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 84.70.167.121 (talk) at 09:39, 17 July 2022 (→‎Autopatrolled abuse by Fritzmann2002: new section). 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
    Draft talk:Abdulla Al Nuaimi
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Monica Behan
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Shmuley Boteach
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Michael Calvey
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Vincenzo de Cotiis
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Eric Gallager
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Global Citizen Awards
    Talk:Global Strategy Group
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Greystar
    Talk:Harsco
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Illa del Rei
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Jats
    Talk:Christian Kälin
    Talk:Elham Kashefi
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Lucy Komisar
    Talk:Lally School of Management
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Ranker
    Talk:Reworld
    Talk:Rivulis
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Steve Tappin
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Martha G. Welch
    Talk:Yahoo Finance
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    User:Big Ayeh


    Connection can be proven on Commons: commons:File:Paa Kwasi (Artist).jpg#Summary. There was a VRT ticket confirming their permission to upload to commons. More at User talk:Big Ayeh#June 2022. They should ideally be page blocked. 0xDeadbeef 02:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice that the user's YouTube link goes to BigAyehMedia, which houses Official Videos for Dobble and Paa Kwasi. If the person is not associated with these musical acts, they need to change their username here, but it's likely they are associated, given how long they've been constantly editing on these pages and their own user page to promote their artist. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User was blocked for promotional editing and username violation. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Jon Entine

    The account seems to have tacitly admitted that they are the subject, but has not been explicit about it. Orange Mike | Talk 16:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Orangemike: The edit summary in this edit is a pretty clear disclosure of their identity. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really sure what the specific issue is here? Those of us that edit the actual BLP have been aware of this for some time based on previous talk discussions and generally have handling any egregious promotional edits that came from them. Most of the time it's just been run of the mill BLP subject wanting to add material and tension with Wikipedia standards. They made a few minor edits to their BLP recently that were rejected (some rightly so), but that's about it, and it's been extremely quiet just prior to yesterday. I'd suggest using the article talk pages for minor things like this rather than jumping to a noticeboard. KoA (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Otrium

    This account seems to be created a a large number of spammy articles on private businesses. Over the last few couple of years, a good number have been deleted, csd'd, drafted, images deleted by commons and so on. 7 out of 26 have been deleted and many of the remaining ones look like brochure articles. I reviewed one of their articles, Otrium, it went to Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otrium and was deleted.The account went off the deep end during the Afd, and opened a spurious Ani notice: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Scope Creep: revenge and disruptive editing part 2. Several weird things came to light including, rapid article output. I asked whether they were being paid, and they said no. More eyes are needed. scope_creepTalk 15:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Retaliatory filing for an ANI report I filed highlighting abusive behavior from a seemingly experienced editor. Detailed response is given at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Scope_Creep:_revenge_and_disruptive_editing_part_2. This is an exaggerated report. One article I wrote was just deleted, but that's the first in 6 years. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Ventures was also recently deleted, but I didn't write it. As I explained in the deletion discussion, I just improved it and moved it to mainspace, until it was wrecked by insiders. Logo deletion activity on talk pages is common when they are replaced with a new version. Nothing I wrote has ever been draftified. This report simply substantiates what I reported at ANI. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • With Otrium deleted, my comment about recent additions to the article in the Otrium AfD is less clear because I did not identify which editor made the additions - to clarify, the diffs point to additions by TechnoTalk. Other contributions by TechnoTalk are also discussed in the Contentsquare AfD and the Cambrian Biopharma AfD. As a general matter, I think it can take some time to learn how to identify promotional sources, and TechnoTalk's conduct in these AfDs may indicate some assistance is needed. Beccaynr (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beccaynr: I'm always trying to learn. I spend a lot of time at the AfC help desk helping other editors with poorly-sourced articles. As far as I know, none of the publications I used as sources are flagged as problematic on the reliable sources board, and indeed they are used in many articles, without drama. I'm unclear how I'm supposed to know to not include them just because another editor doesn't like them. If someone doesn't like the sourcing, wouldn't it be better to try to get them blocked or declared unreliable so this issue doesn't keep coming up again. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    TechnoTalk, the issue isn't always the source itself but the specific content of the article. A source can have useful articles mixed with churnalism, advertorials and routine transactional information that do not indicate notability. After awhile you will get a feel for what's a press release even if it has a byline. If nothing else, avoid using any sources that discuss funding rounds as they are consistently dismissed by the community as not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Slywriter (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beccaynr: Thanks for clarifying. I've seen some discussion about funding rounds where they distinguish unicorn funding from routine everyday funding. We have a unicorn (finance) article and List of unicorn startup companies suggesting that not all funding rounds are treated the same by Wikipedia. But I'll avoid them as much as I can. And LoanDepot listed above is now public anyway. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    TechnoTalk, that was Slywriter, not me - my reply is below. As to the potential for unicorn funding to be distinguished, the WP:CORPDEPTH guideline seems to already accommodate this, because a reliable source discussing the significance of unicorn funding could also provide an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization, that per WP:ORGIND, includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject, and then it could support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SIRS encapsulates that point and it holds true regardless of whether it is related to "unicorn" coverage. The issue I'm seeing is Techno not listening/understanding/accepting their opinion that unicorn funding rounds make the topic company notable and announcements mentioning this fact must be acceptable for establishing notability despite being told multiple times by multiple editors this is not the case. Techno is still pushing sources that are clearly based entirely on promotion/announcement/PR. I can understand Techno's dismay at seeing articles he created being at AfD, those articles having been nominated by SC. But it isn't SC that decides at AfD, it is up to the community and the closing admin who reach a consensus. I can understand why he believed he was justified in filing a complaint at AN/I but again, Techno isn't listening to what is being said by *others* at AfD and AN/I. Others have now said to him that he isn't "reading the room" and in danger of WP:BOOMERANG. It shouldn't happen this time but I'm less positive if Techno continues in the same manner. HighKing++ 11:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC) (edited for clarity)[reply]
    TechnoTalk, in the Otrium AfD, HighKing commented, "there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability" before an extensive analysis of applicable guidelines and sources [1]. I quoted part of WP:ORGCRIT in the Contentsquare AfD [2] and Cambrian Biopharma AfD [3], specifically The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. These are established policies and guidelines designed to protect the encyclopedia. I agree with how Slywriter describes the general landscape, and I think this helps explain why only focusing on whether a source is reliable is not enough, because we need sources that are reliable and independent to build an article. The guidelines for independence are detailed for organizations and companies, and this helps determine whether there is sufficient sourcing to overcome the second prong of W:N, i.e. whether the article should be excluded per the What Wikipedia is Not policy, including WP:PROMOTION. Beccaynr (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Special:Permalink/1051303009 - Potentially useful RfC that got archived without being closed but discusses Unicorn funding rounds and notability. Not sure whether I should (or is even proper to) drag it out of archive for a proper close. Though TechnoTalk, it may be a useful starting point if you wish to pursue a fuller community discussion at the proper notability page. Slywriter (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is likely that there is no COI and that Techno was over-enthusiastic instead without a firm understanding of our notability guidelines. HighKing++ 14:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Coincidentally I just stumbled across FabFitFun, which is so spammy I was surprised to discover it had just survived an AfD, so I did a source assessment, which is at Talk:FabFitFun#Assessing sources. It's not pretty. I went to TechnoTalk's talk to discuss and found this COIN. I am pretty concerned about the article creations by this editor. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but if this editor doesn't have some sort of COI with all of these companies, they need to start using AfC for a while to help them learn what is and isn't a usable source for supporting notability. valereee (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: That is excellent wee table you have made there. Mighty handy. scope_creepTalk 18:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep, there's a handy wee script called SA Table Generator. Lets you define number of rows and just fill in. valereee (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for the feedback everyone. I'm going to take the suggestions to heart. I'll look at AfC. I've never used it myself, but see a lot of rejection frustration coming from it. Looking at Valereee's sourcing table, I still disagree that coverage based on press releases shouldn't be used to source articles, or specifically to show notability. It's more nuanced than that. A press release is how companies alert the media that there's something noteworthy happening, and the media can decide to cover it or not. The vast majority of press releases immediately disappear, only to exist on the company's "In the news" page. The reliable sources noticeboard should be our bible for sourcing, not whether we think a piece is based on a press release or not. Otherwise it's the same discussion rehashed over and over again. As discussed above, I also disagree about the general disqualification of funding news. That also seems to be a popular one accompanying delete votes in deletion discussions. Some funding announcements are major, especially if the company gets unicorn valuation as a result. Such announcements should be considered on a case by case basis, rather than dismissed outright. I wish there were more people in these discussions who actively contribute business articles, but I can understand their shyness after seeing where my efforts have gotten me. Thanks for that permalink Slywriter. That looks like the one I read, but I couldn't find it. I'll see if I can rekindle interest and get a definitive consensus on the funding and press release subjects. If I can, that will effect not only my article creation efforts but the advice I give at the AfC help desk. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @TechnoTalk, you wrote: I still disagree that coverage based on press releases shouldn't be used to source articles, or specifically to show notability. It's more nuanced than that. It's really not. Press releases are not independent, period. Full stop. They represent what the company is saying about itself.
      This is why we are telling you that you do not understand sourcing and notability. This is why your articles are getting AfD'd by editors with 50x the experience you have. You need to start listening to what more-experienced editors are saying to you about WP policy, especially those surrounding sourcing and notability. It's an absolute necessity that you stop arguing that you, a relatively inexperienced editor, must be right and multiple experienced editors must be wrong. You are noobsplaining here. valereee (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Valereee and now, despite admitting their lack of knowledge, they are responding to every question at the help desk (and bad advice, at that)...so @TechnoTalk you have to pick one. Either you're experienced enough to know better, or you aren't and shouldn't be engaging in areas you don't know what you're talking about, especially with regard to sourcing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Praxidicae, Valereee I agree that TechnoTalk has displayed a general ignorance here and at AFD about our policies and guidelines when it comes to sourcing and notability. The requirements for editing at the help desk include "a demonstrated understanding of the policies and guidelines mentioned in the reviewing instructions, including the various notability guidelines" and "reasonable evidence of understanding the deletion policy (experience in areas such as CSD/AfD/PROD or page curation, while not mandatory, are beneficial)". I think we have clear evidence that neither of these criteria have been met by TechnoTalk, based on the content of the articles he has created, his comments in this discussion, and his comments at the AFDs of his articles. As such perhaps a ban from assisting at the help desk is warranted and a requirement that he use the AFC process for his article creation until he has demonstrated an understanding of those policies.4meter4 (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Praxidicae: Where did I admit a lack of knowledge? Are you saying that because I just said I never used AfC to create an article? If that's what you mean, that's a bit unfair. It's like saying I have a lack of knowledge if I didn't do the Wikipedia Adventure. I've made 202 edits to help novice article creators at the AfC help desk. Please show me the bad advice you are referring to that 4meter4 feels is grounds for me being banned from volunteering there. If it's so bad that I can't be trusted to give advice, I'll step away and find another place to contribute. TechnoTalk (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Valereee: I agree with you 100% that press releases are unsuitable. No debate. Please don't take my clarification as noobsplaining. What I was talking about is coverage based on a press release, in a reliable source. That's how a lot of news stories get started. I read Wikipedia:Independent sources#Press releases and it says Many less reputable news sources will write an article based almost exclusively on a press release, making only minor modifications. When using news sources whose editorial integrity you are uncertain of, and an article reads like a press release, it is crucial to check to see that the source is not simply recycling a press release (a practice called "churnalism"). Sometimes, but not always, it is possible to locate the original press release used to generate the article. If that's what you're referring to, then by all means I agree that we should exclude lazy cut and pastes of press releases, especially if there's no author in the byline, just "staff". I often reject possible sources when I see the telltale fawning tone, and have accordingly excluded many cut and pastes from my sourcing. I also exclude syndicated content, which the policy doesn't seem to mention, but is essentially the same as churnalism. I think where our disagreement comes from is with how much independent reporting and interviewing we require be added to content derived from a press release before it can stand on its own as a decent source. When you flag my sources as pr-based, it helps me understand your concerns and hone my radar. So thank you. Peace. TechnoTalk (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      By you saying you didn't understand the nuance between promotional material, press releases and sourcing. You either do, or you don't. You either have the experience to determine what is appropriate or you don't and if you do, as you imply by your posts to the help desk, I can't help but think this is all an act to get away with some covert WP:ADMASQ PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @TechnoTalk, multiple (I always find three before deciding to move to mainspace) instances of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is what's required to prove notability.
      You said how much independent reporting and interviewing we require be added to content derived from a press release; interviews also do not count toward proving notability. Just like press releases, interviews tell us what the company is saying about themselves. We. Don't. Care. And anything that's simply being added to content derived from a press release is not going to help. We need an original story, completely independently written from any contents in a press release. A reporter writing such a story might include a tiny amount of info from the press release to fill in their article -- maybe they use "according to company sources revenues were $300M last year" -- but most experienced editors wouldn't include that in the WP article. Unless what is in the PR is completely noncontroversial, such as date of founding or how many retail stores, we don't use it. I am starting to feel a little frustrated, here. valereee (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Praxidicae: An instance of bad advice I've given please. I was going to ping the other prolific editors there but don't think I need to drag them into this. You can instantly end my help desk efforts with a good example of my unworthiness, if you can please provide one. I linked to my contribution history above. And @Valereee: thanks for the clarification. Rest assured that I'm not going to keep beating the PR issue here, since I'm feeling under attack and am also frustrated, and am trying to be nice to deescalate. This is supposed to be fun. TechnoTalk (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You missed the point. How is it that you think you are qualified to assess sources for an article to help someone else, when in this very thread you repeatedly claim that you could not properly assess the sources and in fact asked others to explain it to you? I can actually provide diffs though: diff at least 2 of those sources are blatantly unreliable, blackhat SEO. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Praxidicae: The diff you posted was me showing two sources that I found, to show that I had tried to find some, and I said they were not suitable. The article was already rejected. Your point then is? Better examples or WP:DROPTHESTICK. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I've made my point - you cannot claim you don't understand sourcing and create wholly promotional articles under the guise of it being a mistake while simultaneously thinking you're competent enough to assist others with their sourcing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TechnoTalk, absolutely. It's supposed to be a fun hobby. And it can be, if you educate yourself and listen to others. The reason this became unfun is that you tried to create articles before you understood notability, and then you refused to listen. Creating articles is hard, and there is a very steep learning curve. There are many things you need to know, but the most important, the absolutely most crucial of those, is notability. Creating articles before you understand notability is a bit like deciding you're going to jump off a cliff and hope you sprout wings on the way down. valereee (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think it would be a good idea if the editors new article creations when through Afc. That is a standard approach for this situation, re:Florida Army. Would that need a ANI discussion? How would I get consensus for that? scope_creepTalk 17:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      My hope is that the discussion here, at the recent AfDs, and the AN/I thread can help clarify the importance of avoiding promotion and advertising, e.g. the use of non-independent corpspam sources. In the Orgain AfD, TechnoTalk made a recent comment [4] that increases my concern over whether they are WP:NOTGETTINGIT despite their stated intention at the AN/I thread [5] to improve their sourcing. However, I agree with HighKing's assessment above about a WP:BOOMERANG and hope there has been sufficiently clear communication, including the offer for further discussion about sources [6] from Girth Summit, that will help prevent disruption in the future without a further need for action at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. It is disruptive to continue NOTGETTINGIT when so many different editors have tried to explain and assist. HighKing++ 20:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think they are getting it either. There has been several attempts by different editors to explain it. The next article will be the tell. If it's covered in promo and dodgy sources, it will be the door. scope_creepTalk 20:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I reviewed the loanDepot article and added a section titled "Litigation" because there have been four lawsuits filed against the company since 2020, including two class actions. I was also able to use an in-depth New York Times source to expand the article and made some other edits for promotional tone and to update basic information. Beccaynr (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sagar Wahi

    Sagar Wahi is a long term spam targe for paid/coi editors and there doesn't appear to be any change with the new iteration. Shruti Bera originally disclosed incorrectly on their userpage and now is claiming they "made a mistake" when they said they were paid. This is pretty transparent and like the rest of the spammers before them, they refuse to adequately disclose and thus should be blocked. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Asheema Vardaan does not appear to have been ready to move from draft to mainspace. --SVTCobra 21:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    And it was moved in less than an hour after Praxidicae questioned the editor. --SVTCobra 23:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's at AfD now where a couple of us have called for deletion and WP:SALTing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But what about Asheema Vardaan? It's barely two sentences. SVTCobra 16:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Brandon Friedman

    There's been what looks to me like serial UPE at this article going back to its creation, and I tagged it. Editor Nmd1978, who recently created an article for Friedman's business Rakkasan Tea Company, came in and untagged it. I retagged and opened a discussion at Talk:Brandon Friedman. Nmd1978, who is new enough to perhaps not realize that's where they should have gone next, instead removed the tag again. I pinged them again to the talk, and we've been discussing, but they're quite insistent that the article not be tagged. I thought another set of eyes might be helpful. valereee (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Valereee, I initially added COI tag but after doing cleanup, removed it since whatever damage COIs have done is currently not in the article. Guess time will tell if a COI editor is still lingering. Slywriter (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slywriter, happy to leave it off with the edits you made. I do think that with the history of what to me looks like serial UPE editing, we need to keep an eye on this article. There'll be another along in a bit. valereee (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added to my watchlist. Will review the book article later, it has issues as well. Slywriter (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    oooh, hadn't even looked at the book article. :D valereee (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Alfred University

    This editor has acknowledged being an employee of the university paid to edit its Wikipedia article but refuses to communicate in any way and continues to edit the article in problematic (WP:POV, WP:UNIGUIDE, etc.) ways. ElKevbo (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've put it on my watch list, if only because I was encouraged to attend this institution many years ago (though I did not do so!). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Operation Atalanta

    The article Operation Atalanta appears to have been subjected to long-term editing by the organization's public affairs office (see two blocked accounts above). I haven't had the opportunity to sift through their additions, but there appears to be a lot of WP:PRIMARY source material, a lot of which I will guess isn't suitable. If anyone else is able to evaluate and pare back irrelevant content, it would be appreciated. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    TerraCycle

    The TerraCycle article has been the subject of a number of edits whose sole focus seem to be deleting critical content or hiding it in other sections (which frequently are unrelated to the content).

    These are from numerous IP addresses, listed at [[7]], but all share the same pattern of editing behaviour. The most recent IP address making these edits is additionally from the same /16 as a previous IP in the list.

    In terms of the content, in every case that the entity has claimed that content was unsourced, I have provided details of source material in increasing detail. Where there have been some errors on my part, I have corrected them. The person/s has/have also claimed that their interest is in the quality/conciseness of the writing. In response, I have improved clarity/conciseness in good faith despite my belief that this is a bad-faith claim on their part.

    The person/entity behind the IP(s) has been invited on several occasions to make a statement declaring that they do or don't have a conflict of interest in relation to this article, and has ignored the request on each occasion. Most recently, I did this on the latest IP's talk page at [[8]].

    The person/s in exchange continue to make the claim that I have a conflict of interest in relation to this article, specifically that I have a connection to the BBC or Panorama. I have specifically gone on record stating that I have no connection to either of the two, or anyone else in the article. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see the comment attached to the most recent re-deletion, by the editing party, of section headers at [[9]] for an example of the type of justification given for the edits, as well as (untrue) assertions that I have a CoI. My only link to the documentary is that I have watched it, which is what led to my initial addition to the article. If Wikipedia has a mechanism for private verification of (non-)conflict of interest, I'm happy to do participate in it.
    In the above edit comment the editor also makes (verifiably) false statements about the nature/subject of the documentary itself, which I believe to be in the hope that most people will (understandably) not want to sit through it to see which party is making accurate characterisations. It can however be seen at [iPlayer page for the documentary] that the summary states "Mobeen Azhar investigates TerraCycle’s green credentials and its relationship with major brands", despite the editor/s assertion that "The documentary talks about TerraCycle for all of five minutes, then moves on to the greenwashing conversation about plastic-producing companies". I'm using this as an example of what seems to be a pattern of dishonesty from this person or people, as it would demonstrate that they either have not watched the documentary or are intentionally mischaracterising it. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. I've watched the so-called documentary, and it does only discuss TerraCycle for five minutes. Editor at 81.187.88.97 is associated with the documentary, and markets it maximally, in a forum not appropriate for it. 47.198.242.207 (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Nonsense, and as clear a case of projection as I've ever seen. 81.x is obviously not here marketing for the BBC. MrOllie (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The person/entity has now added abusive material on my talk page. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Mehdi Mousavi , سیدمهدی موسوی

    I’m a new member; created a page and edited several pages, and then ended up in a page which because of my background I know had problems. see [[Mehdi Mousavi]);([10]) There were no references for most of the page -except one paragraph- and a couple of lines that had references, it would lead to the first page of a news agency; the text more resembled bragging than a biography. I added everywhere it needed references and decided to check out the same page in my mother tongue (Persian).
    It was much much worse and virtually no references to speak of. Again I added that it needed references and that the references were to wrong pages. I was asked to write a summary of the edit with I did but then everything went back to the way they were and I was amazed that the guy was boldly editing his own page with the username the same as the name of the page! (https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/سید_مهدی_موسوی) by Mehdi Mousavi,

    • Which was one of the first roles that I saw when I joined. I reported him and informed him of the report. Then I noticed that he had erased all my work in the page of another poet: see مریم هوله ([11]);
    But all I had done was adding 12 references to the page which was in real bad need of references. Then he told me that he has also reported me for “advertising” which I hadn’t done; all I did was adding a page that I found, as a reference so the reader can follow the reference and see if there is a book; something that is not possible on the page Im reporting since some times you read he has published 10 books without even the books names, much less any references.  see [[Mehdi Mousavi]);

    (https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/سید_مهدی_موسوی) by Mehdi Mousavi, Actually its so bad that you don’t even need to speak the language, to be able to recognize something’s really wrong; just look at the paragraph after paragraph with no references -except the part of the page which is about an arrest- and all the references to the other parts lead to nowhere related to the text and a couple that do, are references to his own interviews and he basically doesn’t need any references since even when he uses one, it refers back to him! I felt helpless, regretted joining and don’t think I would waste my time editing pages -even though its much needed especially in a language like Persian- because after spending a couple of hours the “owner” of the page can come along and return it to the same old baseless window dressing for his business. I’m just gonna wait and see the result of this report since I’m really pissed by what what happened. I know and appreciate the fact that you guys also spend your time and energy to elevate people and I apologize for being so pessimistic; please stop fake people from dragging down Wikis; thank you. 

    (https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/سید_مهدی_موسوی) by Mehdi Mousavi,

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minaghahraman (talk • contribs)

    @Minaghahraman: I am sorry you are getting frustrated with the circumstances on Persian Wikipedia. However, this is the English Wikipedia, and our policies and guidelines have no jurisdiction on other language versions of Wikipedia. Each version of Wikipedia is governed independently by its own rules, so we have no authority to intervene there. You can try to find a Persian-speaking editor to help you on Persian Wikipedia by checking Wikipedia's Local embassy, but that is about all I can suggest. Good luck. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Museum of Toulouse

    Here we have an editor, who, over the course of ten years, has done nothing but post images, mostly of animals and plants, from the collections of the Museum of Toulouse. While I believe the images are great from an encyclopedic point of view, they make no effort to explain their significance, only adding a lifeform's scientific name and "MHNT" (the museum's abbreviation) in their image captions. (here is an example. Literally all their edits are like this.) I see no reason to do this unless they are trying to promote the museum. Although they last edited in May 2022, they only edit sporadically, so there's a real chance they might come back in the future. I can't believe they've edited like this unquestioned for so long. Miracusaurs (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking further, I found this on Commons. Several editors, Ercé included, actually participated in a GLAM partnership back in 2013. But I don't see why Ercé would continue adding the museum's images ten years after the project supposedly ended, unless it's for promotional purposes. Miracusaurs (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Miracusaurs I think the main question is, are Ercé's edits improving the encyclopedia? As you note the images are good, but poorly captioned and the link to the museum in the captions is unnecessary. I have added a Global account information link as they are active in hundreds of projects and have been indefinitely blocked in Catalan and Dutch wikipedias. There has also been some discussion at fr:Discussion utilisateur:Ercé. TSventon (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, I would like to report undisclosed paid edits and socking on page Randy Sosin as per a job posted on Upwork. As per this job post on Upwork a freelancer was hired to edit the page. The above mentioned IP address first made some edits and then removed the paid tag after which Ericjort joined and start editing. I removed the paid edits as per WP:UPE and WP:SOCK but my edits were reverted by @Hey man im josh: which ok as per his comment as he is unaware of it. If anyone needs more details please let me know. Thanks. 113.193.45.183 (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey @113.193.45.183, I reverted your removal because all the content that was added was sourced and the article doesn't appear to have taken a promotional tone. I understand why you believe the edits were paid, but we (you and I) technically don't have anything besides circumstantial evidence at this point in time. It's a good idea to raise the issue to those who can weigh in on the subject, but I don't agree with removing sourced content that improves an article based on an assumption. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh: I removed those contents in the light of the policies under WP:PE because as per the job post a freelancers is already hired and working on this project but they did not disclosed their paid editing here and if you see the first edit of the IP address it was to remove the paid editing tag. 113.193.45.183 (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My problem is we don't know for sure that the registered user is a paid editor. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To me they look the same as per the time they edit, their editing pattern and i think any user with check user rights can identify their geo location. 113.193.45.183 (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked at the advert myself, it's fairly obvious it is the same person. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I suspect most of the sources are not reliable as per WP:RS such as TVGuide.com, AllMusic and many more. 113.193.45.183 (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey @113.193.45.183, TV Guide is actually considered a generally reliable source based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh: Yeah but for television-related topics not for biographies i think. 113.193.45.183 (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Grant Kereama

    The IP editor is presenting themself as the subject of the article (through edit summaries) and is adding unsourced information, including unnecessary details about their very young grandchildren. I would not have come to COIN so quickly if it were not so similar to this which saw the then-registered editor blocked. After that incident, I worked hard to make the Grant Kereama article as well-sourced and complete as I could. I have concerns about the details listed about the grandchildren who seem to be otherwise non-notable and the WP:KIDS policy. --SVTCobra 17:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Fariman Jabbarzadeh

    I am cultural attache' of the Italian Embassy in Tehran and I know Fariman as Iranian independent artist based I Tehran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Yaroslava Romanova (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Yaroslava Romanova: Are you saying that you know Fariman Jabbarzadeh personally? If so, please place the {{UserboxCOI}} template on your userpage. If he is paying you to write about him, then you must disclose this using the {{paid}} template on your userpage.
    I see that in your draft, the majority of sources are Persian-language sources, which is fine as long as they meet the definition of a reliable source. However, if you can find any reliable English-language sources, that would help us to evaluate this person's notability. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do know him, but I am in no way paid to write about him. I'll place the {{UserboxCOI}} template on my page (not sure what it is and how it works, but I'll try). Yaroslava Romanova (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yaroslava Romanova: I removed the "nowiki" tags, because it messed up the formatting - it's displaying properly now. Basically the template indicates that you're disclosing a close relationship to the topic you're writing about. Being transparent about it is a sign of good faith on your part, and helps build trust. As a result, other editors will be more willing to help you. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Autopatrolled abuse by Fritzmann2002

    In February 2022, Fritzmann2022 created a biography, sourced with spam sources, violating WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:COI guideline. Courtesy ping to @Kuru: and special thanks for cleaning up the junk sources. Their interest in obscure topic (with spammy history) clearly show they received some sort of payment for this work. It is detrimental if such articles go unnoticed due to autopatrolled editors, so would be safe if NPR reviews their pages, while they learn WP:BLP policy and declare their COIs. I won't be surprised if we find more such obscure articles created by them. 84.70.167.121 (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1098750533"