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 110.227.234.16 (talk) at 04:35, 28 June 2022 (→‎Aniruddha Jatkar). 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:James F. Allen (businessman)
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Vishal Amin
    Talk:Anaxam
    Talk:Florence Ashley
    Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Bank of Greene County
    Talk:Bastion (agency)
    Talk:Benchmark Mineral Intelligence
    Talk:Bending Spoons
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Brookfield Properties
    Talk:Burford Capital
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Change Healthcare
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:Chime (company)
    Talk:Sujit Choudhry
    Talk:Citadel Securities
    Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square
    Talk:Slaid Cleaves
    Talk:CoBank
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol
    Talk:Danny Cohen (television executive)
    Talk:Community-engaged research
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:DISA (company)
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Ed Dodds
    Talk:Double Union
    Talk:Ecolego
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:EF Education First
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Farm Credit Bank of Texas
    Talk:Farm Credit Council
    Talk:Farm Credit of New Mexico
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Mark Felton
    Talk:Randy Fine
    Talk:Anne Finucane
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Bradley Fried
    Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:Judy Genshaft
    Talk:Geotab
    Talk:Kellie Gerardi
    Talk:GetYourGuide
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Holly Ham
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Heterodox Academy
    Talk:Eric Hippeau
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Industrious
    Talk:Infillion
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:International Churches of Christ
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Valerie Jarrett
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Michael Jones (entrepreneur)
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:King the Land
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Latvian ISBN Agency
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Dion Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Ronnie Liang
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:List of people from Darwin
    Talk:List of University of Queensland people
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:Media.Monks
    Talk:Metlifecare
    Talk:Christos Metskas
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MP Materials
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:List of New School people
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:David Nirenberg
    Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0
    Talk:Oasis Management
    Talk:Olivier Cornet Gallery
    Talk:OneHope
    Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:V Pappas
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Gregory Pence
    Talk:Pendragon (role-playing game)
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker)
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    Talk:Pure Storage
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Revel Transit
    Talk:Revolut
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Jay Ruderman
    Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist)
    Talk:Scandia (theme parks)
    Talk:Stephen Schlesinger
    Talk:Schott AG
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Milton Shedd
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Snowflake (software)
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SolidWorks
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:South Fort Myers High School
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:TaskUs
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Grey Knight
    Talk:The Peninsula Hotels
    Talk:The Red Sleeve
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Edward Trobaugh
    Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Up TV
    Talk:Veris Residential
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Terry Wahls
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Washington University Medical Center
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Xavier University
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Yelp
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Samir.hashisho

    Samer.hashisho just keeps resubmitting over and over drafts for companies that are owned by the same parent company. They've never responded to messages on their talk, including one asking them to disclose their clear paid contributor status. Never made a talk posting anywhere. valereee (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. The dairy article, that has been floating about for about two years in various forms. Now I recognise it. scope_creepTalk 14:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And also undisclosed WP:PAID. I'll leave them a warning about that just so it's on the record. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They are still editing while refusing to communicate. I've had enough... I've contacted paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org with the relevant on- and off-wiki evidence. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Samer.hashisho is now blocked for undisclosed paid editing, and all of their promotional edits have been deleted. Good report, Valereee. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Emil.stanev

    Another one, trying to create the same two articles from the same parent company. All the versions of La Crima Dairy that have been created so far need to be salted, IMO. Draft:LÀCRIMA DAIRY. valereee (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    SpaceX tourists

    Isaacman has contracted SpaceX for a vanity space tourism operation in which he is described as a "mission commander" and the occupants of the fully automated capsules are described as astronauts. I opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#Are space tourists astronauts? Are they flying "missions"? on how Wikipedia is describing this, I would appreciate if more editors chip in there. I am concerned by Xpenz's edits who has been adding the astronaut designation to these tourists for quite some time ([1], [2]).--StellarNerd (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not correct, all of these people you mentioned all received FAA Commercial Human Spaceflight Recognition wings, witch allows them the commercial astronaut title. However this ended in late 2021. And all none government employed people who reached space and orbit cannot be called commercial astronaut anymore. Axiom Mission 1 is a mission that took place after 2021 and none of these people are called commercial astronaut, I all labeled them as Space tourists. Same goes with Blue Origin NS-20 and Blue Origin NS-21 Xpenz (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @StellarNerd: What has this got to do with conflict of interest? Unless Xpenz is being paid by some of the space tourists or works for SpaceX, this isn't the right forum for discussing it. SmartSE (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The very promotional framing of these people and narrow focus on these people and company. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    AAR Corp

    This editor has repeatedly been instructed to comply with WP:COI and stop adding puffery and advertisements to the article, yet the editor continues to defy WP:COI. Earlier today, the editor literally added a video advertisement to the article.[3] The editor also appears to have added a radio advertisement about how wonderful it is to work at the company. The editor's behavior has been on-going for more than a year. Thenightaway (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Link to previous COIN discussion from April 2021: /Archive 171#AAR_Corp (again) --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Oxygen

    Over the last few years, a single editor has edited a large number (~60) of science articles to state as fact the controversial claims made in his (AGF; the user account identifies openly as the researcher in question) peer-reviewed published papers.

    Diff for the Oxygen article.

    Since these mostly concern the chemical properties of oxygen, I have attempted to discuss this with him on the Talk:Oxygen page, which links to a number of other venues in which discussion has happened.

    (I believed (and believe) these claims to constitute pseudoscience and a fringe theory, and to be "not even wrong". However, there is no consensus supporting my views in this matter on the WP:FTN. I would have preferred a simple resolution based on the fringe theory guidelines, which is why I hesitated to use WP:COIN.)

    Attempts at engaging with this author using the ordinary dispute resolution mechanism have come to an impasse: he insists on language that is unacceptable to me and does not address my concerns.

    I believe this is evident from his latest response: [4] (please note that I dispute his contention that recent edits were in keeping with any kind of consensus we have reached).

    An RfC on Talk:Oxygen has established that his claims are indeed, at best, controversial, with two strong statements of opposition to the inclusion of his claims. There was no discussion of these claims prior to inclusion that I am aware of. I feel that, at this point, WP:COIN involvement is no longer a "trump card" to prematurely end the dispute, but merely a method of arriving at the foregone conclusion a little sooner, and to conserve everyone's resources.

    As stated initially, this concerns a large number of articles. I'm willing to provide diff links or other documentation for the others, if it helps at all.

    Note that this does not concern the very good (IMHO) copyediting work done by this editor, his contributions to established science, or his prizes and achievements.

    On a more general note, I think it would make sense to clarify whether reporting COI editors to WP:COIN is a responsibility, a suggestion, or merely an option for editors who become aware of them. My understanding, and the reason I'm writing this, is that it is a strong suggestion.

    IpseCustos (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a pretty clear cut case - this paper is WP:FRINGE as is evident from only a cursory glance at the title and the fringe theory noticeboard agrees. It is problematic that Klaus Schmidt-Rohr has been adding it to numerous articles, even if it was done in good faith. Whilst it has been cited by other researchers, from looking through their titles, it doesn't appear as if the "Fundamental Corrections to Traditional Bioenergetics" have been accepted by the scientific community. It's currently cited 41 times all of which probably need removing. SmartSE (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a list at User:IpseCustos containing the above-mentioned ~60 articles (for the high-energy oxygen claim) and ~20 more citing the fringe papers. IpseCustos (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take it out, of the 41, starting now. scope_creepTalk 20:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done one by reversion, but looking at the rest seem to be custom work on each article. scope_creepTalk 20:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it okay if I tackle some of them, or would it be preferred for someone else to do this? If it's the former, is there a template for the edit summary that it would be advisable to use? IpseCustos (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, please go ahead. I did notice the paper was added to a lot of articles around mid-2020, so it is well embedded.Edit summary, I would put something like "Restore. Oxygen paper removed... WP:FRINGE Please see the Coin discussion". Some combo thereof would be good. scope_creepTalk 22:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep: Yeah I did a couple yesterday but they do take a while to work out what needs removing - no simple reverts AFAICT. @IpseCustos: Please do and you can use an edit summary like "rm WP:FRINGE / WP:REFSPAM - see Special:Diff/1093097666" - that's to my post above, but choose a different one if you like. SmartSE (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmartSE: That looks like a pro edit summary to me and ideal. Ignore mine. I had to withdraw when I saw the complexity of the embedding. It is really outside my knowledge domain unfortunately. Even the one I reverted was slight wrong so I'm better out of it, which has since been fixed by @IpseCustos:. A start has made, which is good. scope_creepTalk 13:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Sorry I'm only seeing this now, since I used a link to WP:COIN rather than a permalink to the diff.
    Anyway, I started removing the problematic claims and references, making sure not to mark my edits as minor.
    @Klaus Schmidt-Rohr: you have reverted at least one of these changes (just once) and asked others to weigh in here. I've stopped reverting these changes for now, but would like to resume doing so. It seems crystal clear to me that the original edits were in violation of Wikipedia policies and reverting them now is a legitimate course of action. Do you disagree? IpseCustos (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @IpseCustos: Can you please do the rest. scope_creepTalk 10:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, I think, as far as ref spamming is concerned. I'll have to do a few more searches to make sure I didn't miss any fringiness. Let me know if you see anything I've overlooked. IpseCustos (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or at least I thought I was done. More instances keep popping up. At some point it might make sense to go through Klaus Schmidt-Rohr's contributions directly rather than just searching Wikipedia for suspicious phrases, but I don't want to violate WP:HOUND. IpseCustos (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @IpseCustos: That doesn't apply here. Its not the correct context for it to apply. The paper must be removed. Its not scientific consensus. If you can find more instances, please remove them. And, thanks for doing the work. scope_creepTalk 22:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I went through the contributions. Things are fixed for now, but I may come back asking for help if and when the removals are reverted. Thank you both for your help! IpseCustos (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @IpseCustos: Thats coolio. Good work. Hopefully they are not reverted. If you see it, please revert and point them to this conversation. Great work. scope_creepTalk 15:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    West Ta East

    The unregistered editor states, in an edit summary, that they have watched the show on Youtube as a paid member. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Ta_East&type=revision&diff=1093134583&oldid=1093104073&diffmode=source This is a conflict of interest and should be declared, but the unregistered editor has not acknowledged a conflict of interest in response to the notice by User:Bonadea. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to this, the IP edits are extremely similar to previous edits (see here in particular) by Einstientesla, who identified themselves as being the copyright owner of an image sourced here to someone who would almost certainly have a COI. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a problem confined to West Ta East. There have been repeated efforts
    In addition to Einstientesla, an editor who has been heavily involved in promoting King is Positiveilluminati who has also edited as Godlypresence. There's also an editing overlap between Einstientesla and Positiveilluminati in Digangana Suryavanshi, where Positiveilluminati has a clear COI. Positiveilluminati and the IP listed above do some very similar things (MOS violating use of bold text, increasing image size in infoboxes, longish and rather uncivil edit summaries, garbled English in articles and elsewhere), so it's obvious to me that they are the same user, and that they are hired to market Ramiz King on Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 14:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not true, I have nothing to do with what you’re saying and you’re hiding away from the point I mate about why would you remove such a credible and the most current article from
    ABC, on what basis when that explains the entire concept, I agree I may not be as experienced as you but I do not write falsehood, I take accountability for my err I’m in writing in a promotional tone but the premise of the show I have only stated it as per ad what ABC news reported it as which you’re hiding or removing repeatedly. Why? For instance even if I was from Ramiz King team which I am not does it still give you the right to take vengeance and remove credible sources and write your own personal v understanding ? Positiveilluminati (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you’re so very right then allow another party of editors to do an analysis on the source which you removed which was the parent source to the one additional source and then you can undo the edit if they too deem that the ABC news is spreading falsehood. Your current doing is basically implying ABC AUSTRALIA is incorrect in their reporting and spreads falsehood. Positiveilluminati (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing to do with the allegations you’re putting on me all I’m asking on what basis you removed ABC Australia article when it’s an australia commissioned show and they personally interviewed them and why are you removing the premise of the show I wrote aw per aw the source? Forgive me for the promotional tone but the premise is what I fight for, it is misleading what you’re writing. Positiveilluminati (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actual sequence of events: between 23:27 last night and 11:01 this morning (UTC), you made multiple edits (logged in and logged out – please make sure that you are logged in to this account when you edit Wikipedia), which were problematic for many reasons including violations of the Manual of Style, nearly incomprehensible phrasing, inappropriate image size changes, and promotional style. You also made multiple personal attacks in the edit summaries. Somwehere in there, you added the source from abc.net.au, which hadn't been in the article previously, though it looks like you thought it was. Since the changes overall were disruptive and completely ignored the talk page discussion, I reverted them in one fell swoop at 12:49 (UTC). You restored most of them at 13:40, and instead of reverting you again, I copyedited the content, fixed the formatting, and did some other necessary edits, publishing that version at 13:57. The abc.net.au source was not removed (well, I added another copy of it by mistake, so I removed the duplicate). Your posts above are from 14:17, 14:21, and 14:27, so you are registering a complaint about something that had already been fixed. This is not the point of the discussion, however. The point is that there is a coordinated effort to promote Ramiz King on Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 15:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    To my justice, yes IP address can be similar I never denied a connection with them But it’s only because we are using the same wifi network I think? And there’s a group of people who don’t promote Ramiz King Biasedlu only but all our favourite mtv stars or Bigg boss people hence our edits on the selected individual and fighting for our friends like emiway bantai and as a fan of PRATIK sehajpal we are on the drive to let the biased behaviour be diminished in Wikipedia which some participate and also during this journey we’ve discovered afghan media is in need of help as they don’t have facility like we all do and Wikipedia should consider that and the editors. Einstientesla (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Immanuel’s High School Trinidad and Tobago

    MER-C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who typically does an excellent job with quarantining horribly written promotional pieces, not only draftified Draft:Immanuel’s High School Trinidad and Tobago but also tagged the draft as undisclosed paid and even blocked the editor. The strange thing is that nothing about this draft or the page creator (who is now blocked) looks spammy or promotional. Usually we can easily tell apart undisclosed paid editing with all those perfectly formatted new articles about so-called serial entrepreneurs and financial startups created by SPAs, but I am very surprised that a school like this could be undisclosed paid-for spam.

    I have asked @MER-C: at User talk:MER-C#High school article, and he replied, "It's a private school which felt the need to promote itself in those references." To me, this is not enough of a justification. The presence of 3-4 cheap paid "fake news" or PR sites does not necessarily mean that the Wikipedia draft itself is necessarily paid-for spam, since it could be equally, if not more, possible that a random student or teacher at the school had created an inadequately referenced draft and had gotten those references from Google searches. We can tag it as not having enough references or not meeting WP:NSCHOOL, but why the block and undisclosed paid tag without any explanation to the community whatsoever? MER-C does not like to spill the beans, which is something you can't do all the time when dealing with spammers, but doing this to a school stub, which I see as being more similar to geographical location stubs, should require some plausible explanations.

    In any case, I'm just a random uninvolved lurker who is wondering why this could happen. I could care less about this school itself, but what concerns me is that does this mean that any random amateur editor could potentially get blocked and have his content deleted or draftified simply for accidentally using the wrong sources from Google while creating a stub about a random neighborhood school? Also, I'm not accusing MER-C of doing this, but this could theoretically happen if something had happened off-wiki between the admin and the page creator or the subject of the article, or in other words, "the tip of the iceberg" of some kind of off-wiki drama. Skokesquak (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The sources in that draft are really weak, half the content is an uncited list of past principals and "notable" students none of whom are blue links, and you are the only WP:SPA in the conversation. You've come here to announce your own CoI? In the bad old days this would be enough for a CU check. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skokesquak: So you're a "random, uninvolved lurker" who just happened to stumble across the existence of this article/draft? And you seem to be keenly aware of MER-C's excellent track record and reputation, and Wikipedia nomenclature... despite your account being only two days old, and having no edits other than to MER-C's talk page and this one? Maybe you were an IP editor with a more extensive edit history and experience, but it's impossible for us to know if that's true. Anyway, this seems like a pretty spurious accusation to me, and attempt to create drama where none exists. This has the scent of either WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:DUCK on this one is off the Quack-O-Meter. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the OP is a sock. I do not know. I am curious about how MER-C concluded that a school that closed down 50 years ago felt the need to promote itself in those references. How could this defunct school pay anyone to write a Wikipedia article? That simply does not add up. Cullen328 (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I recognise that article as been on Wikipedia before, under a slightly different name. Looking at, it's not the school itself, it is the list of names that are important. Somebody on that list, wants to be on Wikipedia but doesn't have an article, that is why the list is so prominently displayed. scope_creepTalk 23:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That someone paid for those "articles" used as "references" too. MER-C 03:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well they are dated as brand new. There is many digitial agencies that would creates these these types of articles, for not a lot of money, anywhere. They are not articles in the true sense, nor PR or clickbait. These seem to be these types of non-articles that are seo orientated, essentially a framework article, to drive to traffic to the site and promote the site in Google. It black-hat seo but it is also bog standard digital advertising now. They are intellectually empty. One of them is a press-release from Comtex an aggregation site. They collect them and run analytics and ml on them, to extract business intelligence. I wouldn't be suprised if these articles were just created for a few hundred quid, last week. scope_creepTalk 08:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to WP:AN. Skokesquak (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless of who is asking, this is a legitimate question as Cullen328 has pointed out. You can do whatever you want with a CU or SPI, but I don't care because that's not the point.

    This school shut down 50 years. There were four references and they weren't very good. Typically the proper administrative procedure is this: Draftify, warn, remove references. But for this school, there was no explanation whatsoever about why creating a stub about a defunct school warranted a block. This could spook other good-faith users who are creating minimally referenced stubs about defunct schools.

    Question:

    • Why this article in particular? There are perhaps dozens of stubs about defunct schools popping up every week, often with poor referencing. Why is this particular school subject to such unusually harsh measures?

    Skokesquak (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Skokesquak: lol. This reminds me of the time someone accused me/ Wikipedia of favoring some boating manufacturers over others; as if. When the community points to facts indicative of nefarious purposes and the first thing you do is side-step the question, then you are almost certainly guilty. Please tell us who your client is. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked already. Quick work by @Bbb23:. Good on you. scope_creepTalk 21:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Walker Corporation and Hattie124

    Hattie124 is a user who is, by their own admission, an employee of Walker Corporation and is trying to bring the article up to date. The problem is that their definition of "up-to-date" includes extensive lists of projects, an issue that plagues the article even without his edits, and while I am sympathetic to some of their goals they've gone about it in a less-than-ideal way, making the article somewhat worse on the promotion-by-overdetail front than it already is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Jeske Couriano. I appreciate you taking the time to provide feedback. Could you please expand on what the specific issues are so that I can fix them. The extensive list of projects are factually correct as they are all Walker Corporation projects - therefore, could you please explain why this would plague the article as it is factually correct and the alternative you suggest? Additionally, when you state "gone about it in a less-than-ideal way", could you please advise the better way to approach this? I have attempted speaking to Wikipedia help chats to try and improve the page and ensure we are abiding by all guides, however, I am not getting any responses - so it would be really beneficial if you could please guide me in the right direction. Thank you. Hattie124 (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The main issue is promotion by overdetail, with a secondary one being disclosure. With respect to the former, we're not interested in exhaustive lists of everything a subject has ever done - only the most relevant/important work, as determined by press coverage of those projects. I actually did respond to you, albeit belatedly, both times you were in -en-help to try and raise the issues and discuss them. For the latter, you need to disclose your employment on your userpage, not on the article proper.
    The best way to go about getting changes made is to request edits be made on the article talk page given your conflict-of-interest, not to make the edits yourself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Jeske, thank you for your reply. I will do the above you have suggested. In regards to the messages you sent me, where can I find these? As I have checked my inbox and cannot see anything? Thank you. Hattie124 (talk) 07:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Cassava Sciences

    This company has been accused of falsifying some data about their Alzheimer's drug which is currently being trialed. It's been pointed out on twitter that 71.41.248.226 is registered to Cassava Sciences (under their previous name of Pain Therapeutics Inc) and they have been making dubious edits to Simufilam and to Lindsay Burns, a Senior Vice Principal of the company, without disclosing their COI even after being warned about the need to a month ago. There are also a lot of similar edits by this IP range. Both articles could do with more experienced eyes to check that they are neutral, verifiable and also compliant with biographical and medical sourcing requirements. SmartSE (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    What a coincidence--there has been a section added June 14th on Cassava by a new editor in the The Journal of Neuroscience article which Tryptofish and I have flagged as of undue weight. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. I don't have much to add about the J. Neurosci. page, except that it strikes me that the editing was done by a new editor whose only contributions so far have been to the Journal page and the Cassava Sciences page, and the edits have had a strongly anti-Cassava POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tryptofish and Mark viking: Yes there are definitely some SPAs on the other side as well. I've removed that section as I agree it was undue. SmartSE (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like it'd be worth taking several of these pages to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. A month of semi-protection, maybe? Or is there some particular day (e.g., planned IPO, expected regulatory announcements?) that anyone could suggest? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeanie Roland and her restaurants

    Jeanie Roland and the articles for her restaurants The Perfect Caper and Ella’s Fine Food and Drink were all created recently by three different new accounts. This is clearly not only undisclosed paid editing but also clearly attempts at hiding that fact. valereee (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    valereee, handled (was alerted to this by someone else) - everyone here is  Confirmed to one another and to known Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bodiadub accounts. I've done a whole bunch of G5ing, and the two articles up for AfD are also G5-eligible (but I prefer not to G5 when there's an ongoing AfD). GeneralNotability (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, interesting, GN, thanks! Duh, I hadn't even thought about the fact it was also obvious socking. valereee (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @GeneralNotability: found a couple more socks:

    See Draft:Avery Andon (art dealer), c:File:Avery in 2020.jpg, Draft:Laurent Tourondel, File:Laurent mugshot.png. MER-C 02:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @MER-C: Another SPA - Pricetagg - came up in the edit history of Draft:Avery Andon (art dealer) before I nom'd it for G5. I wonder if it's another sock of Bodiadub. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    GeneralNotability these also look pretty suspicious to me:

    If it turns out they're connected, it would be nice to just be able to speedy. valereee (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    valereee, nope, no connection I can see on those two. MER-C, Drm310, good spots - NFTLoved, DrinkingWater47, and Pricetagg are all  Confirmed to each other and this latest batch. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Lil Smoky

    User claims to be an amateur rapper, is posting blatantly promotional stuff on their user page, user talk page, and their draft at Draft:Lil Smoky which has been nominated for deletion. He has also promoted himself in mainspace articles such as [10] and [11]. (Redacted)... (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 00:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    How to Edit your Law Firm’s Wikipedia Page: 3 Golden Rules

    For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a topic in which I have some interest--and I clicked with trepidation. I was happy to see the advice given is actually pretty good! Will wonders never cease? Dumuzid (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not bad at all. I bet they edit regularly. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was pretty non-dark-arts, wasn't it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    She has an exaggerated idea, though, of how much we give a darn that a firm represents a particular client. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Singapore FinTech Festival

    Two accounts closely linked to the FinTech scene in Singapore. Kwansss is a WP:SPA to the Singapore FinTech Festival, by which they made all their edits on a single day in 2020 and went stale. The article was created by Eesan1969. Sopnendu Mohanty is a "fintech professional" closely linked to STF, an article also created by Eesan1969. Multiple users or IPs over time (1, 2, 3, 4, etc), who had placed tags of paid or promotional editing in these articles has resulted in constant defensive removals including making threats to they will "report at ANI next time" by the same user who made these articles, Eesan1969. Also note that the photo on the Sopnendu Mohanty article was uploaded by Eesan1969 themselves, including as being the copyright holder. In fact they did this today, after the previous image which was uploaded by an account that only uploaded that very image, was tagged as a copyright violation. Also, all of Eesan1969's uploads on the Wikimedia Commons is connected to the STF, with photos taken by them at the event. 119.202.99.133 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not based in Singapore. I am part of a fintech society and attended Singapore FinTech Festival in 2018, that's all my connection with Singapore FinTech Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Sopnendu Mohanty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and other. My real world identy is known by Wikimedia Commons Administrators. Kwansss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a few other accounts belong to my colleagues from the socity and created experimentaly with my assistance. I started to contribute Wikipedia much earlier.Eesan1969 (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Frank E. Holmes

    The article Frank E. Holmes contains multiple edits from the same three users indicating a potential wp:COI. A user interaction analysis reveals very close overlap in edits for Jguyer, Jetsflyhigh and user:Badgerta. See: https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Jetsflyhigh&users=Jguyer&users=Badgerta&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki) The article itself seems extremely self-promotional. Volcom95 (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Volcom95, Looks like an AfD candidate. I'm not seeing anything to establish notability in a quick glance at the sources. Toss in Promo and COI and got something better left off the encyclopedia. Slywriter (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my first impression but I didn't want to be too aggresive. Are you going to AfD or should I? Volcom95 (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whichever you like. Twinkle makes it relatively painless for me, so if you have to do it manually, Ill happily save you the time. Slywriter (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Diff/1012328352 is when it got hijacked by COI/PR team. Pretty sure this is yet another Cryptocurrency PR job. Trying to figure out if he is notable based on the older version and some WP:BEFORE. Article is 12 years old. Slywriter (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BEFORE leans towards better than 50% chance of establishing notability. There is the NYT in current article which discusses in-depth, though admittedly in context of company and other potentially good sources in the previous version. Not sure if a revert to the pre-COI version would be best, but suspect AfD will not be the best place to clean this up the more I dig. I'll look more in the morning, if others haven't by then Slywriter (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Tracy Bartram

    The standard COI--largely unsourced puff. Article badly needs paring and sources to be acceptable. 2601:188:180:B8E0:E88A:3DEE:416D:8F23 (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Crystal Head Vodka

    SPA keeps re-adding long unsourced list of awards. No response to COI notice on their TP. MB 21:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    2022 pageantry UPE

    blocked editors in sandbox page history
    pages indexed in sandbox

    I suspect that there is a bunch of UPE going on around pageantry articles again. See COIN archive 164 for historical context.

    We have one editor blocked recently as a sock of an LTA. I admit it's hard to tell who's a fan and who's UPE. Intercontinental coordinated editing that seems to promote the pageants, though, says something.

    Inviting other COINers to consider the purpose of User:Missgluegurl/sandbox. I've brought this up at Bbb23's talkpage as a SPI-related issue but without these UPE-related concerns. Why the spike in pageviews around 5/30? Why the random set of users editing there? Why the index- and template-like contents? I'll reserve my tentative conclusion (call it an educated guess) until other people chime in. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Aniruddha Jatkar

    Unfortunately, this is a repeat of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_190#Aniruddha Jatkar from just two weeks ago. It seems be re-occurring. Cheers, SVTCobra 01:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    See my recent edits and edit summaries on this article. This user been insincere about this complaint as seen last time.[12] Whether this is a case of COI or not is not clear but the user is surely WP:NOTHERE. 110.227.234.16 (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1095400594"