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 Alcaios (talk | contribs) at 22:47, 18 April 2023 (→Sylvia Bossu). 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:Bill Ackman
    Talk:Asia Society
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Carbfix
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Creative Planning
    Talk:Fundbox
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:Gregmark Records
    Template talk:Hearst
    Talk:Hearst Communications
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Irish Cave Rescue Organisation
    Talk:Scott Kurashige
    Talk:List of assets owned by Hearst Communications
    Talk:List of sequence alignment software
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ornge
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Pod Point
    Talk:Runner's World
    Talk:Schillings
    Talk:Lester Sill
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Thandeka (minister)
    Talk:Augusta Read Thomas
    Talk:Lorraine Twohill
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Top 10 Wikipedia Page Creation Services to Look for in 2023

    The headline works quite well here, too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "Whether you need help researching sources or just want someone to write the content for you, any one of these organizations will be able to assist in getting your page up and running quickly and efficiently. So, if you’re looking for an easy way to get on Wikipedia without having to worry about all the details involved in writing a page yourself, look no further than these top-notch Wiki creation agencies!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh brother... It's not like as if we don't play whack-a-mole with them. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty obvious to me that this is one company pretending to be ten different companies so that it can create an illusion of the reader having a number of options from which to select. In fact, I would not be at all surprised if a person paying any of these entities for services found their money disappearing with nothing to show for it. BD2412 T 11:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar articles have been reported here before, sadly. Given that several companies listed are presumably controlled by the Abtach creation farm, I wonder what incentive blogs like this gain from producing this brand of churnalism. SamHolt6 (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some money? Traffic? For me, it's currently #6 at [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. Though in some cases, I think it can be a monthly payment thing, since you have to pay them to guard your page when it's up. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then again, it could be a least partly separate whatevers. Wiki Counsellor seems less grammatical than the others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    And then there is this posted at AfC. Different name than any listed in this article but website looks similar. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Steven Harris Ramdev

    SPA editor, who's only work is on this article. There are some of the usual signs of UPE that NPP patrolers look for. When the COI template was placed on their talk page, rather than responding, they simply deleted it. Another indication of UPE. Onel5969 TT me 18:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Onel5969 The deletion was by mistake. For your kind information, the article has been approved under the articles of creation and graded as c class. It has passed all the requirements of notability guidelines and has enough press to substantiate the article. The changes addressed by the user has been take into consideration. The grammar for the same is rectified and written from a neutral point of view. Kindly remove the COI template, if you are satisfied with the changes. Once again, the articles meets all the standars with respect to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That in no way addresses the issues raised in the post you deleted. Do you have any external relationship (personal or professional) with Steven Harris Ramdev, and have you received any form of payment for your edits to the biography in question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @AndyTheGrump No. I don't have any kind of external relationship (personal or professional) with the entity. I am writing articles that covers Indian talents in specific. I am new to wikipedia as an editor, and I am still learning a lot of things in Wikipedia. Also, I have not received any form of payment for the edits to the biography. It was only through research, and news articles, publications and magazine. I hope, your question has been addressed. Thanks. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have no connection to this individual, and yet your entire editing history concerns him? Why the emphasis on one person? Are the no other 'Indian talents' you could be working on at the same time? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @AndyTheGrump Yes, this is my first article. So I am making sure I have all the information about the entity added. i am trying to refer to as many news sources as possible. On a parallel note, I am also researching on other individuals and I will be creating articles for them as well, very soon. Since I am new to this wikipedia editing, I am still learning. Please understand my thoughts and give me some time for my research. I will surely be creating articles for other individuals in a few days. I am not emphasizing on a particular person, I am making sure I have covered everything about the entity that's required. In a way, it would be easier for me to create articles for other individuals, considering the experience gained from editing and creating this one. I hope you understand. Thank you. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indiantalentnews123 - How did you obtain the photograph you used in the article?Onel5969 TT me 08:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Onel5969 I obtained this photograph from the person who clicked it. It was shared by the photographer through mail. I have given the credits for the same. The image is used with the permission of the photographer. Thank you. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So you do have a connection with the subject, you are in communication with their photographer. This would be an improper way of uploading an image- the photographer should be the one to do it. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a connection with the subject. I communicated the photographer through research. The entity had shared information on their social media regarding the same. I got this information, communicated the photographer and updated the image on wikipedia. This is in consent with the photographer. Also, the photographer doesn't know the technicalities of uploading an image on wikipedia. I have added the same on the photographer's behalf and consent. Thank you. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How do we know that you have the photographer's consent? Did you post it somewhere? The photographer is free to learn the process just as anyone else is. The vast majority of the time the photographer must be the one to upload an image if they want to release it for use under Wikipedia's license(which allows for reuse for any purpose with attribution). So the photgrapher took the image without this person's knowledge? 331dot (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, what is your relationship to the photographer?Onel5969 TT me 13:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No personal relationship with the photographer. We engaged in conversation on a professional note. The photographer has received consent from the entity and in turn, the photographer has given his consent for uploading it on Wikimedia. As per your guidelines, I will instruct the photographer to upload the same from his end, if possible. Thank you. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indiantalentnews123, which three of those 35 sources are the ones you're using to support a claim of notability? Because it looks like a lot of them are from affiliated sources such as WorldSkills. Valereee (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://pib.gov.in/pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1749281
    https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bengaluru-student-sends-paintings-letter-to-pm-modi-receives-praise-2519732
    https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/karnataka-artist-expresses-gratitude-after-receiving-praise-from-pm-modi20210827135415/
    https://www.news18.com/news/education-career/bengaluru-student-sends-paintings-to-prime-minister-modi-receives-praise-from-pmo-4132652.html Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Press releases are NOT reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bengaluru-student-sends-paintings-letter-to-pm-modi-receives-praise-2519732
    https://www.deccanherald.com/city/top-bengaluru-stories/heartwarming-bengalurean-artist-wows-pm-modi-1023844.html
    https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/pm-modi-praises-bengaluru-student-for-his-paintings-views-on-public-health-101630032504889.html
    https://www.deccanherald.com/content/498992/city-students-give-colour-their.html Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do help me with editing the grammar for the page. I feel it would help me in creating new articles too. I need to write that in a specific tone. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple citations to exactly the same minor story do nothing to indicate any enduring notability. A young artist sent Modi a few paintings. He received a letter of praise in return. You can't construct notability around a letter of praise. That isn't in-depth coverage of the individual as an artist (per WP:ARTIST), and certainly doesn't demonstrate the level of coverage required to meet WP:NBASIC requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a major story and the news coverage is completely about the entity. So you must read the news coverage carefully and do your research. Please stop pointing out minor or silly things that are baseless. And please don't Target a specific article for your own deeds. Thanks. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Indiantalentnews123 Is there a particular reason you refer to the subject of this article as "the entity"? 331dot (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have sent it to WP:AFD, Indiantalentnews123 is now edit warring to include copyright violation photograph as well. Theroadislong (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Listen, I don't know about the usage of Wikimedia commons as much as Wikipedia articles. I though the image was getting removed purposefully without any reason. That's why I had to add it back. You can explain your reason for the issue here. thanks. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither Wikipedia nor Commons will host copyright-violating content. AndyTheGrump (talk)
    yes, the news publication are completely about the entity. It has been rated c clas under articles of creation which proves enough notability. Please stop unnecessarily targeting a specific page. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia class ratings are the opinion of an individual contributor, and they do not demonstrate notability. And since the article has been nominated for deletion, for reasons already amply explained, there is no point in discussing the issue further here. The decision will be made at AfD according to normal Wikipedia policy, in accord with Wikipedia criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    this is totally wrong Mr.andy. you can't end the case without the consent of the editor and also on sufficient evidence backing your claims. I feel that a group of people are targeting this specific page for various reasons and I would like to appeal. Sending this article for deletion is completely wrong. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a court of law. There is no 'case'. If you wish to comment at the AfD discussion, you are free to do so, but I strongly advise you to read up on relevant policy first. And cut out the crap about 'targeting', since it is clearly baseless, and continuing to make such unfounded allegations is liable to result in you being blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indiantalentnews123 No, the initiator of a discussion does not get to keep it open indefinitely. I have blocked you from the article involved itself, though you may comment in the deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Five days later, the creator of the article tried to fake a keep result multiple times (1, 2, 3). Pinging 331dot because you pblocked them earlier. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I got a notification stating that I am free to remove the template by adding this below code. That's why I removed and added. It was displayed above the template.
    Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're greatly misunderstanding. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay then please add back the templates. Thanks. I have been so depressed by answering to all your conversations. It's affecting my mental state as well personally. I kindly request you to end this conversation by removing the templates. Thanks Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how the AfD process works. Also, why are you replying to me with the same exact thing as on your talk page? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mara de Oro Awards

    User has created an article about the awards (whose notability is dubious to say the least), which reads like an advertising piece. The problem is that he has not disclosed a potential conflict of interest as it seems that they received an award from Mara de Oro in November 2022. The article was created one month later. See: [2] [3]. User has disclosed their full name in their own user page. Please also note there is a checkuser request on Commons which may relate this user to other potential conflicts of interest, as they may be a paid-for user for non-notable artists related to (including but not limited to) Farandula Records and Paisclo. Bedivere (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Caf%C3%A9/Portal/Archivo/Ayuda/2022/11#Premio_por_ser_Wikipedista
    Before generating any kind of problem, I consulted with colleagues in the Spanish Wikipedia cafe. There they told me that there were no problems in receiving this type of award. At this point, it is shown that there is no conflict of interest or remuneration, I have only created articles that were not on Wikipedia and that I considered relevant. Thanks. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChuchoVCJMuzik Do I understand correctly that you received the prize for your contributions to Wikipedia?
    @Bedivere What makes you say that the notability of the prize is dubious? It has been awarded since 1955 and according to this it is the most important prize in Venezuela (no idea whether there is any truth to that). And it may be relevant to know that Chucho wrote the Spanish article on the prize in July 2022, so before receiving the award. [4]
    I have no position on whether receiving an award creates a COI for that award. I see arguments for either side. Of course encyclopedic tone and neutrality are a must, but that is independent of any COI.
    Random person no 362478479 (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Random person no 362478479 I appreciate your intervention. How can I improve this article? The Mara de Oro has been awarded effectively for more than 70 years, I even created it on Wikipedia in English because many Latino artists received this award, which in Venezuela is one of the first (fifth on the list). I don't think this is promotional, it's informative and encyclopedic. The Mara de Oro also recognizes many arts, skills and professions, therefore, I don't know if another creator will receive this recognition as Wikipedian of the Year next year. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bedivere Regarding the information I have on my user page, the same day I asked about the Mara de Oro, if I could put that on my page, several users recommended that I remove content from my user page because it seemed promotional. After removing this content, they told me it was fine.
    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:ChuchoVCJMuzik#P%C3%A1gina_de_usuario ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about the Spanish Wikipedia and that thread does not say much anyway. You created an article about the awards after being given one. You should have declared here (you did not) you had a conflict of interest. Don't pretend you don't have one: you publicly received an award from them! Bedivere (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to go on with this, Bedivere. You've been following me for more than a week now: my articles in English, in Spanish, in Commons, anyway.
    The evidence is here, let others decide. Whenever I try to defend myself, you refute everything I say and I'm already running out of this. I love Wikipedia, but I also have a life, a family, church activities, and I need to rest. Thanks for the investigation. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    COI, may be removed? May someone remove it?

    Hello Everyone,

    I created the Cesare Angelini (author) article.

    I have been studying Cesare Angelini for a lifetime, it is my passion. I don't make money. I work for free just to bring his knowledge a little into the world of literature.

    I declared my (cultural only) COI in the talk of the article.

    I don't think there are problems of neutrality as. In the article I didn't make apology for Cesare Angelini, I only reported his life, works, with the support (see bibliography) of people recognized in Wikipedia.

    But some users thought they put the COI warning in the article. The non-neutral notice discredits the work.

    Given the neutrality of the article, the great work I did writing it, all in favor of Wikipedia, can anyone other than me remove the COI warning from the article?

    Thanks Everyone for your attention. FabiusCesareAngelini (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There appears to be multiple conflicted users there User:LitteralContributor , User:FabioMaggiAngelini and User:FabiusCesareAngelini so I think the tag can stay. Theroadislong (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Houston, we have a problem.
    FabioMaggiAngelini has a disclosed COI on Italian Wikipedia (it:Discussioni utente:FabioMaggiAngelini) where he identifies as Fabio Maggi, the subject's great-grandson. I can see that in the last six months, he was warned about it-wiki's COI rules and, at one point, was blocked one week for edit warring.
    FabiusCesareAngelini identifies as Fabio Maggi on his userpage. If he is the same individual as the one above, then he definitely has a COI, but is also engaged in sockpuppetry.
    LitteralContributor is a new single purpose account that has not responded to any notices yet. No comment on whether they are connected to the other two.
    @FabiusCesareAngelini: As you were the one who posted to this noticeboard first, we will give you the opportunity to disclose if you control either or both of the other accounts, and whether you are the same Fabio Maggi as the account "FabioMaggiAngelini". Depending on your response, I may decide to escalate this to WP:SPI. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I created the account FabioMaggiAngelini by mistake, because I couldn't access Wikipedia. In fact I only used it for 2 digits, then never used it again. However, there was no COI purpose in using this account, just wanting to continue making changes. Then I let it go.
    LitteralContributor it is another who studies Cesare Angelini.
    Thank you. FabiusCesareAngelini (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe all three to be the same person, as is the IP 2001:B07:AD4:666D:2E02:41D8:911E:2A8A. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is LitteralContributor associated with Fabio? Do they work with the same organization or have correspondence with Fabio outside of Wikipedia? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Same person Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Catfish Jim and the soapdish: @Bbb23: @Theroadislong: @AngusWOOF: I have filed a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FabioMaggiAngelini due to the editor's admitted socking with one account and refusal to address the concerns with the other. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Checkuser has  Confirmed the named accounts to each other, all now blocked. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    off-wiki evidence

    So I've been given off-wiki evidence (an instagram post by the article subject containing a memo from some sort of PR firm called Premium Content Writing) that proves UPE on a BLP. Can I post that to the talk of the article? It's not a current issue, this happened in 2019, the article was deleted in 2020, and I've just recreated it.

    Somewhat tangentially, the memo states that the "we...are writing scholarly articles about (the subject)". This was pretty terrifying; the best source for this subject is a journal article. The journal does exist, the author does exist. But jeez... Valereee (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Valereee: Is there suspicion of present-day UPE activity on Woni Spotts? I see evidence of a WP:SPA since you recreated the article. If a connection between that account (or any others) and the aforementioned PR company emerges, then I would say yes - that is evidence of both past and present UPE. But for now, I don't think past evidence of UPE is relevant.
    I looked at the journal publisher (SAGE Publishing) and it looks to be legit. I also checked the list of predatory publishers and they weren't on it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drm310, yes, I saw that SPA come in. Highly likely they're part of Spotts' PR team, or maybe just a rabid fan who saw a social media post somewhere, but they didn't add anything bad so I'm just watching. Other than that there's no current suspicious editing, and I'm going to give myself a w-ping to make sure I check both articles every week or so for as long as it seems necessary. Valereee (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Meath

    This article is mostly advertising and promotion, probably put in by a friend, who is no longer in Wikipedia. The supposed awards are not about him but about a team he was associating with, and the career as a TV producer is not really notable. While there are sources, they're really entertainment-y fluffy junk, not real news. This kind of junk doesn't really belong in Wikipedia because the article is really one big fat ad and as such violates Wikipedia's guidelines against spam.--173.161.255.82 (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Polarr


    "The edits that you considered COI, edits by berrycoolfratstar and Jonathan Mark Jimenez, were done by company representatives on behalf of the company. The edits contained updated information about the company and its product offerings. We once again need to update our company's page with recent new product offerings and company updates. We've requested that the lock be removed through Wikipedia, but have heard no updates." Chris Troutman (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The company would like to update the page about them to include recent updates and new products. Polarrinc (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what the best strategy here is. Would make sense for the subject of the page to be able to update their page. Polarrinc (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it would not make any sense at all for the subject of an article to make substantive changes. It is not "your" article. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company has to say about itself. What matters is what secondary sources say. That is why the article is protected. You can propose changes on the talk page like other company representatives do.
    I have blocked your account as a username policy violation, and you and your associates have engaged in undisclosed paid editing, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Polarrinc: I think you misunderstand what Wikipedia is. Imagine this website as a slam book for the amusement of our longterm volunteers. The subjects don't get a vote. As a consumer, you should never want to have articles about politicians or businesses written as propaganda (and I mean that in the nicest way). For that reason, neither you nor your colleagues can have a place on this website. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Going through the article history, it looks like this article has attracted COI editors from the very beginning. Ever since it was created in 2014, there have been a number of different editors that added large swaths of promotional text. Makes me wonder if there's a coordinated editing campaign on behalf of the company. Miracusaurs (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Osteopathy

    An editor using the name of a practicing osteopath putting a positive spin on the osteopathy article? That can't be a coincidence.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a postitive spin, just a fair view of the profession. The cited research articles are held to the same standards that all other medical treatments are held to. I do not promote or advertise myself or any of my affiliates. Furthermore I do not promote osteopathy as a field anymore than discussing its potential as a viable treatment of disease. The previous article was actively discounting any validity to osteopathy in the face of real scientific evidence that I have referenced. If you have a suggestion for making this article more neutral I welcome it. The way it stood before was actual slander against the profession coming from a persons point of view that has a certain belief system against osteopathy and was not at all a neutral point of view. DrJacobFischer (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you step back and take a look at how things have gone for you. You misunderstood an article, not realizing there are two articles for the two different types of osteopaths. You are a DO, a physician, and of course you took offense because you were editing Osteopathy, the wrong article, the one about non-physician osteopaths. Step back, sleep on it, and approach this from a totally different angle. Read both articles. Keep them separate in your mind. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tamasknecht/sandbox

    Username is similar to the person they're writing about, so probably an autobiography. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 16:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    His user page confirms that it is the same person. No sign of notability for the person, his business, or his music. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Recommended the userpage for speedy based on blatant webhost violation. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Shahrzad Rafati

    There is currently a dispute between popular Youtuber h3h3productions and mentioned person above and company they are CEO of (BroadbandTV Corp). User Reignfalls is actively editing both pages but contributions by users date back several years to only those pages. Reignfalls is possibly the person mentioned above or involved with the company. Fuser55 (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fuser55:, It appears they properly removed a section that was added by an WP:SPA. Same thing here. Can you show evidence of the COI? Maybe I am missing something here. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy ping for Fuser55. CNM41, adding missed/broken pings after a comment has been published is harder than it should be. See H:PINGFIX for ways that work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. Didn't know but do now. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Lane (broadcaster)

    Self-evident matter here, the user in question has the same name as the person who is the subject of the article. This user has only ever edited this one particular Wikipedia article. Musashi1600 (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been blocked for WP:IMPERSONATE. The article might need to be cleaned up after their changes. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Martin Harrington

    This editor(s) created the article (diff) and claimed to be Martin Harrington (diff, diff). There are also a few IP addresses that have exclusively edited this page and related pages. These accounts repeatedly delete info beginning at least in 2012 and as recently as 2021. I've restored some of the content, so they will presumably attempt to delete it again. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Virtual mailbox

    Someone named David Seidman is employed by Exela Technologies as a Content Marketing Specialist. David Lee Seidman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added an Exela Technologies product to your entry called "Virtual mailbox". Chances last a finite time (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Suresh P. Sethi

    Could use some extra eyes. Thanks! . Randykitty (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Oakley Kwon

    Undisclosed paid editor/SPAs all promoting Oakley Kwon. User:OakleyKwon denied connections although recent activities suggest otherwise. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There are enough shenanigans here to start an SPI, which I will do soon. SmartSE (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Already done so at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Modpixel, Modpixel and Orange flask are likely the same paid editor, but I am not certain about Hass mm. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha thanks. I'll comment there. City Transformer (created by Hass mm) also has a distinct smell of UPE. SmartSE (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ibrahim Aminu Kurami‎‎

    Onel5969 has twice added a COI tag to this article as he believes that the article creator, Uncle Bash007 has a COI. The article does not appear to be promotional to me and the circumstances make COI seem unlikely: The article subject was a legislator in a state of 5.8 million people, he was elected by a large margin, he died two days before the article was created, and his death had been reported in many news outlets. In a discussion on Uncle Bash007's talk page,[5] I asked Onel5969 for evidence of COI. Onel5969 did not respond in that discussion or by email. The only indication of COI is that Uncle Bash007 said, "I met him once and snapped his picture". Does meeting someone once and snapping a picture warrant an eternal COI tag on a BLP? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually did respond in that email. In fact, it was my response which elicited the comment from the editor, "Even though I met him once and snapped his picture as I am a photographer", which is the full quote. The picture does not appear to be of the type snapped by a fan or bystander, but by a professional photographer. In what capacity were they working that event? Were they paid for their work at that event?Onel5969 TT me 00:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not receive an email from you. Perhaps you meant to say you responded in that discussion? Yes you did, but only before I asked for evidence of COI, not after. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I cleaned up the article, I can see why COI was a concern; if this wasn't a COI, then it was hagiography.  // Timothy :: talk  01:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Aegean Oil

    Pages
    Users

    This is a continuation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 196#User:Yioryiosaek21. Not trying for a do-over, there was no comment or resolution previously it was just archived. Posted again after discussion with another editor.

    I've been trying to clean up the promo and primary refs from Aegean Oil and related articles. I've been meeting fierce resistance from the above accounts, and I've realized its become a slow moving edit war (Mea culpa). I think the above SPA accounts and IPs are related and have a COI with the subject.

    I’ve stopped editing the article, until this gets resolved; they won't even allow maintenance tags to remain in the article and have just promo/primary refbombed the article. Any suggestions on how to proceed would be helpful. I've been adding clear edit summaries so my edits are reasonably easy to understand.  // Timothy :: talk  03:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, these accounts seem like classic promotional SPAs. Seems like there are related issues with the owner Dimitris Melissanidis's article too. If they don't respond to this post I'd just escalate to ANI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello their is no link between me and Dimitris Melissanidis or Aegean Oil. I just feel like I genuinely am posted factual information and I am backing it with sources. Timothy thinks he knows about the company however i am greek and i am trying to improve the page. Its not promotional, i am backing it with sources. He only does what he wants and doesn't allow other edits on this page now. He keeps reverting to what he only wants so i keep doing the same. When you create an account with wiki it says it created by people like you. Timothy isnt allowing that. I have provided factual information for Aegean oil. I dont see why it should be reverted to Timothys version which is extremely minimal and lacks information.
    I hope you take into consideration what I have said
    Many thanks 2A00:23C7:E53E:AD01:20EF:CED0:B6DF:A645 (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Saak Ovsepian

    New user making 11 edits and then producing a perfectly formatted biography article: that's more than a whiff of UPE... Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That's some seriously loud quacking. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sylvia Bossu

    My connection to the subject is clearly displayed on both my user page and the article's talk page. The article is neither laudatory nor promotional, it complies with WP:NPOV and is supported by fifteen or so WP:RS. Sylvia Bossu has entries in the Benezit Dictionary of Artists, Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon, and Le Delarge [fr], articles about her in Libération and Le Monde, and is the subject of several monographies. A COI template has been inserted into the article following a misinterpretation of copyright rules on Wikimedia (see), but the editor has so far provided no proof of WP:NPOV violation. I'm now asking for a third-party review. Alcaios (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1150577808"