid to create it, it would not surprise me to find out that Ehudakineah has some sort of COI as well. As it stands right now, the article deliberately misrepresents the subject to appear more notable than they actually are. Sorting through the cruft is gonna take some work because a spot check of sources indicate almost nothing of value. CUPIDICAE💕 16:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Highly likely UPE suspect

Puntre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bishal Phukan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
AnishaWorld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The story so far:

There is a certain 19 year old "Bishal Phukan" a non-notable movie background singer.
An account with a similar name made this edit( diff) on a movie article.
Just after that edit 12 hours later, another account with the name AnishaWorld made another edit on that page, modifying the same content that bishal touched.
That AnishaWorld account went on to create articles about Bishal Phukan himself (Draft:Bishal Phukan) and His own website( Puntre)
Those articles got deleted/draftified. The AnishaWorld account still kept recreating them.

There is strong evidence of both accounts knowing each other . I suspect a case of paid editing , sponsored by the background singer to advertise on wikipedia.

Daiyusha (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wikiprofessionalsinc redux

Ave Kludze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Scientisted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Richard D. Hansen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Mayafan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nancy Polikoff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Five Below (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Qontis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A follow up to this thread on the agency Wikiprofessionals_inc], whose FAQ creatively declares that they avoid paid editing rules via our WP:IAR policy. A claim was made in this ANI thread that the agency had been paid to edit W. Mark Lanier's page. The previous COIN case mentions a number of articles; the testimoney section includes some new ones that may be worthy of scrutiny.

Mayafan2

Looking at the first one, Ave Kludze, I see a series of possible COI edits from new user User:Scientisted. I haven't had a chance to look closely at the others yet, but wanted to make a note of this now. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: as has been mentioned before, you need to notify the user of a discussion here. Possibly (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that, was in a hurry and forgot. I've added another WP:SPA-like account under Hansen and notified them. For the other mentioned accounts, WP:SPA patterns aren't as clear. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Hughes

Rhys Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rhysaurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For a number of years, the subject of this page has been editing the content (favourably) himself, which I believe creates a significant and potentially damaging COI. For this, he uses the name User:Rhysaurus, which exactly matches his own blog name (http://rhysaurus.blogspot.co.uk/). According to the talk page, this issue has been raised before by several other users, but nothing has been done about it so far. Further, he is primarily a self-published author who has made minimal impact in the literary world, as evidenced by the amount of public domain articles written by/about him, and the amount of reviews and other media coverage his books receive which is almost nil.

I would like to request the page be deleted.Sweetpea8 (talk)

I agree, looks to be non-notable. Nominated for deletion. Possibly (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Rhysaurus has not edited since 2015. Possibly (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Cullen Dunn

Elizabeth Cullen Dunn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ryan_Wyeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article was posted in complete form by an employee of the subject, perhaps ghostwritten by the subject. Their only contribution to WP is that article, in full, in a single edit. They used a real name on the account, and list the dates of employment for the subject on their CV, which coincides with the date of posting the article. Needs significant editing to give it a neutral POV and shortening to appropriate levels of detail. 98.115.238.204 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User Ryan Wyeth's one edit was 4 years ago. I've redacted the link to the CV, as it's really not necessary at this point. All that is needed here is for the article to be checked and perhaps cleaned up. Possibly (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wentworth Institute of Technology

Wentworth Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dennis Nealon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:OUTING dissuades me from explicitly stating why I strongly believe this editor has an undisclosed paid editing relationship with this subject but I am confident that other editors will reach the same conclusion with a few seconds of searching. In any case, he or she was warned in 2015 about the likely COI but has returned to continue editing without disclosing the COI and paid editing relationship. ElKevbo (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted one promotional edit. I am also confident that this person has a paid editing COI with the article. I have asked the user on their talk page if they are employed by the institution and if they have been paid to edit the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Nealon: has continued editing the page after I asked them to stop on their talk page. They have added promotional language. [34] Z1720 (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they have been warned in 2015, 2019 and now in 2021. Perhaps @Fences and windows: could take a look at that one? Possibly (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an indef partial block, this was obvious promotional editing with ample opportunity to discuss. Fences&Windows 01:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Nealon: has disclosed a COI with Wentworth on their talk page.[35] User requested an unblock so I directed them to WP:UNBLOCK and WP:GAB. Z1720 (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Swimming League

There seems to be an ongoing issue with the International Swimming League using Wikipedia pages for self-promotion. There are several instances where there is blatant edits made by employees of the league or its owners, including:

User talk:MWellmann (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
MWellmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Konstantin Grigorishin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dellano Silva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

International Swimming League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dellano Silva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Michael Chadwick (swimmer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and others)
JayneECB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not trying to out anybody in violation of rules, but, in many cases, they have used their names in their usernames. Dellano Silva is the name of someone who works for Konstantin Grigorishin, the founder of the league, Maike Wellmann is an agent for several pro swimmers and a member of the staff of the New York Breakers, the name of the Toronto Titans' Director of Marketing is Jayne Brintley. The list goes on and exists for most teams.

Rolling off that, there are plenty of other examples of users who have gone through and done the same for other teams.

There are other less obvious examples of this.

One such editor, seemingly clueless to the rules, acknowledged that she was a team manager and that the ISL had instructed teams to update their athletes' pages (MWellmann)

There seems to be a concerted effort to fill Wikipedia with links and team listings for credibility. Is there a way to deal with this on a large scale, or does the discussion need to be had page-by-page? Some have been dealt with, others have not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HatBucketBalls (talk • contribs)

@HatBucketBalls: you need to notify any user that you mention here. See top of this page, where it says "subst:coin..." Possibly (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Pleasant, South Carolina

Mount Pleasant, South Carolina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
NickRosen1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Okay- so, this is sort of a complicated situation. Recently, there have been a lot of people adding themselves to the 'notable people' sections of their hometowns, maybe because of a recent viral video (I found this thread discussing it, and hyperlinking doesn't seem to be working with it, sorry: http://Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Broad-based_spam_adding_non-notable_people ) I was patrolling for changes like these when I came across the addition of someone who seems to be notable, as he has an article (Nick Rosen). I noticed that someone had added a link to it with a description of him as a pilot, but I didn't see him being a pilot mentioned on the page itself, so I reverted- this adding edit was by an IP. Then he was added back in with further description... by an account called NickRosen1 in nearly the same way as before. To top it off, both the IP and the presumably-Nick account used the word famous to describe him, which is possibly a violation of WP:NPOV (I don't know if sources describe him that way). This doesn't seem too serious of a violation compared to other 'adding yourself to notable people' edits, as he does seem to be notable, but is it a problem at all in terms of COI? MuBoSko (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Top of this page: "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." NickRosen1 made 4 edits over fifteen minutes. You can't discuss it with them? Possibly (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's the same Nick Rosen. The one you're linking to appears to be British. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly and Ohnoitsjamie: Sorry- I had a previous discussion here go fine in a similar situation, so I wasn't aware you had to ask on the talk page (they user had one warning from someone else). I can remove this heading/conversation, but I must ask- do I remove the notice on the user's talk page as well? As for the second reply: I completely glossed over that. Okay, so what you're saying is that Nick- the one from South Carolina- added a link to an article that was about someone else with the same name thinking it was about him(?) and so it is a case of 'non-notable person adding themselves to an article under the notable people section', only there happens to be an actually notable person with the same name? The mismatch in nationality is such a big detail to miss I feel as if I've wasted everyone's time. I'll probably keep the COI notice for consistency, as technically him adding himself to an article, even incorrectly, is still COI. Sorry, there's been an edit conflict and I'm trying to stay on top of the discussion. MuBoSko (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MuBoSko: you should leave this post as it has already been replied to. The basic procedure for dealing with suspected COI editors is 1. revert and place COI notice on their talk page and 2. If they do not stop, ask why they are continuing and explain policies. At that point, if someone refuses to engage in discussion, has been warned many times or continues to make COI edits, then you can come here with a concern. Possibly (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thick Records

Thick Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
THICKREX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user claims to be "Thick Records owner Zak Einstein" and keeps editing the article and reverting other editors. Orange Mike | Talk 04:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangemike: that article was just deleted via AfD January 7, 2021. Is the recreated version better than the old one? Possibly (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the new version is much better at making a case for notability than the deleted one. Now if the subject would just quit making COI edits, it could be improved; but he's got a bad case of "ownership". --Orange Mike | Talk 15:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked in response to a request on the usernames noticeboard, as the username is in violation of the username policy. The editor is free to request an unblock if they agree to adopt a policy-compliant username and to refrain from editing the Thick Records article. — Newslinger talk 08:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Writtle University College

Writtle University College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WrittleUniversityCollege (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user appears to be closely associated or affiliated with said institution. Unfortunately, this user has declined to declare their relationship with the instituition. The username itself may be a wp:UAA problem as well. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 18:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While some of the edits might have been helpful, WrittleUniversityCollege is deleting large parts of the article and added promotional language. User has been reported to WP:UAA by @Ashleyyoursmile:. Z1720 (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they stated that they are making edits to "to remove out-of-date information" in the edit summary and the username coincides with the college name so I reported them at the UAA. BrxBrx has already issued the COI notice on their talk page. --Ashley yoursmile! 18:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a read-through of the article and removed unsourced sections and promotional language. I'd appreciate a second look, especially at the awards section as I am not sure if these are notable awards. Z1720 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Milley

Mark Milley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cmwitten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor User:Cmwitten has admitted to working for the Department of Defense. The editor's sole edits have been to add original research flattering trivia to the Milley page and remove or alter negative content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I left them some notices. They seem to be willing to communicate, but have not yet grasped that they should not be editing the Mark Milley page directly. Possibly (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CAT:EDITREQ backlog and an otherwise not-very problematic kind of request

User:Cf2022 has made many many requests where the question is either adding some reliable source or the like or adding a sentence or two. Now, while it technically falls under paid-editing, it isn't as far as I understand editing done to promote or advertise a subject (at least, I haven't come upon such an example so far). The main (if any) problem with their requests is usually minor issues of wording or style, which can get fixed easily enough - not enough, in my opinion, to warrant having each and every one of them go through the process of being delayed for a while while somebody takes the time to clean the backlog of other COI requests. Is there some other suggested solution to this situation (I frankly don't have a problem with just checking each edit manually after it's done if anybody insists: not much different than patrolling recent changes, and also more pleasant since it very likely won't involve silly trolling by the average schoolkid vandal)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I counted something like seven (!) articles that they requested changes be made to, on the same day (January 24th)! My two cents would be that they should not be making so many requests. That is obliquely mentioned in the COI guideline "you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise." Possibly (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it would be much simpler just to review the seven edits manually than having the COI queue continuously grow. @Cf2022: What do you propose to solve this little issue you've gotten us into? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise with @RandomCanadian:, but @Cf2022:'s requests involve adding sources in which they have a COI. I recommend that they continue using the request edit system to ensure their prose represents the source's information and we are not putting WP:UNDUE weight on their sources.

I disagree with @Possibly: about the number of requests Cf2022 is making. CF's requests seem simple to assess and implement, and there are other editors who have numerous requests that take a lot longer to fulfil. I hope Cf will continue to be mindful about how many requests they have in the queue to avoid overloading it. Z1720 (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Yes, but at CAT:EDITREQ there is no way to distinguish their requests from all the others and its somewhat discouraging. Anyway, the COI they have is not very problematic (they're employed by a library - basically WP:Wikipedian in Residence - its not the same thing as COI John Doe working for a PR company...), and coming up with a better solution is certainly possible, if we're willing to make an exception: as I said, checking a diff for a mistake or two takes much less time than having to parse it from the request manually. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are their requested edits for one day (January 24th):

They also appear to have added directly material by Boston University authors, without going through Requested edits, to Stereotype threat (diff), Water scarcity (diff), Son of Sam law (diff) and Working class (diff). It's not hard to see that they are here to use Wikipedia to promote the reearch and publications of Boston university law faculty. Possibly (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This (Stereotype threat) is not from a Boston university publication (its from Georgetown University Law Center, FFS). Really, even if them adding references to academic publications held by their library, some of which happen to be published by the authors from the university, somehow fits under some form of the definition of "promotion" or of COI, this is clearly not as problematic as you make it out to be. In fact, given what we know about reliable sources and how academic publications are usually closer to the better end of the spectrum of reliable sources, I don't see what the problem could be, unless they were personally a researcher citing their own papers, which is clearly not the case here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm concerned that Cf might be adding material to articles using sources they have a COI with. If they are doing this, I strongly encourage them to return to using the request edit template. I disagree with RandomCanadian's suggestion to just check the diffs; I think it would take me roughly the same amount of time to check the diff than it would to check an edit request. The difference is the diff, which may have problems in it, would be live on Wikipedia for months before it was assessed. I am not OK with that. I also don't want to separate COI requests into "approved COI editor" category and "not yet approved" categories. The backlog is long, it sucks, but I hope more reviewers will help us clear the backlog. Z1720 (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Good afternoon, In order to avoid any issue with COI, I was previously told to only use the Request Edit function by other Wikipedia editors. I do not want to be in violation of any Wikipedia guidelines, so I am happy to comply with whatever everyone believes is best. With regard to the edits I made to the Stereotype threat (diff), Water scarcity (diff), Son of Sam law (diff) and Working class (diff) pages, I did request edits and received approval by an editor to make the changes. My requested edits were reviewed and approved before I was allowed to made the changes (see talk pages for articles). The editor who reviewed the changes simply told me to "Hi @Cf2022: Please proceed with making the edits above. Thank you!" Please let me what would be the best way to proceed. Cf2022 (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Cf2022[reply]

Deric Angelettie

Deric Angelettie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Deric Angelettie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
100.34.2.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Philadelphia IP and user have been adding the same unreferenced stuff to the biography, for instance adding "TV & Film Producer" to things he's famous for,[36] despite having no film or TV production credits. The biography article was started by the subject's wife back in August 2018, and it appears he feels that he owns it, as in WP:OWN.

The IP and the user have been warned multiple times, but there has been zero communication back from him. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry whoever this is, I do have TV & Film Credits. See Link: Deric Angelettie IMDb.

The problem is I am not a wiki expert so unfortunately it very difficult to figure out all the codes and things to make everything correct. So instead of being a critic, try helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deric Angelettie (talk • contribs) 21:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can't cite IMDb as it's a wiki, and you should be requesting edits on Talk:Deric Angelettie as opposed to directly editing the article because you are Angelettie. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 21:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previously published songs that appear in TV and film don't give the songwriter production credit. If the song was not written specifically for the film, then the songwriter is simply listed as writer/composer of the song in the end credits. It's not really a film credit in that case. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Transport Northamptonshire

Sustainable Transport Northamptonshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Harry Burr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Weedon Station Proposal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sustainable Transport Holdings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
HumveeHardhat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This set of articles was all created nearly simultaneously and seem to have an intent to promote a cause. One version was previously rejected at AFC. MB 17:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the creator of these articles. In no way have I got an intent to promote the cause. Actually, I made an edit to Long Buckby railway station to promote that the Weedon Station Proposal also does worse to Long Buckby station, which proves that I am not just trying to promote the positives, but also the negatives of the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumveeHardhat (talk • contribs) 17:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extra eyes please...

Ronald Kessler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Minuetta Kessler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greg Kessler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KesslerRonald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

...perhaps with more COI experience than I have. User: KesslerRonald had been editing pages such as Ronald Kessler (author/journalist), this includes removing content from that talk page, (these are older edits, but the page still needs to be sorted out, and we don't want to see anymore edits like that) and pages Minuetta Kessler (Ronald Kessler's mother) and Greg Kessler (another possible relation). He has added content to several articles that includes multiple mentions of "Ronald Kessler" (I can add diffs if req'd, but virtually every edit he makes seem to all be along the same lines), as well as adding photos of "Ronald Kessler with [article subject]" (yes, his name is always first - 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5), adding multiple "Ronald Kessler" refs to multiple articles, and (this is what first caught my attention), "updating" some of these sources to include links to Amazom pages where one can purchase the book by "Ronald Kessler" (1 & 2). These last two edits were made after a COI notice was placed on this user's talk page. To me there seems to be an on-goign campaign of self-promotion here, but I would be interested to see what others have to say. Thanks - wolf 03:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could also drop a note at WP:UAA. Our username policy requires that editors editing with what appears to be a real person's name either provide evidence that they are that person or clearly state on their User page that they are not that person. Editors who do not comply with that policy are blocked. I am not saying that this editor necessarily needs to be blocked but it would be very helpful to know for sure if this is the subject who is editing his own article. ElKevbo (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User KesslerRonald was warned about COI back in 2008. During the time they have been on-wiki, they have made:

465 edits to Ronald Kessler,

44 edits to Minuetta Kessler and

36 edits to Greg Kessler.

Such a large number of edits has the appearance that it would impact the neutrality of the wiki. A WP:PBLOCK seems like it would put a stop to that appearance. Possibly (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards