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 Possibly (talk | contribs) at 03:24, 27 October 2021 (→David Oliver (magician): d). 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:Ada Aharoni
    Talk:Alameda Belt Line
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Black Hawk (Sauk leader)
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Creative Planning
    Talk:The Donkey Sanctuary
    Talk:Stephan DuCharme
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Empire (magazine)
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:List of compositions for flute
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Ornge
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:Roger Steare
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Thandeka (minister)
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation
    Talk:Zyn

    State Oil Fund of Azerbaijan

    The user SOFAZ01 uses the acronym for the State Oil Fund of Azerbaijan in their username. The account is removing reliably sourced content from the SOFAZ page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The user's edit summary of choice, "prevent dissemination of information", is also very telling. --SVTCobra 17:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Just advised user of 3RR, including that they may be blocked indefinitely from the article in question, because of their apparent COI. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I added an IP which may be editing in block evasion. I did not request checkuser. --SVTCobra 04:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit skeptic that a COI editor would use this edit summary, so it could be a joe job. Anyway, the username is not valid, and the account should be blocked. MarioGom (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added OngoTard, whose first and only edit is to sumbit an edit request to whitewash the page by replacing the paragraph SOFAZ01 and the IP tried to remove. Miracusaurs (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The SOFAZ01 account has been blocked for edit-warring. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiki Scribes and Elite Wiki Writers

    First things first - I previously e-mailed paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org about this and ticket 2021082810000152 was opened (by Joe Roe, I believe), for anybody who has access to that. Secondly, there are many more articles (and drafts) than the ones I listed above, these are just a sampling that I've looked at. I'm opening this thread in order to get some more eyes on the sourcing specifically.

    Collapsed Info that was less relevant than previously thought

    I checked all the sources in all the articles and drafts listed above using Wayback Machine. Admittedly Wayback Machine is not perfect, but it's something. Anyway, below is what I got from Wayback Machine.

    Lunchclub, an article started in May 2021, has nine sources. Of the nine, six were last revised in May 2021 and one was started in May 2021.

    Michelle Hanlon, an article started in May 2021, has eighteen sources. Of the eighteen, eleven were last revised in May 2021 and three were started in May 2021 (two of which list a much earlier publish date at the top).

    Papier (company), an article started in May 2021, has twenty sources. Of the twenty, seventeen were revised in May 2021, two were started in May 2021 (including one which lists a much earlier publish date at the top), and multiple other sources include dates at the top the predate Wayback Machine's first archived version by years).

    Katie Knipp, an article started in May 2021, has twenty sources. Of the twenty, fourteen were revised in May 2021 and three were started in May 2021 (again, some with wrong dates at the top).

    Elyse Walker, an article started in May 2021, has thirty-one sources. Of the thirty-one, twenty were revised in May 2021 and eight were started in May 2021 (again, some of which have wrong dates at the top).

    Draft:Martin Toe, a draft started in May 2021, has thirteen sources. Of the thirteen, ten were revised in May 2021, two were started in May 2021, and multiple have dates on the top that predate Wayback Machine's original version.

    Draft:Harry Nathan Gottlieb, a draft started in May 2021, has ten sources. Of the ten, eight were revised in May 2021 (or more recently) and two were started in May 2021, with multiple having dates on the top much earlier than Wayback Machine's original version.

    These are all the ones that I've had time to check. I also haven't had time to dig into the exact changes between versions listed on Wayback Machine to see what, exactly, was altered. There are about fifty other articles and drafts that I haven't been able to examine more thoroughly yet to see if their sources will have similar results.

    I would like to get some more eyes on the sources and, again, please see ticket 2021082810000152 for more information. Useight (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, thank you for notifying me of this discussion. I just used the Wayback Machine to compare what had actually been changed on some of the articles. I compared the first snapshot with the last snapshot and the two most significant changes (as indicated by the variation scale). I used three of the pages listed by Useight (talk · contribs) as a sample and ran two sources on random from each page through the comparison tool of Wayback Machine.
    Here are my findings:
    • Michelle Hanlon: Sample A, ads changed on the page. Sample B, ads changed and the feature image seems to have been given a caption that wasn't there at the time of publication.
    • Lunchclub: Sample A, ads changed on the page and WSJ's top menu bar seems to have different buttons. Sample B, the time of how long ago the article was published and there are other changes on the TechCrunch website, the article remains the same.
    • Katie Knipp: Sample A, website was redesigned while the article remains the same. Sample B, changes to the website structure and menu.
    My assumption is that other articles would have similar changes to them, as well. An experienced editor/admin would be able to better clarify things on this. Please let me know if I can be of any help. BettytheBeth (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For context, the issue here is that Wiki Scribes claim (in off-wiki communication) to be able to manufacture sources for clients who are not notable. I think they're making that up, but it does imply that the outfit is not as squeeky-clean as they make out to be. – Joe (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is an accurate summary. I wasn't certain how much context to specifically give in this thread. The question is whether Wiki Scribes' claim is legitimate or marketing, which goes hand-in-hand with determining whether the sourcing on the articles/drafts are legitimate. It has come to my attention that Wayback Machine may be of limited use in this particular situation, based on what kicks off its timeline for crawling particular webpages. Useight (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    manufacture sources for clients who are not notable I don't think that is necessarily true, and hasn't been for some time. I think with the right skills, with enough moxy and good budget it is possible, and in many instances, is probably quite easy. In the last two years, it had became increasingly difficult to delete these types of articles, so it doesn't a lot of references to sway the argument. One or two stories, put in by the connection, with the right money, is all it needs to the sway the argument. They are becoming increasingly sophisticated in the methods. There is several examples of this on Youtube. One of them, a kind of trickster, tried to make himself notable. Eventually he was on the radio and got a story written about him in mainstream news. It was innocent. scope_creepTalk 15:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure this is news for AfD regulars. But placing stories in the media is one of the primary functions of most PR agencies, from the cheapest ones to the most expensive and reputable. The line between native advertising and space-filling articles is really not that clear. Positioning a company in 3 borderline reliable sources is relatively easy with some money. MarioGom (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarioGom: He wasn't a PR person, just a young guy of 19-20, an influencer type, making a vlog and trying it out. That was point. It seemed to be really easy. scope_creepTalk 09:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Useight: I think you might have misunderstood how the wayback machine works. Using this as an example you will see at the bottom it says This calendar view maps the number of times <link> was crawled by the Wayback Machine, not how many times the site was actually updated (emphasis mine). What's more, you'll also see on that page it says Fri, 21 May 2021 23:28:46 GMT (why: wikicollections, wikipedia-eventstream, wikipediaoutlinks) - this means that the reason it was crawled in the first place was because it was included in a Wikipedia article and this does not mean that it did not exist before that date. SmartSE (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartse:, indeed. I am now aware that the Wayback Machine is not going to be reliable in determining if the problem exists (see Joe Roe's comment for a succinct explanation of the potential problem). Wiki Scribes claims to be able to create/modify sources to falsify notability for their clients. The question is whether this is marketing puffery or if they are actually doing this. Unfortunately, it seems Wayback Machine is less helpful than I previously thought at determining this. However, we need to not get caught up in that and keep the real question in mind: is Wiki Scribs' claim of being able to falsify notability actually happening? And, for that, we need more eyes on the sources. Useight (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't find it surprising at all that they make the offer - I've seen enough people get paid articles before where they've also hired people to publish some pieces on them to establish notability. It doesn't need to hold up to close scrutiny at AfD - it just needs to be enough that no-one thinks to propose it. There was one case where the subject hired people to write reviews and articles about them and their work, hired people to create the WP article using those as references, hired more people to remove tags, and then hired someone to delete it years later when they decided that they didn't want the article anymore - specifically arguing at AfD that the sources are not very good and/or wrong. There is nothing stopping an organised group managing the entire thing, from establishing notability through to ongoing maintenance. - Bilby (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hillster and BettytheBeth have just been blocked, as Checkuser evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharmenderDeol links them to a number of UPE accounts. Spicy (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Home-Start International

    a trustee of [1] Home-Start International has completely changed the article to add promotional content after a draft here Draft:Home-Start UK was declined. Theroadislong (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If nothing else, it does appear to be WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM, something that it might be worth warning the editor over, if I am allowed to suggest such an action (seriously, someone please tell me if this is out of line). However, as much as the existence of the COI makes me wish otherwise (a bias I probably should work on), it does appear that the content they added is sufficiently verifiable for inclusion under the broader heading of the international organization per WP:BRANCH.
    As such, I'll go copy-edit the article now to remove the more advertorial aspects, and perhaps it should be moved to Home-Start Worldwide, but apart from that I am not seeing much we can do. BilledMammal (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done some extensive CE; hopefully it reads less like an advert now, but I'll leave the current tags there so that another editor can assess. BilledMammal (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. This episode feels like harassment. I always use my real name; I first read the COI policy, posted my COI and then wrote a draft piece for review by others. Unfortunately honesty does not seem to be the best policy. It was immediately slapped with a banner with a dollar sign suggesting undisclosed payment, despite the fact that I had declared my role as an unpaid Trustee exactly on the Talk page as required by wikipedia policy. That was clumsy, hurtful and wrong, a polite message would have sufficed. It was also libellous, it is accurate to say, I am glad it has disappeared. That editor said the piece read like an advert, which was a clear-cut exaggeration. He asked that it be written by some-one else, ignoring the central issue - no-one in a decade has written anything on this notable organisation on wikipedia. On rewriting the piece under the defunct Home-Start International page, as he suggested in one of the many banners, I was accused of "WP: gaming the system". This is one of repeated references to imminent WP warnings and cautions, which are intimidating. Why resort to jargon and threats so readily? The editors responses were imperious, curt and thoughtless. No credit was given for responding positively with laborious re-writes, clearly prompted by the viewpoint given by the editor. I received exactly zero acknowledgment, just more censure. I am an unpaid charity Trustee who naturally wishes to see the work of thousands of volunteers get a fair mention on wikipedia. I am still being seen as a Board member of a for-profit company, which is not remotely an appropriate comparison. You are not dealing with a devious paid corporate marketeer, so please stop treating me like one. If asked to make amendments I am always happy to do so. Why not respond to my repeated request and suggest the kind of things that need amendment? As volunteers on wikipedia, your attachment to its purposes (in this case the understandable preoccupation with paid commercial postings) is just as likely to cloud your judgement, which in my eyes explains the rather toxic culture I have strayed into. The quick edits made by others without subject knowledge have not been too good, IMHO. We are left with a rather poorly written page, in terms of grammar and content, which I am not allowed to correct, despite being the only person involved with any knowledge of the subject matter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Sugarman (talk • contribs)

    you are welcome to make a formal edit request ·(click for instructions) on the article talk page, detailing changes you feel are needed, preferably sourced to independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Philip Sugarman: Regarding expertise in the subject area, this is not a necessity as we simply restate what others have already said. Regarding your COI, we are simply alerting you to our COI guideline. The three editors you have been dealing with, myself included, have no personal interest or other COI in Home-Start. As someone with a COI, if you continue to directly edit Home-Start articles, this will create continued problems. If you can commit to use talk pages for requests, and avoid editing any Home-Start article(s) directly (except for very minor non-controversial edits), there will be no problem. --- Possibly ☎ 07:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @possibly Please be assured I have got the message about not being allowed to edit. I do feel I have been rudely treated, and you saying that others were "simply" doing this or that is no substitute for reflecting on your editing culture, in which provoking others seems to be part of the game, it feels like gaslighting. Philip Sugarman (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @theroadislong I am troubled that at no point have you responded to any of the substantive issues I have raised about the article or the way you have dealt with it; but you are motivated to send me obscure corrective messages about tildes. The edit request policy seems long technical and complicated, it would be so much simpler if you had allowed me to re-edit a draft, prompting me with some of the examples that you felt were promotional. You could have done this, as your fellow says, subject matter expertise is not a necessity. Perhaps you might consider as an editor dealing more constructively with others in the future Philip Sugarman (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit request facility is quite simple, you suggest changing x to y and give a reliable independent source for the change. The "obscure corrective messages about tildes" is to ensure that we know who has written what on a talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Philip Sugarman thank you for engaging with us here, and apologies if my comment came across as imperious or curt, as well as for the associated commentary which upon reflection would have been better left out of this forum.
    In terms of the quick edits I made and bringing the article up to standard you are satisfied with; any edit requests you make that involve prose and not content or tone changes will likely be seen as uncontroversial, even if they are a substantial rewrite. In terms of content, if you request alterations that are reliably SOURCED and balanced, they are again likely to be uncontroversial to implement. For context, I will note that the content I removed was because it was not sourced, while the largest area I rewrote - regarding the effectiveness statistics - was because of an apparent lack of balance caused by including the most positive figures from the '82 study, and not the less effusive figures from the volunteers and social workers. BilledMammal (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your response. The imperiousness and curtness was from the main initial editor, calling himself "the road is long", who seems unable to admit any fault except on my part. You seem willing to reflect on your part, which is very refreshing.
    The imbalanced reporting of the 82 study was in the long-standing text of the Home-Start International page, I did not input this and had no particularly reason to check that paper or doubt the summary. I do not dispute your re-edit which may well be accurate.
    On further edits, I am waiting for a friend to send me a pile of cuttings about Home-Start, as unfortunately I can find very little on-line to fill out the article if Home-Start data can 100% not be reported in any way at all. To be honest, I do think the page reads so blandly now that a reader might feel the charity was hardly worth bothering with.
    If you compare, say, the page for Oxfam, it re-states their mission and values and masses of other corporate material. Same is true for NSPCC, a family/ child charity smaller than Home-Start Worldwide. Why are NSPCC Royal Patrons discussed at length, drawn from NSPCC publications or unreferenced, but a bit of the same is removed for Home-Start? Why is such gross inconsistency stark in the first two charity pages I checked? Surely your take on what is promotional/verifiable is not "simply" following COI policy, it is discretionary. It is clearly gaslighting if you say such comparisons are not relevant or not allowed because of another " WP: arbitrary rule you have not heard of which suits my argument".
    In truth others have treated charities in a relaxed way, whereas you have taken a stance as if it were a commercial venture. All this won't affect me personally, but Home-Start across the world may see a few less volunteers and donations. So I do think Home-Start and the families it tries to help have been rather punished here by overzealous rulings.
    I would be pleased if you tried to address not avoid the substantive points here. Philip Sugarman (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause which says “We do not exist to promote your "brand", and will not tolerate efforts to abuse this project with that goal in mind.” Theroadislong (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Philip Sugarman: seriously, quit complaining. We caught you editing the Home-Start International page, for which you had a very strong COI as a board member. Now that that is dealt with, instead of letting everyone move along to other topics you continue to complain about your treatment. Nobody owes you any kind of explanation here; Wikipedia is voluntary, and everyone you have interacted with has done so within policy. Further, this is the Conflict of Interest noticeboard; we have determined you have a COI and you have agreed not to edit the page directly. Issues about article content that are not COI-related and about your AFC review does not belong here, take it somewhere else. --- Possibly ☎ 03:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @possibly. Thanks for the put down. I was answering the rather politer note from Billed mammal. Here is an answer to you. A few facts. You did not "catch" me, that is your fantasy about what you do. I declared my full name, COI upfront and asked for a review of a page for Home-Start UK. The reviewer suggested the page be folded into the Home-Start International page, and I did so, omitting what I guessed he felt was promotional. Secondly I am not a board member of Home-Start International, you have that muddled. It remains that my really substantive points about what you guys have deleted when it is routinely allowed elsewhere have been avoided by you; you seem unaccountable for this. Your point about the nature of this particular noticeboard is a perfect example of " WP: arbitrary rule you have not heard of which suits me". I would be more impressed if you used your real name, answered my points, and considered whether the article is as good and fair as it might be. Philip Sugarman (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. --- Possibly ☎ 10:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Philip Sugarman's points are valid, and should be taken onboard; your response is inappropriate, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RightDigital – A Republican Party-aligned "digital PR agency"

    I've raised concerns about editing on the Frank LaRose page before, see this[2]. The editing by these accounts bear all the hallmarks of a COI: removal of reliably sourced content, addition of poorly sourced puffery and trivia, and addition of photos and personal content about the subject. I raised the question of COI at the talk page for 'RightDigital'. Rather than answers whether they had a COI, they wanted to interact with me through email. User talk:RightDigital Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I've changed the title. This seems like a much serious problem now. The username "RightDigital" refers to a PR firm by that name that bills itself as "Ohio's #1 GOP digital agency." This, along with weird patterns of editing on Wikipedia pages related to Ohio politicians, suggests that a PR firm might be engaging in a coordinated campaign to edit pages for pay. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 136#Editor at Frank LaRose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Response

    The edits to the Frank LaRose page were simply to remove politically biased content that was clearly written by a staffer at the Ohio Democratic Party or known affiliate with the intended purpose of damaging the reputation of this person. The edits made were simply to remove the content that was not objective or properly sourced. There was no addition of extra content and no wiki rules were broken. The goal of each editor should be to provide objective, neutral and factually honest content. --RightDigital (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ...and adhere to the discretionary sanctions in place in the topic area. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Antonio Giordano

    FYI I've just locked a bunch of sockpuppets and SPAs pushing this article crosswiki, all of them active here on en.wiki. Vituzzu (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Vituzzu: Can you tell us which accounts? I don't see any accounts in the page history for EN Antonio Giordano that have been blocked in the last month. --- Possibly ☎ 17:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Possibly, certainly Harshamahalley and Interspazio123, globally locked by Vituzzu on 6 October; I don't immediately see any others. Reverting to this revision would take the page back to before those two started, but I'm not sure that's the best solution – a couple of stout farmers with brush hooks might do a better job (or maybe a combination of both approaches?). Volunteers? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Justlettersandnumbers: thanks, I was looking for blocks and not locks, it seems. Added to above list. --- Possibly ☎ 19:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Dan smith 1234564 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Luca burkitt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Vituzzu (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have emailed paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org with off-wiki evidence of undisclosed paid editing. If anyone reading this has the relevant permissions to act on that, that would be great. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Curb Safe Charmer: I'm sorry, but what is the relevant to (besides your email)? Does it pertain to any discussion here? --SVTCobra 04:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My bet is it has something to do with this block ☆ Bri (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    user:ASUKomm

    The user ASUKomm is a 2016[3] verified paid editing account in deWP. Here and in deWP the account is editing the article about Mathias Döpfner, the Billionaire CEO of the Axel Springer Media Company. The process and the edits of the user in deWP show clearly that the user is generally informed about the necessary disclosure in Wikipedia. But despite knowing this a disclosure about the paid editing activities was not done in enWP for years. --Jensbest (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviouisly the user is violating the rules despite proven knowledge about them (from deWP) for years. I guess blocking the user is overdue. --Jensbest (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Did a bit of trimming of the article in question (still lots to do), also added a paid editing disclosure template to the article talk page. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear all, As Jensbest wrote, we verified our corporate account in the German language Wikipedia according to the rules there. Unfortunately we were not aware of the differences between the German and English Wikipedia when it comes to COI editing. Naively we thought the same rules would apply to all languages. A few months ago we then took a closer look. When we became aware of our mistake, we stopped the activity immediately. As a consequence, we were not planning on using this account here in WPen anymore. In addition, we will only continue to participate in WPen by suggesting possible changes to articles on the respective talk page using a single user account and by disclosing our COI. Best, Lars from ASUKomm (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiki Creators LLC

    For the interested.

    "Wiki Creators LLC is an ethical Wikipedia management services business that offers useful editing, page creation, and security services to assist individuals, companies, brands, NGOs, and many more in improving their online presence on Wikipedia. ... Many of the Wikipedia editors with whom we collaborate make the modifications accurately. ... We’ve discovered that a gradual, steady approach is the most effective. We bear in mind that the Wikipedia page should be improved for the benefit of everyone, not just the client."

    They also list a few articles they say they've been working on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I had a look at their website... "Wiki Creators LLC also ensures that no knowledge about your product will incorrectly edit on your Wikipedia page." "We have officially recognized as Wikipedia content contributors. We transcend the content quality and stand pro with our tactics since we have a comprehensive understanding and expertise in Wikipedia administration and production." [headscratch emoticon] --bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I read once regarding scam-mail, that one tactic is to include some spelling/grammar errors etc, because if you can spot/be deterred by them, you are not the customer they want anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. Spam emails/autodialers cost nothing, but the scammer's time does. So, worst case (for the scammer) is that they invest time in talking to/emailing with a person, who then bails before the scammer gets their money.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bear in mind that we have past experience with similar scammers (who knows, maybe the same ones) falsely claiming specific Wikipedia articles to be examples of their work. Take any such claims with a big grain of salt. BD2412 T 17:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While I found it believable that they had at least edited those articles, that doesn't make it true. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiki Creators LLC 2

    Not sure where to report the above? I couldn't find anything on them after a simple search of Wikipedia. Thanks. Samw (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Samw Beat you to it, check 2 threads up above. I note that we link to different websites. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Sorry I didn't read! (Wikipedia's search isn't very good.  :-( ) Samw (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I see there is a domain: https://wikicreatorsllc.com/ William Avery (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Informing science

    Could someone review this article and its history, please? It hasn't been edited for a while, but one of the accounts obviously as a CoI name, and the others are SPAs that have made only one or two edits other than to this article. The topic "Informing science" appears to be a neologism. The publisher "Informing Science Institute", to which a section of the article is devoted, is on the updated Beall's list (of "predatory open-access publishers"; see [4]). This is not mentioned in the article. There is refence-bombing, but no inline citations.

    A related draft article, User:NSB123/sandbox/Informing Science Institute, was rejected at AfC and subsequently deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Note also "I was asked by the founder of the Informing Science Institute to develop a Wikipedia article on "informing science'.", posted by Grandon.Gill. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And by the same editor on the article's talk page: "The Wikipedia entry was never intended to advance a point of view but, instead, to explain one. It provides a needed overview of the frameworks employed in the transdiscipline and an overview of the activities of its organizing body.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While I think the subject is marginally notable, I don't see much that we can use from the current article (unsourced, possibly WP:OR, WP:NPOV problems). What do you think about taking to AfD for possibly WP:TNTing? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding support to this COI nomination. All the references are to IS's own publications. In addition, though this probably carries no weight, I have been active in the field of Science communication for a decade and never heard of "Informing science" - it is also not mentioned in, and does not mention the science communication article. I would advocate AfD. Zeromonk (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Even if an article is justified, I can't see how you can get from this to a reasonable article. Endorse AfD. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Thank you, all. Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Informing science. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:DUCK UPE

    Editing pattern screams UPE. User did exactly ten edits, wikilinking a word or phrase on each article, and their next edit was a complete (and very non-NPOV) revamp of a biography article, followed by even more additions to that article. They then did a similar (massive, highly non-NPOV) edit to Manhattan House, and then to Ben Kallos, and have been working on a very promotionally-toned company article in their draftspace. Snooganssnoogans reverted their Ben Kallos edit and warned them about COI on their talk page, and I've reverted the other edits and added a UPE warning as well. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A 2nd editor, Tomben2 has attempted to restore the same puffery to Manhattan House. Slywriter (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor responded to the notice I placed on their talk page, denying that they're a paid advocate. I replied on their talk page. I'm trying really hard to AGF, but this contribution history definitely makes it difficult. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These editors are blatant COI editors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just noting that Tomben2 has declared in an edit summary, Special:Diff/1051288331, that they are a paid editor. Slywriter (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User_talk:Possibly#Paid_Edits_Concern, please review the statement by Tomben2 here that states they are "five friends learning wikipedia" and that only his latest draft is paid, which just doesn't sit right with me. Possibly may have the right idea that an SPI is needed or some other administrative action. Slywriter (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Declared COI editors exchanging requested edits

    This would seem to be gaming the system. Two editors with COI exchanging edit requests, or at least one is proposing it. I've dealt with Andreincowtown a bit and they have been very good with following our COI guideline. It's the suggestion by Occasionalpedestrian (a COI editor for Heineken) that COI edits be exchanged that is a bit troubling. Normally I would discuss it with them first, but I am not sure where we stand on that policy./guideline -wise. --- Possibly ☎ 16:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't realise this was against the guidelines so I will remove this request. I would not want to do anything that is gaming the system. Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    that is good, thanks. I still wonder what our policy thoughts in general are on this. --- Possibly ☎ 16:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't immediately think of a policy that would cover that, but such a quid pro quo appears to violate the spirit of Wikipedia:PROXYING and WP:FORUMSHOP. Vexations (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a form of paid editing. WP:PAID defines compensation as 'money, goods or services' and this is a service. - MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    This is a very interesting example of COI. However, I would begin with an Assumption of Good Faith when Occasionalpedestrian states "I didn't realise this was against the guidelines so I will remove this request. I would not want to do anything that is gaming the system." What supports that assumption is that the communication was not done secretly or "Off Wiki." I imagine that pairs or groups of people could make such arrangements in confidence outside of the Wiki system, and that would, as MrOllie suggests, constitute a quid pro quo exchange of services.

    As always, thank you for your time and advice, and to Possibly for raising the issue. Best wishes, Andrewincowtown (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    South al-Mutlaa

    This looks like a PR agency driven effort. I NPP'd it, redirected and then sent it to Draft when it was reverted, so it could be worked on. Editor 2A00:1851:8004:A55:FCF7:5239:864C:9BC5 opened a AN entry at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#South_al-Mutlaa article deleted by User:Scope_creep without following the Wikipedia deletion policy and due process for article deletion and then another editor Bidoon, who arrived at 1.59 on the 14th October 2021, moved it back to mainspace. scope_creepTalk 13:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,

    The Sanketio31 SPI was closed a few days ago. It was determined that they were a group of accounts co-ordinating votes at AfD. Unfortunately, the substantial number of AfDs they participated at means that in a few instances they manipulated consensus – resulting in an outcome that would not have occured had they not been co-ordinating their activity. I've pasted below the table from the SPI filing, which contains (I hope all) of the overlap between accounts. Some if not most of these AfDs will require re-review, and I've highlighted the ones where the socks had a direct effect on the outcome in yellow. I think it's worth nothing that the stale accounts weren't blocked, but all were confirmed, so whether those accounts should be factored into the re-review is up to the admin. Thanks, Giraffer (talk·contribs) 17:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended content
    AfD Sanketio31 nomination? Result (keep/delete)[1] Sanketio31 votes Results without Sanketio31 votes Close
    WP:Articles for deletion/Mel Sanson Yes 4/0 4/0 0/0 Keep
    WP:Articles for deletion/Anu Singh Lather Yes 6/0 3/0 3/0 Keep
    WP:Articles for deletion/Hal Lawton Yes 5/1 4/0 1/1 Keep
    WP:Articles for deletion/Mark Nielsen (CEO) Yes 5/1 4/0 1/1 Keep
    WP:Articles for deletion/Keyva King Yes 3/0 2/0 1/0 Keep
    WP:Articles for deletion/Terminus Group Yes 4/1 3/1 1/1 Keep
    WP:Articles for deletion/Kevin Boehm (2nd nomination) Yes 5/4 3/0 2/4 Keep
    WP:Articles for deletion/Craig Hanna (2nd nomination) Yes 3/1 3/0 0/1 Keep
    WP:Articles for deletion/Amadou Gallo Fall Yes 5/0 1/0 4/0 Keep
    WP:Articles for deletion/Sarah Law Yes 5/0 1/0 4/0 Keep
    WP:Articles for deletion/Quentin Cheng (2nd nomination) Yes 7/0 1/0 6/0 Keep
    WP:Articles for deletion/Ryan Coe Yes 2/4 1/0 1/4 Delete
    WP:Articles for deletion/Equity Mates Media Yes 4/8 1/0 3/8 Delete
    WP:Articles for deletion/Mazen Khaled Yes 3/0 1/0 2/0 Keep
    WP:Articles for deletion/Jason Foodman SpareSeiko 5/6 5/0 0/6 Redirect
    WP:Articles for deletion/Special Strong Yes 7/4 5/0 2/4 Delete
    WP:Articles for deletion/IHateJulian Yes 7/3 5/0 2/3 Keep
    WP:Articles for deletion/Aftab Ahmed (cricketer, born 1931) No 5/5 2/0 3/5 Keep
    WP:Articles for deletion/François Bergeron Yes 8/5 5/0 3/5 Keep
    WP:Articles for deletion/Anil Acharya No 3/2 0/1 3/1 No consensus
    WP:Articles for deletion/ClearTax (company) No 5/4 0/2 5/2 Delete
    WP:Articles for deletion/Boyer Rocks No 4/0 2/0 2/0 Keep
    WP:Articles for deletion/Wallbox (2nd nomination) No 5/0 2/0 3/0 Keep
    WP:Articles for deletion/List of military disasters (4th nomination) No 9/9 1/1 8/8 No consensus
    WP:Articles for deletion/Arif Saeed No 5/5/1 1/1/0 4/4/1 Delete
    WP:Articles for deletion/Sonita Lontoh No 4/3 1/1 3/2 No consensus
    WP:Articles for deletion/Anthony Michael Douglas Yes 0/2 0/1 0/1 Delete
    WP:Articles for deletion/Harvey Neville No 2/2/5 0/0/5 2/2/0 Redirect
    WP:Articles for deletion/Waleed Malik No 0/3/2 0/1/1 0/2/1 Redirect
    WP:Articles for deletion/Usman Khan (cricketer, born 1985) No 0/2/2 0/1/1 0/1/1 Redirect
    WP:Articles for deletion/Perl package manager No 3/0 2/0 1/0 Keep
    WP:Articles for deletion/Sudhir Singh Yes 0/3 0/1 0/2 Delete
    WP:Articles for deletion/URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity No 5/0 2/0 3/0 Keep
    WP:Articles for deletion/Case Notes (radio show) No 1/2/2 0/1/1 1/1/1 Redirect
    WP:Articles for deletion/Anthony Michael Douglas Yes 0/2 0/1 0/1 Delete
    WP:Articles for deletion/Marek Sacha No 3/3 0/1 3/2 No consensus
    WP:Articles for deletion/LEAD Technologies (2nd nomination)[2] No 7/7/2 0/2/0 7/5/2 Draftify
    WP:Articles for deletion/Gustavo Lopez (music executive) Yes 0/5[3] 0/2 0/3 Delete

    References

    1. ^ A third number indicates the total number of redirect votes
    2. ^ 3rd number here indicates draftify votes
    3. ^ It was originally 4/2 (both Sanketio31 accounts voting keep), but after MER-C voted delete with a valid rational, one (unrelated) account was indeffed and the others switched from keep to delete.
    Of the yellow-highlighted articles in the expandable text, I'd say that Anil Acharya is ok (it ended in No Consensus rather than keep, but the practical outcome is similar; perhaps a remark should be made on the talk page). Jason Foodman and Special Strong ended in delete or redirect, despite low-quality keep !votes, so I don't think the socking had too much effect here, unless it goes to WP:DRV. The other yellow articles look worthwhile to relist. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Occupational Hazard

    Just want to say first that I'm not familiar with dealing with conflicts of interest, so I might be seeing something that isn't there/ this might not actually be a big deal. I was reading the article when I noticed that the paragraph at the end of the lead about a research paper seemed a bit out of place, and... overly positive? (I don't know about you, but "working long hours is bad for you" does not exactly revolutionise my global understanding... whatever that means.) Sure enough, checking the edit history showed it was a pretty recent edit from an IP editor with no recent edits (interestingly, the IP geolocates to Switzerland, like the two organisations who worked on the paper). I'm guessing someone involved with the research added this paper to the article? Though, I've not done anything to the article- not sure if this should be removed or just toned down, so I wanted to get the attention of more experienced editors. Apologies if this is dumb :)

    CharredWaffle (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted the IP's edit as calling a study "landmark" and saying it "revolutionised global understanding" would need a secondary source, not just a link to the study itself. Melcous (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's one edit... I am going to guess it is someone in Bern Switzerland who is proud of their study, and who also does not know our COI guidelines and avoidance of embellishment. In future you can always revert them, and then come here if they are persistent at adding the material. --- Possibly ☎ 04:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Jose Ping-ay

    Obvious COI (same surname) with the subjects of the BLPs involved. Editor had been given multiple notices/warnings on COI editing by multiple users on her Talk page. There have been no attempts by the editor to work within the COI framework nor communicate with the community at large. The recreation of the deleted BLP is the last straw, hence the report here. – robertsky (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If there are any more problematic edits/page creations from this user, and they fail to communicate here or on talk pages, I think WP:ANI is the next stop. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jade Ping-ay has ignored multiple talk page messages and continued to COI edit, since January 20, 2021. --- Possibly ☎ 01:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    JuJu Chan

    As you can see from their contribs, they modify exclusively the article about the actress JuJu Chan or other articles about topics related to her, like her husband or some films she did. They constantly try to make her look younger, changing her birth year to 1989. They uploaded high quality photos of her (and her husband) and they claim they own the rights. In my opinion it is very likely that there is a conflict of interest, maybe it's also the same person with a sock puppet. Martin Mystère (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to notify anyone who's the subject of a discussion here. I've done that for you. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I didn't know it. --Martin Mystère (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out something really weird that happened few hours ago. Currently, a 2013 Eastweek article is used to support 1986 as her birth year, but after this discussion has been opened and the users have been notified, the birth date disappeared fom that source! You can see that "出生日期：1986年2月2日" is not present in the article nowadays, while the pages archived by the Wayback Machine show it clearly. And, of course, an IP from Hong Kong removed everything from the Wikipedia article saying that in the source there is "no age reference". --Martin Mystère (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Martin Mystère: We advise subjects that if sources are wrong, they should approach the source to request an update or correction be made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    First time using this Talk. Not sure if this is the way to reply.
    I am a hobby editor here, only interested in updating a few pages of people I want to contribute about with updated information I came across with. The East Week link you keep referring to is not a trustworthy source. There are other sources (including complaint reports) quoting that that media is not reliable .
    I’ve found other sat down interviews with her age that is from more reliable sources , that’s why I’ve been reverting your edits. --Djjasonwu (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, don't play with us. 99.9% of your edits are related to JuJu Chan, you have literally done only that. And don't let me talk about how you are cherry picking the complaints on East Week (one in 2015 and one in 1997, come on...) and you are suggesting us to use pufferies from Nextshark (deleted) or Vogue HK, the latter written by JuJu Chan herself (and it is not mentioning her age, by the way). If there is a conflict of interest and you are part of her team like Cecilial14, disclose it in your user page. --Martin Mystère (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For a WP:BLP, per WP:BLPPRIVACY, it might be reasonable to leave the birthdate off entirely... Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We did it. This is something to discuss in the talk. --Martin Mystère (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren’t you just cherry picking also by selecting only East Weekly as proof of her birthday, and disregarding the others?
    Sorry I didn’t realize she is the author of the Vogue article, my apologies for including it. If you are saying NextShark is a puffery, then isn’t Next Week basically the same? Here’s another article from Tatler with her age mentioned . To be clear, I DON’T work for JuJu Chan!
    I think it’s more helpful if we stick with the facts instead of playing on conspiracy theories and assumptions. I’ve got no time to PLAY, as you suggest. Just wanted to give what is clearly more accurate information to wiki. I’ll leave it to you professionals to do what you like. --Djjasonwu (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the right place to discuss about her birthday, this talk is. Here we discuss about a possible conflict of interests and allow me to doubt that an user who modified only JuJu Chan articles since 2012 and uploaded high quality photos of her (like another user, who admitted to be part of her PR team on Commons) is in fact related to her. But briefly: I am not selecting sources since, as you can see, in the Wikidata item I wrote all the serious sources that I found to support 4 different years. Unfortunately the databases (IMDb, etc...) are not reliable and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. When I have more news articles claiming different things (the age, for example) I take the oldest one, especially in a case like this one, in which the subject became internationally famous recently. Now the birthdate has been removed from the Wikipedia article, by the way. --Martin Mystère (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I invited User:BriefEdits for comment. --SVTCobra 00:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SVTCobra: We can write off Cecilial14 as an obvious COI due to her declaration. Cecilia114's edits all seem to promote upcoming projects, try to make the subject appear younger, or intentionally hide information; definitely a very manicured approach to editing. I think it was weird in September 2021 that they both did very similar edits to hide her NYU graduation year (Cecilial14's edit vs. Djjasonwu's edit) and that the subject's alumni profile page suddenly disappeared from the registry. It's my fault for not archiving it but the insistence on the unavailability of her graduation year only seems to perpetuate the myth that she is younger than she really is. I'm not sure if Djjasonwu is also COI but he definitely seems to contribute to a lot of disruptive edits. (Such as removing alma mater that's not NYU because I'm assuming that they could trace the graduation year and "infer" her real age or removing her non-stage name despite having added the same name 9 years ago). Regardless, both these users seem to be operating on some sort of agenda that is not productive for the subject's page. — BriefEdits (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, I had declared that I was her PR manager in 2018, I was only hired to line up her appearances back then, and I haven't worked with the company for over a year. During the time with the company, also before, and after, I had never been asked to or being paid directly or indirectly to update or edit her page. I did it at my own time when I saw incorrect info, a link that is dead, and also some info that is not related to her filming career so I started making edits. I didn't know my position has a Conflict of interest in this... since I am not welcome here... I won't edit her page anymore. Cecilial14 (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well... You have also been hired to change her age, since that is your second edit (made in 2016). Moreover you uploaded photos, changed her name, created the article of her husband and removed infos as BriefEdits explained. --Martin Mystère (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Djjasonwu: Maybe you could tell us precisely where you have found this image, since you simply wrote "Source from Internet", or why you claimed to be the owner. --Martin Mystère (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I copy here the answer to the previous question:

    [...] I found her reps’ emails online, so I sent out emails and asked for some photos. I got a couple back, so I used one. I saw a request has been placed to remove that photo. Sorry I don’t understand what photos can be uploaded and what cannot. [...]

    Now the photo has been deleted. It was a high quality, 2,561 × 3,840 (2.41 MB) image that could not be found on internet and could only belong to the actress or to her PR team. We should ask ourselves if Djjasonwu, as Cecilial14, actually worked with them having a conflict of interests, instead of simply contacting her privately once. --Martin Mystère (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    John Lott

    The user "ExProfessor" who identifies as "a former professor of economics" primarily adds content about John Lott, content that sources John Lott, or critical content about scholars who disagree with Lott's findings (e.g. John J. Donohue III). Some of this content is personal to Lott, including citations to blogposts and the kinds of details that only a COI account would know. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked the editor if they had a COI in October 2020.[5] They didnt respond. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sebastian Roché

    User has held himself out to be the subject of the article.[6][7] User is attempting to assert ownership over the article, with respect to his age (which I have not been able to do an archive search to verify the source) and nationality (no independent source provide for dual British–French citizenship). Based on this comment, I'm turning the issue over here, although I note that HighInBC has partial-blocked the user from the Roché article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As my colleague C.Fred has pointed out I have partially indef blocked this user from the article they claim to be the subject of, and invited them to use the talk page instead. I did this independently of this COIN report as I had not seen it at the time. As mentioned in the block log any administrator may reverse this without consulting me if they feel the issues have been resolved, though I am of course available for discussion. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sympathetic to sbjects of articles wanting the real them to be portrayed, but the wiki page says he was born and educated in France. One of his parents is apparently Scottish (fr: écossais). There are a few French and English sources saying he has "Scottish blood". The appropriate place for the Scottish bit is in the part that described his upbringing, and in citizenship, if proven by sources. I'm going to remove Scottish from the lede as it is not sourced anywhere. If he is now pBlocked, it is probably no longer a COIN issue and can be discussed on the article talk page. --- Possibly ☎ 04:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    University of Sheffield‎

    There seems to be qa conflict at this university about the proposed closure of the Department of Archeology and alleged shenanigans by University officials. More eyes on the subject would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sidney Thompson

    Srthompson721 created Sidney Thompson which is likely an autobiography (the subject's birthday is July 21) and their only edits are to promote Thompson both in the subject article and by adding blatantly promotional material to other articles (examples [8] and [9]) I gave them a COI warning but they just continued editing Thompson. They have been self-promoting for four months and were even asked to clarify their relationship when the article was in draft status. I can find no evidence they ever did so. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Leftover

    All accounts have been blocked for paid votes to delete the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Maher (writer). All people disclosed that they made paid votes but User:Billyatthewheels haven't yet. [10] Other paid articles from them are: Sawandi Wilson, Suraj Beera, Cupid Chan. 76.167.87.53 (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This complaint seems to make no sense. None of the delete arguments I can see have been redacted (we do not remove arguments wholesale unless they were advanced by an already blocked user) and the only thing here which implies any paid editing is the note from the volunteer responce team agent which explicitly names Simplewikipedian (talk · contribs) - who's since been blocked - as one. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. I'm bit confused about this notification. I started editing Wikipedia articles a few months ago as fun but soon I started to feel that I'm contributing something significant to the whole Wikipedia project. Obviously I am not expert in Wikipedia matters and I only make edits or try to create new pages in my free time only but I will definitely disclose COI if there is one. Thanks. Billyatthewheels (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark E. Curry

    Omicrontrench began editing this article in 2019 one month after negative content was added to the lead, while Dublin2020 stopped editing in March 2017. Both accounts have exclusively made edits that are related to Mark Curry or his companies, with most of them directly to the Mark Curry article itself, including creating the article in 2017 (Dublin2020 also uploaded the photo of Curry in the article, with the source described as "Took Picture"). Omicrontrench's first edit was to replace a news article negative of Curry with a press release [11]. Their second edit was to remove negative content from the lead of the Curry article [12], and then to add content to minimize criticism against one of Curry's companies [13]. Subsequently, they have started to repeatedly restore promotional material that is either unsourced or sourced to press releases (e.g., "an outspoken public representative for the LGBT business community"), while removing sourced content (such as the birth place and parents' jobs) [14]. They have also so far refused to disclose on their talk page whether they have a conflict of interest. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dublin2020 hasn't edited in 3.5 years, so they are out of the picture more or less. Omicrontrench does need to explain the photo and their edits... --- Possibly ☎ 04:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Real Food Healthy Body blog

    Maybe this isn’t precisely a COI issue but I can’t think of a better noticeboard for an editing disagreement over what belongs in a blog put out by a fitness model. Also whether links to advertisements featuring the model are good BLP references. Thanks! The recent edit history should make it pretty clear. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Does not sound like a COIN issue... unless there's more? --- Possibly ☎ 04:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bri: Please see WP:DR for better venues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Busuu

    I received an odd email from what looks like an anonymously-generated email address suggesting that this page was a paid advertisement. The article creator does seem rather fishy, having made a few dozen edits over a span of a few months in 2008, culminating in the creation of this article before they disappeared forever. I'm not keen to entertain the motives of anonymous email senders, and I am equally suspicious of being the recipient of this one (although I don't know if anyone else did), but I am also suspicious of this article. BD2412 T 05:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @BD2412: wasn't paid editing OK prior to it being added to the WMF terms of use in 2014? the 2012 COI policy says, somewhat sheepishly, "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests..." so Lestaire is in compliance it would seem. The more recent IP editors look fishy, in the last 100 edits or so. --- Possibly ☎ 05:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a number of registered SPAs in the edit history as well. I suspect a long-running thing. BD2412 T 05:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Standard Life

    Eugenia26 seems to be an account set up purely for promotional purposes. Eugenia26 has ignored multiple talk page messages. Statements repeatedly added by Eugenia26, in bold, include The Standard Life brand has a history of helping people to plan for their future that dates back to 1825. (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Has to be UPE, who writes edit summaries like "Standard Life current brand status"? --- Possibly ☎ 06:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dormskirk, If i add in the COI {{Connected contributor (paid)}} should only be used on talk pages. to the Standard Life profile as well as sufficient references will i be able to update the profile accordingly?

    World Council of Credit Unions

    User's account name implies a connection between the user and the article subject. The user inserted content copied from the WCCU's about page into the article. Seems like a single-purpose account. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:George Cervantes

    The originator of the article is a single-purpose account submitting a draft about George Cervantes, which was declined four times and then rejected. After rejection, the originator moved it to article space, and it was then moved back to draft space. The originator has been asked whether they have a conflict of interest, and was told not to edit the page again without answering the question. They resubmitted the draft again without answering. The most likely explanation is paid editing; other explanations are equally unpleasant. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have already explained that I am not getting paid to create this page. I attend the same church that Mr. Cervantes attends on Sundays and volunteer at the same animal organizations that he does as well. I work with the Humane Society in Los Angeles, California and have seen what Cervantes has done for the orgaization and other animal groups in the area. I was just simply creating a page for him. I do not intent on collect any form of form of payment or anything of that nature. I already said this on a different page, but maybe I wrote it on the wrong location. I am so sorry if I didn't make that clear from the begining, but like i said there is no financial gains to be made here. This is simply a page to display what Cervantes has done for the animal community right here in LA. Thank you! --Marcorubiocali (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marcorubiocali:, your close social/personal connection to the subject does create a conflict of interest even if you are not paid or in his employ. Regardless of this, however, multiple different reviewers have concluded that Cervantes does not meet general notability guidelines. Should circumstances change in the future, you are free to draft a new article provided you declare the COI. But by a change in circumstances, I do not mean finding yet another article about the same animal rescue efforts and celebrity matchmaking in all the other sources you had gathered. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for taking time to explain everything in detail. I will apply your tips on the next draft. Thank you! --Marcorubiocali (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The author did not apply any tips on the next draft, but simply created a new draft and then moved it to article space, and it has now been taken to AFD. Either the author isn't trying to pay attention to advice, or they are paying attention and ignoring it on purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GlenJohnHodgson

    Editor using username of famous musician, creating promo piece about himself on userpage. I reported at Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention and was told to bring it here. Equine-man (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no prohibition on people writing about themselves in their own sandbox; nor indeed on a CoI editor drafting an article outside mainspace and then requesting review by independent editors, as happened in this case, via AfC. That is what we ask CoI editors to do. Nothing for us to do here. I notice that the user's talk page is still a red link; you are required to notify anyone you mention here. Before reporting them here, you should have welcomed them and offered them advice on CoI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    No Labels

    This article for this US dark money political funding group appears to have one or more paid editors given the advertising tone of sections like 'notable achievements' and directly quoting press releases from the organisation, I can't work out from the edit summary who has been adding this promotional material. Are there any templates or anything else that could be done to both warn the reader and/or put it on a list for review? Thanks John Cummings (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I made some edits to reduce the promotional tone and improve NPOV. I did remove the UPE template, however, as without any specific claims of UPE, it doesn't belong.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    John Cummings—most of the promotional editing on the article is done by single-purpose accounts. See:
    The username pattern is obvious, and the accounts' actions clearly show that they are not genuine newcomers: Lynda22's, RedRobin95's, and Nat832's first edits were to place userboxes on their user pages, and in Special:Diff/1051876423 AbrahamLeib18 references WP:NPOV. Kleinpecan (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much Kleinpecan, is there any way to flag this to say it needs help? John Cummings (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the {{Promotional tone}} template, which the article already is marked with, probably not. Kleinpecan (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    William Templeton (screenwriter) ‎

    All of their edits appear to have violated WP:COI. Templeton authored an autobiography which they continue to edit (Christopher Templeton), they continually edit Manuel Salazar (artist) which they also authored and have a COI with, and now they are repeatedly removing COI maintenance templates on William Templeton (screenwriter) who is their father. They got their first COI warning back in 2012 but it appears to have had no effect. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    CoI has been declared, at least on William's article. Most of the recent edits there are adding citations to replace {{citation needed}} templates. (the replacements may not always be optimum, but WP:BITE explains how to deal with inexperienced users. this revert of one of Christopher's edits removed a valid citation, which should be restored. Christopher Templeton (the article) was created via AfC and Christopher Templeton (the user) has not touched it since 2019. The first discussion of potential CoI on the user's talk page was earlier today. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The reference you link to was to support the sentence "writing a string of episodic dramas for American prime time television during the 1950s and 1960s" and it does not such thing. Here is a COI warning from 2012 so today was not the first time he was approached about it. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies I missed the nine year old templated message. Given that the user has only ~300 edits over that time, it's not unereasonable if they've overlooked it in this decade, too. The BFI citation is a page listing "a string of episodic dramas for American prime time television during the 1950s and 1960s" with William as writer is it not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes there was a nine year old warning which illustrates that this person has been self-promoting and/or editing with a COI for almost a decade. And was aware of it. The BFI citation does not show "a string of episodic dramas" it shows a selected filmography of films and television films. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I did a major rewrite of the Manuel Salazar article, as it was wildly POV. The subject's notable not for his art, but because of his killing of a police officer (possibly self-defense), and the decade-long court battle that engendered. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Gabriel of Urantia

    This article is about a man who is a controversial cult leader. By reading the page you would think he is simply a musician. All edits I have made with added references have been reverted and deemed vandalism by the user Clear_insight. This user appears to have created this page and made nearly every contribution.

    Nothyself (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like you're adding unsourced defamatory claims in a WP:BLP. This source None of the sources that you added say anything about him being a cult leader. They make no mention of cults. Schazjmd (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Going back to last month, you were trying to cite an article in a minor local paper that does not state he is a cult leader nor does it say the group is a cult (although it tries to imply that it is). You need better sources than that to support adding that type of content to a WP:BLP. You should be discussing this on the article's talk page. You posted on the talk page that "Tons of substantiated information is available" so providing better refs should be possible. Schazjmd (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then again, you've got to be a little concerned about any entity that has a page on its website entitled Why We Are Not a Cult. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a COI warning to User talk:Clear insight as their account name and pattern of edits indicates that they may possibly have a conflict of interest with Gabriel of Urantia and Global Community Communications Alliance. Schazjmd (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked around and could not find anything directly saying GCCA/Gabriel of Urantia is a cult. There are a few sources that basically say they are "different". --- Possibly ☎ 01:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is a cult. I did a before on it. It seems to be a mechanism to attract students to their school and sell the book and the music. He was formerly called TaliasVan of Tora. States on his Medium page, that he is a spiritual leader. scope_creepTalk 15:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Johnathon Schaech

    User John Schaech has spent three days editing the wiki page for Johnathon Schaech to include various non-neutral phrases such as "one of Hollywood’s most handsome leading men" [15], and claiming to have "starred" in various movies that the actor in question could, at most, be considered a supporting cast member. [16] [17] Klohinxtalk 04:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Well for starters, this is a case of implied shared use and impersonation for WP:UAA to deal with. Then, in addition to conflict of interest and potentially undisclosed paid editing, there are some issues with ownership of content and assuming good faith if you see their post on Melcous's talk page.
    Their post also implied a years-long edit war exists on the article. I can see some single-purpose account activity in 2015 from the accounts BiancaPage, Wandaful, Ljulie.solomon and Petercardlinjr (the latter two are definite COI, as one can determine with a bit of searching), but the accounts are all stale. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor User:Justinbrewer1 just newly arrived (been here since 2017 but never really edited until this huge drop) and reverted the minor copyedit I did, adding the Amazon shop reference back in. scope_creepTalk 16:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)`[reply]

    User Scope Creep has violated Wikipedia guidelines by making personal attacks on me. He accused me of being a paid editor which I am not. He accused me of having a conflict of interest which I do not. The user appears to be obsessed with Mr. Schaech by trying to denigrate his resume by making editorial edits that -from what i see in the Wikipedia rules- violate the standards of being fair and accurate. He also seems to think that any correction of his edit is a direct assault on him rather than a correction of the record. NO attempt was made to reach out to me before these public and scurrilous allegations were made.


    Repeated edits appear to be vandalism by a user who seems to be obsessed with the subject. Edits that I made were based on fact. Justinbrewer1 (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you please, through direct quotation, provide evidence of edits made by scope creep that are in violation of Wikipedia standards, and explain exactly how such edits violate them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    actually I would ask the same of what was said about my edits. direct quotation would also be appreciated. Justinbrewer1 (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. But since you have been asked to provide the evidence first, perhaps you could start the process off by doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It's so typical of users with a conflict of interest to accuse experienced editors who push back against their promotional editing of being "obsessed" with "denigrating" the subject[18] and of editing out of "malice"[19] that I almost regard it as a "tell" or dead giveaway. As far as any relation between Justinbrewer1 and John Schaech, I have inquired of a CheckUser, who'll probably get to it tomorrow. Meanwhile, since the John Schaech account has acknowledged representing several people (it signs as "John Schaech's team" here), I have blocked it, as that is against Wikipedia's principles. An account may only represent one person. Bishonen | tålk 18:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

    Describing the Wikipedia article for Johnathon Schaech as the résumé for the subject sets off a few red flags. This edit while perhaps not inappropriate, seems to have been retaliatory. Let's take it a little bit slower. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree that taking things slower would be good on both ends of this. That however was not done every time other edits were made and then retaliatory revisions were made. I was publicly slammed with no attempt to discuss the edits with me. At least that is what it appeared to be. As for a use of a word like resume being a "red flag". These pages do reflect a person's life and career. That is what I meant. Nothing more. If that was offensive it was in no way my intention. Justinbrewer1 (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Straight out bullying and condescending . I DO know Schaech. the guidelines say that is allowed and not as you falsely claim at COI. Justinbrewer1 (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not bullying. it is indeed a red flag, one which you just now confirmed. You knowing the subject is, on the other hand, a conflict of interest per policy. Allegations that your are a paid editor may be false but it does not preclude a conflict. If you are seeking to de-escalate this, I think you are going about it the wrong way. --SVTCobra 01:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Justinbrewer1: thanks for confirming that you know Schaech. We just need to know if you are coordinating withhim to make edits, or how close that relationship is. In general we prefer that COI edits such as yourself (since you know him, you have a COI by our established standards) use the talk apge for requested edits and refrain from editing the page directly. Thanks in advance for explaining your relationship to Schaech. --- Possibly ☎ 03:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    David Oliver (magician)

    This user had edited this page since 2008, but it was only today after reversions earlier in the week that this user declared themselves as the subject of the article (disclosures made on both my Talk page in edit history and on the article's Talk page). I tried to speedy delete the page citing WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as now the subject wants his article deleted, but was met with opposition. At the moment, I am neutral on the subject's notability, but am appalled myself at where to go next in this matter. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I counted about ten good sources for the sex abuse allegations, which is presumably what he wants deleted. One source was Newsweek, so I do not think the article will be deleted any time soon. Regarding the balance of the sex abuse allegations section, that could be checked by an editor with experience in that area. Regarding the COI, we'll just revert him as it seems like he is not helping the wiki with his edits. --- Possibly ☎ 03:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1052053736"