Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Simon Villeneuve (talk | contribs) at 12:41, 18 May 2021 (→‎Simon Villeneuve: retouche). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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:A&P
    Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency
    Talk:James F. Allen (businessman)
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Bank of Greene County
    Talk:Bell Bank
    Talk:William Bolcom
    Talk:Doug Bremner
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Cboe Global Markets
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Cheyne Capital Management
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:Chime (company)
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Comcast
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment
    Talk:Edmund de Waal
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Discovery Land Company
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Michael Douglas
    Talk:End-user license agreement
    Talk:Engine No. 1
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Randy Fine
    Talk:Anne Finucane
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Bradley Fried
    Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:Judy Genshaft
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Green Line (TRAX)
    Talk:Evan G. Greenberg
    Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Richard Harland
    Talk:Eric Hippeau
    Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
    Talk:HOK (firm)
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Industrious
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:International Churches of Christ
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Mark Z. Jacobson
    Talk:Valerie Jarrett
    Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service
    Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Dion Lee
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist)
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn
    Talk:Anthony Marinelli
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:Metlifecare
    Talk:Monero
    Talk:MP Materials
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Obama Foundation
    Talk:Omaha Steaks
    Talk:Operating system
    Talk:Orphan Train
    Talk:Orphanage
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Plinabulin
    Talk:Programming language
    Talk:Pure Storage
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:QIAGEN
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Jay Ruderman
    Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation
    Talk:Subway (restaurant)
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Titmouse, Inc.
    Talk:Tricentis
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan
    Talk:Bradley Tusk
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Veris Residential
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Dan Wagner
    Talk:Terry Wahls
    Talk:Washington University Medical Center
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator
    Talk:Maya Wiley
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Zearn
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability

    Caladrius Biosciences

    Would people care to take a look at Caladrius Biosciences? I removed copyvio there on 2 April, then attempted to clean the page up a bit. Now we have a new SPA editor – who has not disclosed any connection to the company – adding ill-sourced promotional content to the page. I've reverted a couple of times but am not prepared to engage in an edit-war, so bringing it here. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I rolled them back and added a level 1 UPE warning to their talk page. The kind of precise corporate material they are adding (unsourced or only sourced to the company) is without a doubt PR work.--- Possibly (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is MoslePete. I am not sure how to respond to the COI question. I have tried to update the page, which was completely out of date and mostly inaccurate. I affirm that I am not being paid to do so. I do not believe there is a COI, but here are the facts for you to decide: I own a small position the stock (less than $20,000), and I know the investor relations person at the company. He said they would like to have the page expanded and updated but can't do it themselves due to COI. They can't ask their investment bankers and/or analysts to do it either, for the same reasons. Since I know the company well, he asked me if I would do it, making clear that they cannot and would not pay me. I agreed to do it as a favor to him. I am a CFA and am well aware of professional, ethical requirements. I added references after your earlier requests, and I have only added factual information, not opinions. My purpose is to make the page more accurate and informative for anyone interested in Caladrius Biosciences. Thank you.MoslePete (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    MoslePete, You have a financial interest in the company. You were asked by a representative of the company to edit the article. This is unambiguously COI. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    MoslePete, that's textbook COI, I'm afraid. And asking you to edit because they have a COI was a dirty trick and you should tell them so. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Owning stock in a company is not the same as getting paid. The company would like to have accurate information on the page. The current version is completely out of date and mostly incorrect, and someone from the company previously asked Wikipedia to edit and update it. That was denied because the request came from the company. Only someone who knows the company can accurately edit the page, and the only people likely to know it well would be either employees, shareholders or those with a business relationship. The criterion for COI is direct or indirect compensation, and I emphatically deny either. There is no information in my attempted edits that is either opinion or promotional. It is all factual, and I give supporting references. By the standards that are being applied, thwre is no way to get a functional page on Caladrius, so it might was well be deleted altogether. I am new to Wikipedia editing and don't fully understand it. So please clarify who makes these decisions. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoslePete (talk • contribs)

    MoslePete, conflicts of interest don't have to involve payment. Owning stock is considered a financial conflict of interest since you directly benefit from the company looking good (though there is debate as to how much stock one needs to own before we consider it an FCOI). The more important bit here, however, is that you were asked to make changes by a representative of the company. When you are editing on behalf of someone with a conflict of interest, you are subject to the same rules that the person with the COI is - you can't launder a COI by having a proxy edit for you (despite what innumerable sketchy paid-editing companies would have you believe). Declare your COI, request edits on the talk page, and we'll all be good here. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 16:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I wasn't asked to "make changes," the IR person suggested that I take a look and update the page, certainly not dictating content. I repeat that the content is factual, accurate and not opinionated. I tried to go to my user page for a COI, but Wikipedia said that there is no such page. It said if in doubt, please "verify that MoslePete exists." How am I supposed to do that? It is not clear to me how to do a COI statement, and I have already explained the situation. It appears that even with a COI disclosure, I will still need to request edits on the talk page. Who decides, and will I need to do that every time? That makes the entire procedure very cumbersome. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoslePete (talk • contribs) 20:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "Make changes" vs "update the page" is a distinction without a difference. You can create your user page yourself, just type in the edit box that comes up when you try to visit it. You can read about how to disclose COI at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_disclose_a_COI. - MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    MoslePete. I want to disclose a connection with the subject Caladrius Biosciences. I am a retired ecurities analyst, a CFA and part-time portfolio consultant. I own less than $20,000 of Caladrius stock (CLBS). Since I know the company well, the IR person asked me to look at the Wikipedia entry, which is completely out-of-date and mostly inaccurate. He said that neither the company nor its investment bankers or analysts could do an update due to COI, and he said that the company couldn't pay me directly or indirectly. I would like to ensure accurate, factual information for anyone interested in Caladrius, and you will see in the archived history that what I have provided is purely factual and not promotional. If any material appears to violate the guidelines, maybe it could be removed. Can someone tell me if this COI disclusure meets the requirements to resolve the issue? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoslePete (talk • contribs) 15:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Tim Sarkes

    Hello. I've noticed that there is a user called "Tim2345678" (formerly PDavidson1) who claims to be the manager of Pete Davidson. He said that his name is "Tim", and after searching up the name of Pete Davidson's manager, I saw that he's named Tim Sarkes. (Redacted) Zai (💬 • 📝 • ⚡️) 21:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    UPDATE: He just requested to have his account deleted, see [1] and [2] Zai (💬 • 📝 • ⚡️) 21:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @-Zai-: I redacted the part where you connect a user to a real name. You have to be careful about our outing policy, even where it seems obvious. Basically, everyone is entitled to privacy and you cannot post someone's real name unless they have themselves posted that name previously. --- Possibly (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Twitchell

    Verissa77 partially blocked by Cullen328. Appears resolved.--- Possibly (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2021 (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 is an editor of the Mark Twitchell article who repeatedly asserts in the first sentence of the article that Mr. Twitchell, most often cited in media for having murdered a man in 2011, is a "filmmaker and artist". I left "filmmaker", though I'm not sure whether "aspiring filmmaker" wouldn't be more accurate, since Mr. Twitchell's IMDb page shows that he started three but did not complete any films, and most news articles I've seen refer to him as an aspiring filmmaker if his work is mentioned. I removed the word "artist", however, since this claim was not cited or substantiated. Verissa77 added it back, and continued to add it back when I edited it out again. Looking back at the page's Revision History, I can see that I and other editors, including EclecticEnnui, Cullen328, Tayroc122 and several more, have attempted to amend this since Verissa77 first added it, and have repeatedly requested a citation from Verissa77 for this claim, which they have not provided. In 2019, Tayroc122 pointed out Verissa77's repeat edits in the Editor Assistance page, and expressed concern that autobiography may be an issue here, or that Verissa77 is a close associate of Mr. Twitchell's, since Verissa77 only contributes to the Mark Twitchell page. The page's Revision History shows that on 17 October 2020, Verissa77 re-added "Filmmaker" into the first sentence after user Jackreacher69 edited it out, and wrote in their Edit Summary, "This was his profession, whether haters like it or not. FUJ" -- which indicates that Tayroc122's concerns may have been valid.

    Given the nature of his crimes, I think it's important to be mindful of how Mr. Twitchell is described in this article, and I think describing him as an "artist", especially without substantiating or citing that claim, starts to look like subjective assessment rather than verifiable fact, and is therefore inappropriate. Considering the duration of time that this editor has repeatedly made this unsubstantiated edit despite other editors' repeated requests for citation and amendment, I'm wondering whether a COI tag may be called for at the head of the page, and I'd welcome other editors' insight or input. Cisternet (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked Verissa77 from editing Mark Twitchell. Cisternet, please inform Verissa77 as required according to the instructions on this page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Done! Cisternet (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2021 (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.

    Guggenheim Partners

    Well, this is a first: the IP editor "24.186.167.121" instructed me, "Sir, please stop editing our page!" after I removed some blatant COI puffery from the Guggenheim Partners article. I think the article deserves more eyes, as it seems clear that COI accounts have been systematically editing the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope it becomes a part of the paid editor's guidebook to always say ""Sir, please stop editing our page!", as the attention it brings it is very helpful in the long-run. --- Possibly (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini

    Appears to have a COI with the subject matter, user has only edited that one article (and a draft that's also linked with the subject of the article) and has ignored warnings of a potential COI. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 05:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    JianHao Tan

    After the BLP article "JianHao Tan" was created, I noticed that there are two what seems to be single purpose accounts, Epwxx and Kayleytankaiqi123, editing the page. Their activities on the article are suspiciously of WP:COI nature, trying to include promotional/advertorial/puffery content. These content have been largely removed or rephrased by other editors, including myself. (Disclosure: a bulk of the current content is written by me, mostly in response to the COI edits, and following up on my earlier page review actions.)

    The username Kayleytankaiqi123 is a simple variation of a real name of someone who appears to be connected to Titan Digital Media (TDM), the company owned by the subject of the BLP. As to whether the account owner is the person, mentioned prior, connected to TDM, I shall not make a conjecture. Their edits and file upload (File:Jianhao Tan 3 Sept 2019.jpg) lead me to believe that the owner of the account is at the very least connected to Titan Digital Media. Epwxx had also uploaded a similar file earlier, claiming that the file was owned by them without a proper copyright notice or OTRS ticket (see deletion notice on Commons). The file in this instance was cropped, not of a quality as high as the above, and had no relevant metadata to lend an appearance of ownership of the file.

    I also received an off-wiki email from Titan Digital Media asking for offline discussion over the content, which I have duly rejected and insisted that any discussions relating to the content should be kept on Wikipedia. Although there is no direct evidence that the person who emailed is one of the two SPAs, it demonstrates a level of awareness by the company of the article, and an intent to control the narrative of the subject on this platform.

    I am not out to have the accounts restricted from editing on Wikipedia in general, but I appreciate that COI editors respect the process established when comes to COI editing. Both accounts have been warned about COI editing for at least a full 24 hours and they had continue to edit the BLP since. – robertsky (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Noted that Epwxx (talk · contribs) continued to add promotional trivia about subject matter (referring to the Five Cs of Singapore) even after being alerted to this COI. See diff here--Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The ammendments that have been made by Kayleytankaiqi123 and Epwxx are those headed by the commercial team at Titan Digital Media, and in full transparency there is no intention to control the narrative of the subject on this platform nor to conduct any fraudulent activity on this page. The intention is to correct and modify content based on secondary sources available of Jianhao Tan.
    For future notices, aside from blatant removal of our content stating factual recognition and links to specified 2nd/3rd party sources, would appreciate FULL transparency on why factual information we have added has been removed. We offered an external discussion off wikipedia with the intention to obtain better guidance on navigating around the guidance under this platform, but guidance was not supported.
    On the photo change, kindly share with us what forms of recognition is needed and the next steps.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Epwxx (talk • contribs)
    @Epwxx: you are engaging in what a) undisclosed paid editing, b) using multiple accounts in a deceptive way and c)what sounds like promotional editing. All this sounds like good reasons for your account to be blocked, but you can take certain actions to prevent this:
    • place the proper paid editing declaration on your user page(s)
    • stop using multiple accounts in a deceptive way
    • use the article talk page to request edits rather than directly editing the page, per WP:COI.
    Can you do these things? I am wondering if one of our administrators, GeneralNotability, thinks.--- Possibly (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Epwxx: What is needed to be done for COI editing had been pointed out in the messages that were left on your user talk pages. For COI edits, they are scrutinised closer to ensure that they are not promotional/advertorial/puffery in nature. (For an essay on puffery: WP:PUFFERY) Not all facts are important and be included on Wikipedia, and sometimes removed. See Wikipedia:Handling trivia as well. Removal or reversion of the content you had included were and are usually accompanied by edit summaries, though sometimes short, which explain why the information have been removed. For COI edits in general, not only yours, they are usually biased favourably towards the subject of the article (sometimes unfavourably if the edits are made in bad faith, but that's for another time), and COI editors fail to see that as they are too involved with the subject (which is the reason why I don't edit on the article about the organisation I am a member of, unless it is for general maintenance purposes). The tug of war between what is being added and removed does lead to what we call here as edit warring, which is discouraged. Thus, it is highly encouraged for a conversation to happen on Talk page of the article and refrain from editing in the article itself, see WP:BRD and as what Possibly had laid out above. If there is really an issue with the content or items of note to be included, it will be acted on by non-COI editors, like me or Justanothersgwikieditor. The process is slower than editing directly, but it is better than to have ill-feelings generated through fighting over what is to be included directly on the article.
    Apologies for any unintended insinuations made above. If you do not mind, let's make an arrangement on guiding you on navigating on Wikipedia as you had requested.– robertsky (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I have not received any further correspondence off-wiki since the last time this COI was discussed. Courtesy ping to @Kayleytankaiqi123 and Epwxx:. – robertsky (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also for release of photos into wikicommons, you can send an email with a release based on the email template at c:Commons:Email_templates. Instructions on how to do so is on that page as well. – robertsky (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly, I am wondering if one of our administrators, GeneralNotability, thinks - yes, I do indeed think from time to time :). Epwxx, Kayleytankaiqi123, Possibly is correct. I expect confirmation from you both that you will follow what Possibly said (I will also accept one account saying that the other will not be used any further). Additionally, I expect you to confirm that only one person is operating each account, as shared accounts are not permitted. These are not negotiable terms, and failure to comply will result in a block. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    LowTierGod


    After attempting to have the LowTierGod article deleted multiple times. Shortscircuit has resorted to relentlessly manipulating his own article to remove true, factual and damning information about himself, and adding information that only the subject would know about. including a photo that they added not found anywhere else on the internet he added himself. It is clear this subject has a conflict of interest, but admins have given him access to edit this protected article

    Argonoct (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixing templates. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that multiple other editors have disagreed with you adding some of the information you're trying to add, and Shortscircuit has not uploaded any files, I'm not buying this one. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GeneralNotability I dont edit on wikipedia lol, I made this account to correct the record and put in factual information, but my submissions weren't up to par with what Wikipedia demands. and to point out this obvious conflict of interest from this user about this notable streamer I pay attention to. They created their account when this article was posted to demolish it. Even the author of the article first suspected this user was the subject himself.Argonoct (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Please stop speculating and accusing me of having a conflict of interest. And please stop accusing me of being a particular individual. I have never said I am any particular person. I have never disclosed my personal identify. So please stop accusing me of who I am.

    Regarding the issue of people adding "damning information" (in your own words) to the LowTierGod article - this has already been talked about in detail many times on the article talk page. They were addressed by multiple admins and removed by admins with very good reason too. You can read about it there. There were even 2 people blocked by admins from Wikipedia because of that, as far as I know. So please stop accusing me of who I am with such speculation. Shortscircuit (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Shortscircuit It obviously is you lol, you created your account when this wiki was posted and is the only wiki you edit. you manipulated the system to get all the information you didnt like removed after you couldn't remove the whole wiki. how did you get a hold of that profile picture that LTG never posted online?Argonoct (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are yet again accusing me of more false accusations. Please stop it. Again, the things you are trying to add have already been talked about many times in that article talk page. I believe I do not need to defend myself to you any more. Shortscircuit (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Shortscircuit My only argument is that you have a conflict of interest editing this page, since you either are the subject or are close to them, and should not be able to edit this page. GeneralNotability Hopefully admins will agree Argonoct (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Given Shortscircuit's actions, I suspect they're connected to the subject in some way (which is not to say that they are necessarily the subject) - sorry, Shortscircuit, but when someone comes in using phrases like "false and malicious statements" and "article was created for the purpose of disparaging the subject," that's a pretty strong COI indicator. Nevertheless, I am also quite concerned with Argonoct's actions here, including apparently trying to use COI/N to push their side in a content dispute where several other editors have already told them no. To the article talk page with both of you. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GeneralNotability I'm not trying to push any narrative, I submitted edit requests while providing sources apparently not credible enough for Wiki and that's all. I don't intend on editing this page nor have I attempted to in several weeks. someone just needed to point this conflict of interest out from this userArgonoct (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not connected to the subject. I do regret that I used such strong language that was inappropriate and unwarranted when discussing the article, like calling a person a "troll". What I do not regret though is trying to remove the content that was inappropriate. The edit history of this article (and even the discussions about it on various pages) is so long and extremely messy. The state of the article previously... was a total mess and it was filled with violations of policy. I am not the only person that thinks this way either. For this, I would like to especially draw attention to the section "Troll Ops" under the talk page for the article. This was posted by another editor. What this editor said there is very true. I may seem to say things strongly at times, but I do not want Wikipedia to be used at all for harassment and stalking (I am not pointing fingers at any one person here). This is not the only article I am concerned about when it comes to that kind of thing. A few weeks ago I had posted to one of the admins expressing my concern for this kind of thing happening in other places on Wikipedia. You can see it here in one of my replies on his talk page, dated 06:56, 14 April 2021. Shortscircuit (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your actions make it clear you are connected to the subject, You created your account the day the article was published in order to demolish it, which you attempted twice. when that didn't work, you manipulated the system to dismantle the information you didn't like. and began posting things that only the subject himself would have, such as the profile picture not seen anywhere on the internet before. Even now you are concerned about "Trolling" for what is factual information about the subject, probably you. GeneralNotability the evidence is clear, please block Shortscircuit from editing his own page.Argonoct (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said before, stop accusing me of false accusations saying things like "its obviously you the evidence is clear" and "stop editing your own page". I never disclosed my personal identity or information before. I am not connected to the subject and I am not the subject. Your apparent obsession with pushing this content and your "damning information" suggests you have not actually read this article's talk page. I would politely ask that you go and read the article's talk page where this kind of topic has already been discussed in detail multiple times, and multiple admins had already explained the reasons. Like I said before, I do not need to defend myself to you any more. Shortscircuit (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GeneralNotability, as I wrote in my previous reply I hope that when you have time you would look at the Troll Ops section in the article talk page. This especially was posted by another Wikipedia editor, not by me. There is also this admin talk page section reply timed 06:56, 14 April 2021. These I hope would shed more light into where I am coming from. This is not the only article I am concerned about when it comes to this kind of thing happening on Wikipedia. Shortscircuit (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am one of the administrators mentioned above, and I can state with complete confidence that this article will not be transformed into a hit piece against WP:BLP policy. It was crammed full of policy violating content when it first came to my attention. Yes, Shortscircuit is a new editor focused on this article, but that editor has displayed a much better understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines than any other new editor active on LowTierGod. I hope that they will move on to editing other topics here on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328 so you are just going to ignore the fact this user created their account the day this article was published and immediately attempted to have it removed twice without any discussion? Of course he's going to have a "good understanding" and make more of an effort editing this page because ITS ABOUT HIM, that's a very poor argument. Many people have pointed out this user's conflict of interest including the author themselves, but nothing has been done about it and you continue to defend them. Seems odd that an admin would defend someone with a blatant conflict of interest. GeneralNotability Please look into this and possibly this other admin's insubordinationArgonoct (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328 GeneralNotability Still waiting for a replyArgonoct (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Argonoct, you have no solid evidence other than your own strong feelings. The editor's contributions have been positive. Try also to be positive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328 I do have proof lol, its all documented. The article was accepted on April 5th according to the Author's Talk Page. Shortscircuit Created their account on April 9thy and immediately tried to delete the article twice the same Day. Go look at the revision history yourselfArgonoct (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sulaiman Al-Fahim

    Long-term COI problems on this page. Not only have high-quality RS been whitewashed from the page but the most ludicrous form of puffery kept being added to the page. The first two accounts are sufficiently recent in their activities that checkuser analyses can be done on them to check whether this is part of a broader network of socks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Snooganssnoogans, big warning at the top of the page: you have to notify folks. I've notified the two recently-active accounts. Everyone appears to be  Stale for checkuser purposes, but there does seem to be concerted puffery afoot. I've ECP'd the article for a year and given COI warnings to the two active accounts. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sparsh Mital citations

    I noticed a pattern today, of several accounts editing on computer science topics and citing their edits exclusively to works by Sparsh Mittal. These accounts activity span the last few years. Newwikieditor678 got some talk page warnings about citation spamming in march 2015, it looks like the other accounts all started up after that. Some are very recently active. Sometimes the cite is filled out with author, other times only a bare link is used. Given how often this name pops up in a Wikipedia search, I expect that there are more such accounts to be found. Thoughts? - MrOllie (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm guessing meatpuppetry, with the possibility of a couple of these being the same person...Mittal having his grad students cite him in Wikipedia, perhaps? Gotta love academics "helping" by getting themselves cited everywhere. Recommend nuking the lot, though it's going to be a painful search. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at all the edit summaries, which are stylistically very similar. Additionally, this diff by Newwikieditor678 certainly sounds like the author of the paper they are discussing.--- Possibly (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Covidreporter

    User Covidreporter seems to be using Wikipedia to try to publish negative-sounding articles about a legal dispute over a COVID app. The articles are not making it past the draft stage, but their use of WP is clearly promotional, and the COI is obvious. They did not respond to the COI template on their talk page. I'd say they are WP:NOTHERE.--- Possibly (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly, hammer applied. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some history of COI editing at related article Robert Roberts (cardiologist) as well. MrOllie (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    MuscleTech

    This is a case of a COI editor sharing an account as can be seen by this edit VVikingTalkEdits 13:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like there was an attempt to conceal shared use [3] as well. No matter, the account was blocked for username violation anyway. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ebeyiye

    This editor has made over 100 edits, and every one has been to add a link to an article authored by "Will Guzmán". Magnolia677 (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Appears to be definite COI. The links all go to the domain blackpast.org, which states that Will Guzmán is a copyeditor for the site, and also states his Twitter handle is @ebeyiye.  — sbb (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm feeling nice, pblocked them from mainspace. If they think one of these links is actually relevant to an article, they can make a constructive edit request. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dan Schulman


    I suspect there is something fishy going on here. Seems 'someone' is trying to scrub the articles subjects wife from his article. First the IP 81.178.153.165 made a sneaky edit by removing cited content and added a Citation Needed tag here. 20 minutes later 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco removed the content. Another IP added back the content. Dataness_is_next_to_godliness account was then created and removed content again, hiding it among a few similar edits, seen here. Can someone look into this? P.S. I do not know how to notify the editors, I tried the code and it did not work, sorry. Botanical99 (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Botanical99, I've notified those editors for you. There is indeed something a little strange here. I think 49ers is unrelated to any funny business, it looks like they were just making a good-faith effort to clean up the article. The IP added a citation to a court case, which Dataness later removed. That's the strange part - Dataness went through and removed a bunch of citations to unicourt.com. They're not wrong - court documents are almost never acceptable sources in BLPs - but it's a weird choice of cleanup for a brand-new editor. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GeneralNotability Thanks for the ping. I believe I was trying to clean up the naked URL reference on there. Let me know how I can help out.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    49ersBelongInSanFrancisco nothing in particular to do here - you just accidentally walked into the middle of some other editors doing something strange. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Social earnings ratio

    Looks like citations are of low quality - very difficult to verify any of the claims made here from sources other than those directly quoting those involved in the project. It's not clear why this work is notable.2A00:23C7:A30C:CF00:212D:D5D8:9868:D823 (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:God Metric's edits comprise one edit creating the social earnings ratio article in February 2016 and four further edits relating to the article in March 2016, so they are clearly a single purpose account. If social earnings ratio is not a notable topic, that is a matter for WP:AFD, not here. TSventon (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Girish and The Chronicles

    User blocked by GeneralNotability, article cleaned up by Melcous--- Possibly (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2021 (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.

    Username suggests a conflict of interest. I went to the user's Talk page to discuss this with him but found that there were already CoI notices on there from 2014, 2019 and 2020. Edits to the possibly autobiographical article are substantial and article has been tagged as as having a possible CoI since 2019. Editor has not responded to the CoI notices. Tacyarg (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Tacyarg, partial block applied, article probably needs cleanup. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2021 (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.

    Brynn Thayer

    Admits to working for the subject and attempting to put a new picture in the article to which they may or may not have copyright or permissions. Orange Mike | Talk 01:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Their only edits were to try to change the photo, from this to this. But they should be disclosing. --- Possibly (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Jay S. Hennick

    Just admitted while discussing copyrights, that this is his boss and the company his boss runs. Orange Mike | Talk 03:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's the diff where he admits he is working on his boss' page.--- Possibly (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    added Legenderpy, who seems related.--- Possibly (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    World Eskimo Indian Olympics

    Ravenstrick has admitted to being a board member of the WEIO organization. Evidently, they believe this article is not an encyclopedia entry but rather part of their social media strategy. Their contributions to Wikimedia projects amount to removing a properly-licensed logo from the article and replacing it with one which isn't properly licensed and was previously deleted from Commons as a copyvio, under the rationale that the former logo is "outdated". This rationale fails our purposes of visual identification. They have demonstrated a lack of willingness to interface with the community and seek advice on how to do this right. Last I checked, we operate on consensus and not "my way or the highway". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    He also added WEIO's telephone number, advertiser style, in one of his edit summaries. Don't know what you want to do with this information, though. 49.144.201.250 (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Bembo Bold

    Strongly looks like an autobiography. Bembo Bold is only interested in Owen Williams, created both of the above articles and continues to edit Owen Williams (artists) despite COI warnings. I put Owen Williams (artist) up for AfD as the only real notability derives from Owen Williams' long-running dispute with the Yukon Arts Centre. --- Possibly (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The named accounts have been confirmed as matching; just waiting for tags. --- Possibly (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    EuroChem

    The user edits only pages related to Andrey Melnichenko, his company EuroChem, his yacht A, his foundation and his wife. They recently removed the whole "HSE Issues" section on EuroChem. They edit the same pages on WP:es, WP:de, WP:fr (where they always add "positive" content about the company and remove some of the "negative" one, even if it’s correctly sourced), on WP:ru and on WP:sr.

    Okhjon (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is false and untrue, I am not paid directly or indirectly for any edits, and I do not have any financial stake in either entity. The fact that I may have a personal interest in certain topics doesn't mean that any of my edits are biased or promoted. On the contrary, all my edits are factually accurate and well referenced, and are all neutral (not positive or negative). The parts removed had been clearly either vandalism, lacked credible references or appeared to be promoted by those who must have been paid to post negative content about the subjects of the articles (as a black PR). The nature of your comments and reversals create an impression that you may have an interest in providing negative information about the subjects of the articles. All my edits comply with Wikipedia standards and are well referenced, and you should not remove them because you have any personal bias. I am an honest journalist by profession who writes objectively on the topics of my personal interest and your edits should not go to the extent of harassment and abuse.

    Sasha-int (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    James Valitchka

    Kamala Tiwari seems upset that there are some maintenance tags on the article. She seems to believe it is bullying. And also has concluded that I am a racist. (see conversation on her talk page) I think it is fairly obvious she has a COI here for whatever reason but she denies it. Kate Fong is an obvious sock or meat puppet of Kamala Tiwari. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done a fairly large trim of the article, removing a stack of content that has been unsourced for 8 years and is non-verifiable/puffery. There is a question of notability, I considered taking it to AfD, but would be interested in what others think. Melcous (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's weird that the Toronto Sun backs the claim that he won the "Barack Obama Influencer Award" but I can't find any additional information on what that actually is. Like, is it awarded by Obama, or just named after him? That seems like something that should be easy to find out, but I didn't have any luck. I think overall he probably is just notable enough for an article, but there have been serious, repeated problems with puffery that make it hard to sort out what is real here. Side note: both of the accounts have now been blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    After digging further into his much-touted accomplishments, I have changed my mind. This guy is not notable. The awards are from a home school program. His supposed novel he wrote when he was eight was printed by a vanity press. This whole thing smells like his mom is behind it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Eran Elhaik

    Likely conflict of interest and brigade editing by conspiracy theorists. IcknieldRidgeway (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I recently came across this article, and unfortunately the page frequently seems to the edited by supporters of the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, which widely accepted to be a fringe theory or full blown pseudoscience. Many of the main editors on the page have been banned before for antisemitic editing and seem to have strong anti-zionist political agendas. This is obvious on the talk page for the article and in many of the edit summaries for the page. I flagged the page for NPOV but it's still a mess with frequent editing from these users.

    On further inspection, I noticed that user RocksRsand has been exclusively editing pages related to Eran Elhaik for many years, often with specific detail. In 2014, user Shrike politely asked if he was related to Eran Elhaik and no response was forthcoming. The edits have continued. It seems likely to be that RocksRsand has a conflict of interest with Eran Elhaik

    Craig Chaquico

    MOVED
    This discussion has been moved to WP:ANI. —valereee (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2021 (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.


    Dec 2015 Disclosed paid editing on behalf of Chaquico by PilotRock61: here

    April 2017 Mr Chaquico files a lawsuit to prevent other former members of Jefferson Starship from using the band’s name and started complaining on FB and apparently having his representatives campaign to get online sites to use the term “legally retired”, among other preferred language and content. (no links, feels like an invasion of privacy)

    May 2017 Cheryl Fullerton adds “legally retired” into JS: here

    Sept 2017 Cheryl Fullerton adds “legally retired” into Craig Chaquico: here

    June 2019 Cajetsetter adds “legally retired” into JS: here

    Similar change to another website noted as having been requested by representatives of Chaquico:

    Nov 2019 Wayback Machine version of Jefferson Starship at classicbands.com: here
    April 2020 version now contains the phrases “legally retired” and “(special thanks to Craig Chaquico's representatives for correcting the accuracy of this bio)” here

    Cheryl Fullerton denies a connection, but it seems pretty clear she was at minimum canvassed here. Craig Chaquico certainly seems to be canvassing paid and possibly unpaid editors to get his preferred language into the articles. I am proposing Cheryl Fullerton be treated as having a COI and asked to make edit requests on articles surrounding Craig Chaquico rather than editing directly. I'm not so concerned about the other two, who have ceased editing, but I've included/am notifying them because they're part of the evidence here. —valereee (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done some work on the Chaquico article, mainly to clean up Cheryl's work, and I've written to Cheryl in the past. It's been a while, but she seemed to be learning the rules and heeding advice. I concluded at the time that she was a fan or maybe a relative. There's been too much cheerleading, esp. for someone who is a relatively minor figure, though this is not to slight Chaquico's ability in any way. As long as she sticks to the facts, avoids cheerleading and verbal inflation, and uses reliable sources I don't see that there is a problem. A couple things. He's a celebrity with some charities, like many celebrities, and it's wrong to red-link those, because they probably won't become notable charities. Another thing I dislike, which came up before, and comes up in many music articles, is the "instruments" section. Although some guitarists do have affection for certain guitars, these sections often get technical and have no relevance to people other than guitarists. I can see why some readers want to know that information, having played guitar myself, but I would like to see such sections eliminated. The bigger concern is that many musicians have "signature models" named after them. These involve agreements with companies to have special models made in their name. It's an honor, but it's also a way to sell guitars. We're not here to elevate sales, people, or agendas. Combine that with mentioning the other guitar brands, and these sections easily become promotional. Another reason is that some guitarists have a large collection of guitars, amps, and pedals during a career. It's not important to know every guitar of every guitarist. For most readers, this information is meaningless. Wikipedia is here for all readers—the public interest rather than special interests. I don't know what "legally retired" means or why it has to be mentioned. We usually don't mention when people retire. Encyclopedias exist in an eternal present.
    Vmavanti (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to work with Cheryl and others on cleaning up Jefferson Starship and resolve a long-standing dispute with walls of text on the talk page, but I ended up dropping out of the discussion through sheer exhaustion. I've taken quite a number of music-related articles to GA, sometimes in collaboration with other editors (waves to JG66) and occasionally resolving disputes on them, and I have never seen somebody without a conflict of interest generate as much discussion as has happened here. As Vmavanti says, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if Cheryl has a direct association with Chaquico or is a huge fan of his work, as long as she can stick to the relevant policies and guidelines and avoid getting into lengthy arguments with people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333, per her talk and the JS talk, as long as she can stick to the relevant policies and guidelines and avoid getting into lengthy arguments with people seems to be a major issue. —valereee (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll note that Cheryl Fullerton has once again edited Chaquico to insert her preferred emphasis on the fact Chaquico was not just a member of JS but was an "original, founding" member, language that she's very insistent upon and which coincidentally is the same wording in Craig Chaquico's bio on his website. Hm. —valereee (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a little thorny. According to AllMusic, the first album credited to Jefferson Starship was Red Octopus, and Chaquico does play on that album, though the words "Jefferson Starship" did appear on the Blows Against the Empire album by Paul Kanter. If we had to dig more into "what constitutes an original member", I would have think about that.
    Vmavanti (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We shouldn't be using allmusic for anything, really. As you can see above, they changed their own bio in response to pressure from Chaquico's representatives. If we use Allmusic as a reliable source here, it means all Chaquico has to do is keep pressuring them to use his preferred language, and then Cheryl Fullerton can bring them in as a source. —valereee (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Above where? You need to be more specific than "pressure from Chaquico's representatives". Are you suggesting something legal or illegal? If legal representatives suggested a factual change, then it's not a problem.
    Vmavanti (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I'm not saying Craig Chaquico isn't an original member of Jefferson Starship! He is one of the band's original members and played on all their albums. But why is that information so critical and important that it goes in the lead, and why do we even need to use that language just because it's Chaquico's preferred language? We tell the story of the band's history. Do we really need to call out that x, y, and z members were "original founding" members on the leads for all their pages? Do we need to do that on all band member bios? I think it's undue and puffery and kind of silly. Do we need to go insert into Grace Slick's lead that she was also an original, founding member of JA and JS? No. It's silly. —valereee (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you familiar with musicians and articles about musicians? It's actually common for music articles to describe founding members of band, to do so in the lede, using the language "founding member" ("original founding member" is redundant).. I don't think it has anything to do with Chaquico's desire, though he probably wants to make clear that he was a member of that band, if only because that band had a bigger impact than his solo career. Readers like to know founding members because bands change. They come and go. Musicians are peripatetic. They quit, join other bands, go solo, leave the business, grow up. Take a look at the Fleetwood Mac soap opera, and I think you'll see what I'm talking about. It's not puffery. Grace Slick's notability and reputation rest on her membership in Jefferson Airplane/Starship, so I don't know why you would find it silly to mention that in the lede. It sounds like you are unfamiliar with the music business.
    Vmavanti (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, totally. I am completely unfamiliar with the music business. What I'm familiar with is WP bios, and to me "original founding" member sounds like "grammy-nominated chartbusting hit-making blah blah blah." For me, in the lead, they were a member of the band. Then in the section, in neutral terms, we describe the facts: they got nominated for a grammy. Song X was a Billboard #Y. They and other people XYZ started the band. Whatever. But to describe them in the lede as "an original founding member" just sounds like it came off their website bio. Which in this case, it did. —valereee (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Valereee, I agree. There are some exceptions where "founding member" makes sense in a band - most obviously when the band is still going with only some of the members who started it. The first example that springs to mind is the Red Hot Chili Peppers, which contains two founding members, a drummer who's been with them for the majority of their career, and a guitarist who was with them in their most creatively and commercial successful periods. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot to mention that I know Jefferson Starship has a long history of legal battles. I don't want to get dragged into that. If I think that is going on (others will have to help with that subject), then we can throw a yellow flag at Cheryl and I will probably take the article off my watch list and stop editing it. There's enough conflict already. Let's keep things simple and honest. Wikipedia ought not to be a battleground for anyone's agenda. There are plenty of other venues for that.
    Vmavanti (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I think the "legally retired" language, which started to be inserted during the most recent lawsuit, is definitely related to the lawsuit. The other language (insisting JS didn't "evolve" from JA, insisting on "original founding" member, the rest of the puffery and peacockery is just ego, I think. The lawsuit's settled now, so I'm surprised Chaquico is still insisting on the "legally retired" language everywhere. I'd appreciate it if you did not take it off your watch unless we can agree to treat Cheryl Fullerton as a COI editor. —valereee (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's true, I have no problem with removing "legally retired", given that it's not a policy of Wikipedia to keep an eye on whether a person is retired or not. Newspapers don't even do that.
    Vmavanti (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The "legally retired" Chaquico wants to be inserted everywhere was the band name. Chaquico appears to have been trying to rewrite 30-year-old history in service of his lawsuit. There's evidence similar to the above for "evolved" and other language Chaquico prefers being added by CF and the other two editors; I found the above pretty compelling,but I can add more. —valereee (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also a post on Craig Chaquico's Facebook page related to this topic, one that also indicates efforts the change website content. It was from October 12, 2019 and titled "No Spin Saturday Fact #!: Jefferson Starship did not Evolve/Spin Off from Jefferson Airplane. These were Different Bands." The entry notes a plan to "create fun weekly posts intended to correct the record that is out there about Craig's history with Jefferson Starship, Starship or about Craig Chaquico himself ..." There is also the statement, "Note: In case you're wondering we're also dedicated to working behind the scenes to officially make corrections on the Internet and elsewhere at the same time. So, let's get started!" I have a screenshot, but do not want to post it for privacy reasons. I can private message it to anyone who wants to review it. AbleGus (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So long story short: Chaquico is sending representative around the web to remove that JS "evolved" from JA, as well as to insert that JS was "legally retired". —valereee (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Moving to support Ritchie's proposal below. I propose Wikipedia consider the editor Cheryl Fullerton to have a COI w/re: Craig Chaquico and ask her to confine herself to editing indirectly at any article that references Mr. Chaquico by making edit requests.

    Support as proposer —valereee (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You need proof, right? Proof that she has a conflict of interest. So far what you've argued is speculative and circumstantial.
    Vmavanti (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Her editing pattern is the editing pattern of thousands of COI editors. She's making edits identical to two previous editors who did have a proven conflict of interest; I believe policy says we can treat such editors as the same person even if they aren't actual socks. Chaquico has encouraged fans to help correct online "inaccuracies". She's making edits to change wording to that identical to those on his website. Chaquico has sent in paid representatives before this, on two occasions we know of. It's absolutely clear at minimum she is acting in accordance to his stated preferences. What kind of proof are you looking for? —valereee (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't go along with "Those two people were guilty, and since she sounds like them, she must be guilty, too." That's no way to approach any subject. It's guilt by association. You want to group her, where I try to judge every situation individually.
    Vmavanti (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, what kind of proof are you looking for? You're saying your work on the article was mainly to clean up her work. Mine, too. I think we've been trying to do the same thing here. You also may want to look at our policy at WP:MEAT, which specifically says when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets
    Asking this editor to make edit requests rather than edit directly isn't a nuclear option. It's not banning them or even blocking them. It's not disallowing them from making changes. It's just saying, "Hey, you seem to have difficulty being neutral here. Maybe ask someone else to agree with your suggestions." —valereee (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Valereee I'm sorry, but I think all that is going to do is fill up talk pages with disagreements. I'm going to have to go further and propose that Cheryl Fullerton is topic banned from Craig Chaquico, broadly construed. I realise this shuts out Cheryl's main topic of interest, and I have tried very hard not to come down like a ton of bricks, but I think enough is enough. (PS: Does a topic ban proposal need to be at ANI?) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, though I'm sorry to have to say so. I just am not seeing CF as being able to edit neutrally surrounding Craig Chaquico, and based on her interactions with other editors at various talks, I think Ritchie is quite likely correct that allowing her to make edit requests would just be kicking the can down the road for someone else to have to deal with. Enough is enough. This has been a time sink for too many editors for four years now. —valereee (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved this proposal to ANI - while we can discuss issues here, I think actual ban proposals need to be given a wider audience to make sure they are fair. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:46, 14 May 2021 (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.

    Dave Bautista

    CLOSED
    This seems to be handled. —valereee (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2021 (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.


    Jmmeisner placed an {{edit semi-protected}} at Dave Bautista and declared I'm requesting this edit as a representative of Dave Bautista per this. On further investigation I found (Redacted) confirms WP:COI and a strong case of WP:PAID. Since a declaration was made I added {{Paid}} on their userpage after informing them and advised not to edit Dave Bautista and related pages here per Wikipedia community policies. But the editor remains in denial at first of being associated with Dave Bautista. Also, they tried to remove the disclosed information per [4] later. I would like experienced admins and editors to keep a watch and resolve the issue and guide them. Thank you Run n Fly (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    I would greatly appreciate some guidance in this process. I acknowledged from the beginning of my edit request that I work with Dave Bautista. In addition to that, I am his oldest childhood friend and am simply trying to correct an error in his birthplace. I'm not sure how doing that could raise any conflict of interest, but I would like to certify here that I am not being paid directly or indirectly to try to correct this error. The reference that it's associated with is also a inactive fan site. Please just let me know what the best process would be to make the correction. In addition, I originally was trying to also correct his height as he is 6'4". When he was in the WWE, they used to say 6'6" as the page properly represents, it's just not his real height. The WWE takes some liberties with height and weight, as they also did with the spelling of his name. Please advise. Thank you. Respectfully, Jmmeisner (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Jmmeisner, it is not necessary for you to be paid to make this specific edit. If you are a talent manager for him, then you are a paid editor and must make the declaration. Please confine yourself to making edit requests on the article talk page. We need a reliable source for his height. If the WWE exaggerates heights, then it is best to just remove his height, so I will do that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328, I had actually changed the paid template over to the normal COI userbox, since I can see plenty of room for a talent manager/friend to want to provide correct information without actually being paid for that. If anyone disagrees feel free to revert back on his userpage. I feel that they're trying to do right by Wikipedia in disclosing their COI immediately and not asking for any crazy puffery edits to be made, and we were a little BITEy with them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jmmeisner, but what if we find you irksome? Seriously, though: request changes on the Talk page. Wikipedia is one place you'll certainly find people keen to help Mr. Bautista. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I redacted some of Run n Fly's original post. It's pretty much the definition of what the outing policy says not to do: do not post outside websites confirming someone's place of employement etc.--- Possibly (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Thank you all. You'd be surprised how happiness this will bring. I appreciate your kindness and patience. I've just never done this before. Jmmeisner (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2021 (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.

    Alan J. Cooper

    The Alan J. Cooper article has been subject to persistent probable COI editing since 2019, in an attempt to remove information relating to allegations of misconduct while Cooper was employed at the University of Adelaide which he was subsequently dismissed for, as well as to promote Cooper's work. Examples of such edits include [5]. There was a long edit war in March 2020 between Andersjames0921 and other editors surrounding the issue, which has now been redacted. On the talk page Talk:Alan_J._Cooper#Content_Dispute_in_WP:BLPArticle, 1884e (apparently a throwaway account) stated that Andersjames0921 "is very close to the subject of this article". In the last few days brand new account Ledgereyrar has been edit warring to include edits originally made by Andersjames0921, they have specifically denied having a COI or having any relation to Andersjames0921 on my talk page but I am not convinced. In edit summaries they have accused me of "suppressing information", regarding removing statements to Cooper's self-published website stating that he settled out of court with Adelaide University in 2020, which I am uncomfortable including because they have no other corroboration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I made a small edit, clarifying that the term "serious misconduct" is the University's, not Wikipedia's. Other than that, without any RS confirmation of the claims about having settled the litigation, I agree they don't belong in there. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi'd for a month to protect from apparent sockpuppets adding unsourced content; perhaps in that time an actual source will report the content the socks have been trying to add. Hemiauchenia, ping me if it starts back up after the protection expires. —valereee (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Colorado Government IP users User:165.127.14.x and associated accounts

    Articles

    Users'

    These are IP user registered to a State of Colorado government computers, likely in the legislative offices in most cases and perhaps some others. The user contributions logs (especially from the .14. block) include several edits to various Colorado politicians, which is almost certainly one or more undisclosed COIs. I would propose banning the addresses from editing anything having to do with Colorado politics, but as it's an IP user it seems difficult to enforce a selective ban. There are likely other IP addresses involved as well, and also probably more pages, but I have not identified them yet. In addition, many if not most of these pages also have edits from named/IP users with potential COIs, which likely could be investigated further by looking at other users who edit from these IP eddresses. Frankly, the more I look at these pages the more I find with regards to implicated users and articles. I would consider a blanket ban on IP edits from this IP block if possible, and further investigation. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 14:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    And what is with Template:Infobox Colorado Legislation? The only other US states that seem to have similar templates are used on articles for actual pieces of legislation. (see here for example). Adding these to a stack of politician's articles looks like promotion to me, listing their achievements by detailing every bill they have sponsored - that seems the kind of content that belongs on their own websites or on the legislature's website, not in an encyclopedia. Melcous (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good point -- I have listed the template at WP:TFD (see the discussion) to discuss. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 12:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Kim Michele Richardson

    JER Mitchell claims to Kim Michele Richardson on their user page. This user is currently removing large portions of text from the aforementioned articles claiming "libel" and "trolling". -FASTILY 22:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems more complicated that it appears at first glance. The claim on the user page was not put there by JER Mitchell, but by RLM64, the editor who has been adding the text that is being removed with the claims of libel and trolling. Can someone with more experience in this kind of thing please look into it? Melcous (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's definitely some COI or paid editing going on here. YODADICAE👽 15:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleanaway

    I'm highly suspicious that this is an undisclosed paid editor. The username appears to be a shortened form of "Cleanaway Content". Example edits such as this one and this one are highly suspect. They even state openly in an edit summary that the edit was undertaken based on Cleanaway's investor advice. The account has been editing since 2018 and has only ever edited Cleanaway. Reviewing the edit history it would appear as though Cleanaway have employed somebody to monitor their article here. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    P-blocked from Cleanaway to see if we can get their attention. No objection to anyone unblocking them once they've agreed to disclose and stop directly editing, but the username may also be problematic. —valereee (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Valereee: Thanks. It being late night in Australia and the weekend, it may be a few days before we find out if that had the desired effect. Fingers crossed. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Tony Hawks

    I know the British comedian Tony Hawks as a casual acquaintance in my local pub, and we've chatted occasionally. A few months ago (pre-lockdown) we were talking about Wikipedia, and he mentioned that his page had a very old and low-quality photo, and that it showed the wrong date of birth. I told him that I had an editing account, and that I'd be happy to update his details. This clearly wasn't a matter of urgency, since his PA has only just sent me an email today with a new photo and his correct DOB. In the interests of making Wikipedia more factually accurate, I've edited his page with these new details, but a much more experienced editor has given me a warning about a possible COI. I'd like to make it very clear that I do not work for Tony in any capacity, I have not been paid, nor do I expect to be paid, for making this edit, and Tony will only benefit from it to the extent that he'll probably get birthday cards on the right date from now on. I'm not very experienced at editing Wikipedia, so I hope I haven't committed a major faux pas here, but my intentions were pure. Cliffsmith23 (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cliffsmith23: Thanks for your forthright honesty. This does not strike me as a big deal, especially since you have taken the time to write the above. Please use the talk page to request edits in future, and include sources with the request. You could tell Tony and his agent that advice as well. Thanks. --- Possibly (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cliffsmith23, this doesn't strike me as a big deal either, but in the interest of WP:Verifiability the DOB should be published by a WP:RS (a primary source like http://tony-hawks.com is okay for DOB) and permission from the photographer (Jay Williams) for the photo should be mailed to WP:OTRS. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Massive UPE spam sock farm: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marek.kapicak

    54 accounts found, about 20 articles remaining after deletion and quarantine. I'm sure there's more, but they must have evaded the checkuser data window. MER-C 19:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @MER-C: What kind of help would be helpful? Can drafts and articles by the sock accounts be G5'd?--- Possibly (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Simon Villeneuve

    User Simon Villeneuve did some paid editing work for Robert J. Vezina, starting in February 2021. However it was not until May 2021 that a disclosure popped up on the talk page. I asked on their talk page if they had edited any other articles for pay and not disclosed. They refused to answer, and a few hours later they placed a tag to the effect of "I was paid for this work" on the article on the Canadian senator Renée Dupuis. Here's the major addition to Renee Dupuis back in February. I might have missed the paid editing disclosures that accompanied the February editing... if so perhaps Simon Villeneuve could point them out? SV does not seem to understand the disclosure and talk page request method that we usually go by. --- Possibly (talk) 05:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll expose the history of my work.
    First, I created both articles on Dupuis and Vezina in my stub space on French Wikipedia. and then publish them in main. I consider that I've respected all the guidelines and policy of this project doing so, displaying my COI on the talk pages there (here and here). After that, Dupuis and Vezina gived me a translated version in English of the French article about them and asked me to put them on English Wikipedia. After doing so, I thought that the French disclosure was enough.
    When someone putted the COI template on Vezina, I read the doc and I apposed the correct template on the talk page. I thought again that this was enough, but saw that it wasn't.
    Since the problems about Vezina seems about notability, and that I was focused only on this, I didn't thought about Dupuis. When Possibly asked me if there was other paid editing articles, I was frustrated by his unpleasant comments on the RfD page about Vezina, still thinking that Dupuis haven't any notability problem and thinking that this user was exaggerated. When another user explain me the same thing, I have putted the template on the talk page of Dupuis.
    Now that I see this message on my talk page, I think that I understand that the main problem is that I've edited myself the concerned pages (on French Wikipedia, you only have to declare your COI). So what must be done to put back my editions on Dupuis ? Copy-past my 17 ko version on the talk page ? Simon Villeneuve (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Run n Fly have are connected with Khorkuto serial

    I was observing Run n Fly since some days. And i have noticed one thing, when Run n Fly completed the article, Alivia Sarkar aded the wikipedia link in her instagram bio withing 5 minute. So after my observations i am sure Run n Fly have some connection with Alivia Sarkar. Apart from this Run n Fly is edition much about Khorkuto cast. So there is some connection with Run n Fly with Khorkuto Serial as well as Alivia Sarkar. Bengal Boy (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved from WP:ANI. Fences&Windows 12:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1023802362"