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 Rwatson1955 (talk | contribs) at 13:49, 11 August 2023 (Declared COI in connection with new page for Andy Alaszewski). 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: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: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

    Patricia Goldman

    Resolved
     – AfC reviewer has moved the article to mainspace. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 13:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm hoping to nominate for Recent deaths an article that I've just begun as a draft (going cautiously through AfC, as the subject was a relative of mine). She served on the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board in the 1980s; significant coverage of her career includes a profile in the Baltimore Sun and a bio/feature interview in the Los Angeles Times. I've of course disclosed my conflict of interest on the talk page. I'm hoping it's possible to get some eyes to review the draft (mostly for notability and NPOV) in a timely manner, to be able to nominate this at ITN/RD. Point no. 10 of WP:PLAINANDSIMPLECOI § Advice (though some other links there are outdated) suggests asking here. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Visakhapatnam Port

    Hi there, the user Chakravarthy76 has been continually editing the article to add a lot of content that is very promotional in tone, e.g.

    Integrated PCS – POS and PCS – ICEGATE for seamless fast track transaction platform - Full-fledged ERP system with e-payment module – under implementation - Implementation of E-Office system - Fully automated container terminal - Container Scanner to identify radioactive material - Gate automation through RFID is taken up for implementation - 24 × 7 Electronic Surveillance through CCTV cameras - Digitisation of office records.

    The user has been warned multiple times on their user talk page about adding promotional content to the article, and I also dropped a uw-coi notice. However, the user has continued to restore the problematic promotional-sounding version of the article afterwards, and they haven't responded to the notices on their talk page (especially the one about COI). I do suspect COI, but I'm not fully sure here.

    It does seem like a good-faith attempt to expand the "Modernisation" section of the article. Just a bit too overly-detailed and sounding like an advertisement in its current form. The information also looks like it's been copy-and-pasted from another source, but I haven't been able to find a source using google.

    Perhaps could anyone give advice on what to do? This is quite a large amount of content to work through and clean up, remove excessive detail. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have added Gr.vizag to this discussion, given that user's persistence in trying to upload improperly licensed images to use as the logo of this entity. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Immanuel Ness

    Immanuel Ness: I found an autobiography/paid job that need attention. Oluwatoniyi (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    XPO, Inc.

    I dunno. Somebody else can take a crack at it. I can't countenance "profiling employees" as a euphemism for making employees miscarry at work. GMGtalk 19:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Raimo Olavi Toivonen

    Just take a look at the article, the sources are a collection of Google Scholar search links and to the subject's own papers. It is simply not properly sourced, but seems to be done by someone intimately familiar with the subject's work. Also, check the user page of the linked user: he has 2 other accounts disclosed, BUT it appears they have all worked on the same articles to evade detection. Skyerise (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed this user as they were deleting every reference to the Praat page from multiple articles (apparently competing software). Then I find these users they had created both Intelligent Speech Analyser and the article for its creator, Raimo Olavi Toivonen. When I found it, there was no description of the software, just a giant promotional list of academic papers it had been mentioned in.

    They also seem to have spammed Commons as well to promote themself. [1] [2] Skyerise (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    And doing the same on Finnish, German, and Swedish Wikipedia. Skyerise (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    After looking into this further, I've also opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/R.o.t. All four users have been blocked as abusing multiple accounts on Wikimedia Commons. Skyerise (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    All four users have now been confirmed as abusing multiple accounts and have been blocked, so this report can be closed. Skyerise (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Prasiddha Acharya

    Blocked indef by PhilKnight. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The user keeps refspamming their website https://prasiddhaacharya.com.np/neb/www.prasiddhaacharya.com.np on this article a WP:UAA report was made as the name of the website is the same as the account but given its a real name was denied and told to go to COIN. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Elvish Yadav

    They can be seen editing these three articles and few other related articles, their edits are mainly around films and professionals in the film industry only. They have been seen edit warring on the same pages and have been canvasing other editors to take part in the deletion debates too. QueerEcofeminist🌈 03:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello sir/mam. I love writing or editing articles related to the film industry or people I admire.I don't know much about Wikipedia's rules. That's why I have debate or discussion with other editors. I want to give my 100% contribution to my favorite person or whoever I write articles for. The sources that I use in the articles are covered by the news websites from my side. But even then the editors find it wrong, that's why I have discussions or debates with them. Maybe you felt that I have some connection with all these articles. So you are wrong sir. I have tried to keep my point. I hope you have understood. Thank you –– 𝚅𝚁𝙹𝙱𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚑𝚞 01:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Glitch: The Rise & Fall of HQ Trivia

    There is reason to suspect that the editors mentioned above have a conflict of interest regarding the film "Glitch: The Rise & Fall of HQ Trivia," given their implied connections to the podcast "Boom/Bust: The Rise and Fall of HQ Trivia." Prior to the following edits, they had made three other edits to the film's page that were subsequently reversed. These previous edits entailed linking to the podcast, utilizing an image of the podcast's logo that was not free to use, and citing deprecated and untrustworthy sources.

    This raises suspicion that they are attempting to undermine the film and drive attention towards the podcast instead. The podcast and its host have no formal ties to the film other than the same subject matter. Yet, they are mentioned just as many times as Scott Rogowsky and Rus Yusupov on the film's page. Additionally, the users' contributions to the page, which all center around supposed controversies, make up half of the entire article.

    Despite flagging this in the Talk section of the film's article, the following categories have been added and are excessive:

    Unethical Production Practices: Two former HQ employees served as producers on the film, but their involvement was limited to the ideation phase. CNN Films does not grant editorial control to anyone other than its directors.

    Biased Nature: In the film, Scott Rogowsky is one of the main talking heads, and his side of the story is clearly presented. This section draws primarily from the film's only negative review, and overlooks other critical reviews that praised Rogowsky's candidness. If Kroll were still alive and/or Yusupov had participated, there might have been more to reveal. However, this is the nature of any documentary film. It is also worth noting that Rogowsky declined to participate in the podcast's final episode, so there may be some personal conflict of interest against Rogowsky here.

    Omission of Key Perspectives: It has been publicly reported that the director of the film reached out to Sarah Pribis, Rus Yusupov, and Scott Rogowsky during pre-production. However, Pribis' story was editorially excluded from the final product, as the film features two Host POVs in Rogowsky's and Sharon Carpenter's. Yusupov declined to participate, and Colin Kroll passed away in 2018.

    Plagiarism Claims: Production for this film began in 2019, before the podcast was even announced. Therefore, claiming that CNN plagiarized the podcast without evidence is a serious allegation, especially against an acclaimed news network. It is common for different forms of media, such as films, podcasts, books, or articles, to cover the same story and share similarities. However, there is no evidence of plagiarism in this case.

    Opening Paragraph: The article's second sentence intentionally misleads readers by referring to this film as one "produced by former HQ Trivia employees" without mentioning the other producers. The film was also produced by Emmy nominees Ken Druckerman and Banks Tarver of Left/Right, as well as Exceptional Merit In Documentary Filmmaking Emmy winners Amy Entelis and Courtney Sexton for CNN Films. To avoid bias, the article should either name all of the producers or none of them, rather than selectively naming only two to shape a specific narrative.

    Leflop (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Several users have made edits related to the discussion of controversies around the film. Only reliable sources have been cited in that discussion. Mentions of the podcast have been included because coverage that has criticized the documentary has also mentioned the podcast. It's fine if these things are edited and made more succinct.
    A note about COI:The user who brought this complaint appears to be invested in communicating the positive reception of the documentary, as evidenced by edit history in which they insert the words "award-winning" ahead of the director name, and have removed the existence of controversies altogether. More information is better for Wikipedia visitors, not less. A Wikipedia article about a documentary should include the discussion around that film, including all good and bad commentary, and any discussion of about ethics surrounding it. Especially if that commentary has been included in the discussion of the film in publications such as Rolling Stone, The Daily Beast, PrimeTimer, and Film Fugitives.
    Responses:
    Unethical Production Practices
    Your feedback introduces new info that does not appear to be publicly available. Specifically: "Two former HQ employees served as producers on the film, but their involvement was limited to the ideation phase. CNN Films does not grant editorial control to anyone other than its directors." Is there a source for this information? Why not cite some of these claims within the article itself? More information would better inform Wikipedia visitors. Ideation is one of the most important phases of a project, so it is relevant to viewers that two former HQ executives were involved in that stage.
    Biased Nature/Omission of Key Perspectives:
    The co-founder of HQ Trivia Rus Yusupov said that he declined to participate in this film, citing potential conflicts and bias. This concern has been echoed in two other reviews of the documentary and a former employee who was interviewed during production but not included. It is not unreasonable to include criticism that the film relies too heavily on Rogowsky's perspective.
    Plagiarism Claims:
    I agree the use of the word plagiarism is a strong one, it looks as though it was included by user 2600:4040:99DD:2A00:C906:CD9B:4D96:658D. Maybe this section would be more appropriately titled, "Similarities to Ringer Podcast." It is still relevant to mention this issue given its coverage in Rolling Stone and the online conversation it generated.
    Opening Paragraph: The second sentence of the "unethical production practices" section reads "Rolling Stone reported that several former HQ employees pitched the documentary to CNN Films, with former HQ executives Dylan Abruscato and Brandon Teitel serving as executive producers." The rest of the producers of the documentary are listed on the top right of the page, per normal Wikipedia formatting. This is not misleading, just the origin of the project. It does not discount the work of the other producers. Respectthedrip (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am curious to hear thoughts from an unbiased third party, which is why I am posting this here. Rolling Stone, The Daily Beast, and PrimeTimer each mention and recap the podcast host's Twitter thread that calls out similarities between the film’s initial trailer (not even the final film) and the podcast. However, they are not independently covering these issues, so it is all just coming from one source — the podcast host's Twitter thread. Whether Film Fugitives is a reliable source or not should be determined by Wikipedia guidelines. Additionally, we cannot confirm whether Respectthedrip and User 2600:4040:99DD:2A00:C906:CD9B:4D96:658D are the same person or not. They both seem keen on editing the film's article with the same accusations, which raises concerns about a WP:SPA who is obviously closely connected to the podcast. Leflop (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Teleperformance

    The page is a mess, and it's getting even worse with a WP:SPA who is obviously closely connected to the company. Not sure how I came across it but again, it's a mess. tedder (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul James Houghton ‎and associated drafts

    Looks to be a WP:SPA, editing on behalf of Mr. Houghton and his endeavors. This explanation doesn't help [3]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This is disappointing to read - clearly we will need to abandon Wikipedia for documenting facts. We feel the submitted contributions are unbiased and simply factual. We will not continue to work on submissions. Thank you - Ron RonaldCooper (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the exchange below, on RonaldCooper's Talk page, RC denies a paid or personal connection:
    Hello David, thanks for the message. There is no conflict of interest and payment is not being received. The page is being formed to primarily build a presence and spread the word about the work Mr. Houghton is doing relative to suicide, bullying and cyber-bullying awareness in his films and work. All other information and facts are to highlight the person is a real living person. Thank you. Ronald RonaldCooper (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
    "The page is being formed to primarily build a presence and spread the word about the work Mr. Houghton is doing..." This section suggests to me that you have a personal connection of some type with Houghton. Please be specific in clarifying. David notMD (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
    Hello David notMD. Thank you for the message. There is no personal connection. The contribution began with a serious interest in the anti-bullying film, the true story it is based on and then the source of the film. Which lead to the the filmmaker. Thank you - Ron RonaldCooper (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
    RonaldCooper Even if true, I then recommend discontinuing the drafts about Dreamotion Studios and Paul Jame Houghton, and continueing only with the draft about the anti-bullying film. David notMD (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After consulting with our advisers regarding the Wikipedia process, as we have now been flagged as a COI 'sock-puppet', this would make our overall journey more difficult. Continuing (spelled correctly) would be under scrutiny. We remain disappointed in the overall process here and will focus our energy, time and strategy for anti-bullying and our objectives elsewhere. Again, we contributed nothing but unbiased facts for good reason and to create a complete vision and connected composition of information, which were met by a negative and inaccurate perspective. The focus and efforts should be on whether or not the cited references support the facts rather than finding ways to negate the contributions. Especially when they are positive facts highlighting good. Thank you honestly for this important lesson regarding Wikipedia and how it ultimately works. We have taken this overall experience as a lesson-learned. Best - Ron Cooper. Not a sock puppet. RonaldCooper (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    My description above is moot, as it appears that all three drafts have been deleted by an Administrator at the request of RolandCooper. David notMD (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I believe each article contained the description "award winning"--not a sin for an inexperienced editor, but often a tip-off. If they were still active, it would be appropriate to ask who are the "we" they refer to above. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      'Award-winning' was applied to accentuate the quality and importance of the suicide and anti-bullying/bullying awareness film at the center of the factual composition of information submitted, and to illustrate it had received significant merit and was worthy of informative attention. 'We' represent the suicide awareness and anti-bullying organization and messaging attempting to help those who are impacted by this growing trend. As you likely know via your volunteer work on Wikipedia, cyber-bullying is significantly on the rise and in a new chapter. It is clear after a swift review by our advisers, who visited the reference new links, the contributions were completely factual and supporting the overall objectives. Which was to create a complete vision and support the data for all the relevant facts, including those behind the film. Which would have continued on to highlight the producers, backers, foundation and so on. The story was in its infancy and being constructed. Again, we fault no-one here - it is a process and we have learned much during our short-lived experience with Wikipedia. Thank you - Ron. RonaldCooper (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    NATO School

    IP resolves to mail.natoschool.nato.int; user(s) apparently editing article(s) related to the same institution, NATO School. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you talking about the edits by that IP to that article in 2017 and 2009? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They did that, yes, but it was really the edit today [4] that popped up on my radar. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    So I am employed by the Acoustical Society of America (ASA), but it's not my job to make wiki edits. It's not even in my job description. I have made updates throughout the past few years on ASA pages since I noticed them, but I just learned today that I guess I shouldn't have been doing that. I've added the paid employee notice to my profile and added the COI notice on the pages listed above. My main question is, do I need the paid employer notice even though I'm not paid to make edits specifically or is the COI notice sufficient? Relatedly, should my requests for edits now only be made through the talk pages? Is there anything else I'm missing? Thanks and sorry for my ignorance! Citizenofooo (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not the boss around here but it looks like you're doing all the right things.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Citizenofooo In general, if a person is making edits related to their employment in any way, they should declare as a paid editor in order to be as open/transparent as possible about their conflict of interest. It is true that the letter of the paid editing policy is that an employee of an article subject need only be involved in marketing/publicity efforts- even if they were not specifically paid to edit- to have to declare, but we don't know what your employer instructs you to do or what your job is. (I'm not asking you to reveal that) I think this is a case where the spirit of a rule is more important than the letter of the rule. Technically, you don't need to declare, but I think it would be better if you did. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree. I don't think the spirit of our policies and practices is that every person employed in any capacity by an organization or individual should declare that they're a paid editor. Citizenofooo, I think that declaring a COI without saying that you're a paid editor is completely appropriate in the situation as you've described it. I think that being very cautious in making edits to those articles and related ones is very much advisable. If it were me - and this is what I do with respect to my own employer - I would avoid making any but the most clearly uncontroversial edits (e.g., simple updates to information already in the article, corrections of typos) to those articles with all others being requests and suggestions in Talk pages. ElKevbo (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that openness and transparency is a good thing. The thing is that we don't know what employers ask or don't ask their employees to do. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all discussion and feedback. I'll keep all the notifications on my profile as they are and moving forward, will only make uncontroversial edits as @ElKevbo suggested. Any thoughts about simply stating employment, but leaving out the clause about being paid to edit, ie; This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they are employed by <employer name>. This might be inconsequential, but I suspect a lot of people would fall under this umbrella. Citizenofooo (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That message is a template message that would be difficult to alter. You are welcome to state on your user page that you are employed by the subject of your edits and leave it at that, in order to be more accurate. That would just accurately describe the nature of your conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hunter Lovins

    Some COI concerns were raised at User talk:SolaSands#July 2023 byDavid Gerard and the SolaSands was encouraged to try and use the article talk page to propose edits be made. This, however, doesn't seem to be what has been happening and quite a lot of unsourced promotional content (at least in my opinion) continues to be added to the article so that it's now starting to have a CV feel. Perhaps some others can take a look at things and see help figure out whether this is just a case of well-meaning editor just not too familiar with Wikipedia or whether there's a real COI here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    blocked as walking and quacking like a UPE duck after warning - David Gerard (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    2023 Warrandyte state by-election

    This user is constantly conducting edit wars to push for a particular candidate in an upcoming election, which reads like an infomercial, even going as far as uploading a photo of that candidate which is of their "Own work". Fazwazzle (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Re photo - every photo is someone's 'own work'. Using an own work photo resolves copyright issues. It's a sensible decision. Other candidates can upload their own photo on the proviso they do not remove another candidate's photo. All candidate's can list the grounds they run on should they choose to do so and I intend to update all candidates policy as they become available. I am also monitoring what I believe is interference by one of the candidates or a follower/representative. If you wish to add relevant content to this page I suggest you do so without removing or altering information that is already on the page. JJMOON59 (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Re 'edit wars'. I do not engage in this practice. I will restore the page if and only when it has been vandalised or had relevant content removed or altered unfairly by a third party, as has occurred during the course of this by-election. JJMOON59 (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JJMOON59: Regardless of whether there's a COI issue, your last edit to the article introduced all kinds of formatting and syntax errors that was not allowing the article to be properly displayed. So, I've reverted back to the last stable version of the article because it would've otherwise been too difficult to try and cleanup the article. Moving foward, it might be better for you to try not to make so many edits at once, but instead break them down into more manageable pieces. This not only makes them easier to discuss, but it also makes them easier to fix. As for edit warring, whether it's intentional is irrelevant and will not be seen as an excuse. Moreover, it's only really justified in certain specific cases. If you feel something has been relevant content removed or altered unfairly by a third party then make sure that restoring it's clearly and strongly in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and clearly state the relevant policy and guideline in the edit summary you leave when restoring the content. If it continues to be removed even after being restored, you should stop restoring it since that just leads to only further edit warring. Instead, seek assistance from others at one of the various administrator noticeboards. I strongly suggest that both you and Fazwazzle continue to use the article talk page to try and resolve any disagreements you have over article content as explained in WP:DR. If the two of you continue to revert the others edits and use use edit summaries to engage each other, you're both likely going to end up blocked for edit warring. Lastly, you both should try and stop using loaded words in your edit summaries and talk page posts, and remember WP:CIVIL. Keeping disagreements focused on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines makes them much more easier to try and resolve. If you're looking for others to participate in the discussion, try posting a neutrally worded request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've put the article under extended confirmation protection for a month as it's clear there is at least one editor editing with a COI here. Cheers, Number 57 07:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply moved by Wugapodes from #Rebecca Bradley 20:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
    I'm the account (JJMOON59) that inadvertently set this discussion into gear. My intention all along was to broaden information on all Independents, given Independents dominate this by-election. I have much to add that will enhance the page.
    It was unfortunate that rather than engage in discussion with someone who understands the electorate, contributors chose to delete and impede progress on the page which requires updating.
    I have latest developments on several of the Independents and the Liberals. Then there's 'Labor' who have an entire paragraph all their own when they're not running a candidate. One of the Independents has had the nomination approved but is not on the main list. And much more. I did see the section to submit changes for review however it's confusing.
    I am putting forward that I have much to offer and had my contributions not been removed, then by now this page would have several improvements. As it is, it is out of date.
    Is there possibility to edit as normal, then submit edits for review before going live? The by-election is in swing right now. Candidates are campaigning and early voting begins this coming Monday.
    Thank you. JJMOON59 (talk) 10:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Vermont Information Processing

    IP 208.103.173.105 is registered to Vermont Information Processing and should not be editing the article directly.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Rebecca Bradley

    Seems to be a single purpose account focused on promoting the viewpoints of the justice in a way that may pose a conflict of interest. Muhibm0307 (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The page is being modified incorrectly and I restored it to the current correct setting. There is no attempt to impose a viewpoint from my position. The last change before I restored it was due to another person pushing forward candidates, downgrading two candidates, creating a new candidate category and removing a photo.
    As of now, the page is incomplete and will from tomorrow, lack context. You have locked out the wrong person, and, locking the page for a month is counter productive as the election is in progress and regular updates are required.
    For example, other candidates are nominating, nominations will be confirmed this coming week, the VeC is drawing the voting ballot on Friday and early voting begins Monday the 14th August. I urge you to work with me to keep this page current. JJMOON59 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you are in the wrong discussion. The proper discussion for your controversy is 2023 Warrandyte state by-election. Muhibm0307 (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting coincidence between the judge's full name (Rebecca Lynn Grassl Bradley) and the WP:SPA editor's username (Rlgbjd).
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is interesting, but this report isn't exactly timely. Rlgbjd last edited over two months ago. There seems little point in blocking the account now, especially since we must not do it in a way that outs the user, no matter how interesting the circumstances are. There are such things as Joe jobs, also. But I'm willing to block if the user should return, since their actions are so disruptive that it doesn't really matter who they are. I'll watch the article, but in case I miss Rlgbjd or a likely sock, feel free to let me know. Bishonen | tålk 02:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    And yes, User:JJMOON59's post does seem to be a red herring, by being in the wrong discussion. They have never edited Rebecca Bradley, nor, a fortiori, have they restored it to the correct setting. Nor has Rebecca Bradley ever been protected ("locked"), for a month or for any other length of time. Bishonen | tålk 02:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    Bishonen, I have evidence that suggests a conflict of interest for Rlgbjd to be editing Rebecca Bradley (justice) that was recently discovered online, which is why I opened this discussion. However, there is the potential that this evidence may be considered private personal information that could out the user, so I sent it to a functionary to request them to review it. Muhibm0307 (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. Bishonen | tålk 07:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    I can confirm that I received the evidence. I agree with Bishonen's assessment that there seems little point in blocking the account now given its inactivity on the article, and the multiple posts on the editor's talk page should be enough for now. If the account returns to editing in a non-constructive manner, then a block might be appropriate. With the private evidence in mind, I still share Bishonen's concern about impersonation/joe-job, so I think it's better to focus on the conduct (NPOV issues) than who the editor might be. — Wug·a·po·des 22:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    Mayor Rial

    As per https://www.dicksoncountytn.gov/mayor.html, this individual appears to be Dickson County's mayor & edited its respective page twice. MeilingHong (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheBirdsShedTears: UPE with autopatrolled and NPP rights

    This user is no longer a volunteer editor. They are spamming Wikipedia by creating paid articles on Nigerian topics, citing advertorials without proper bylines. They are also uploading photos and falsely claiming them as their own work (shared by their clients). Please remove their NPP/AFC and autopatrolled rights. Also, move the following spam to draftspace. It's worth noting there may be more spam, as they also do AFC reviews. 2001:8F8:1427:FAD6:E0C0:1194:7FE9:DF64 (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sent three of them to Afd. Still to look at the last one. They look and read like absolute WP:PUFF. As promo as it gets. I think the editor needs their contributions looked at in detail. scope_creepTalk 19:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed their advanced permissions without prejudice to further action, as at a minimum the image licensing situation demonstrates either UPE or a lack of familiarity with licensing to a concerning degree. signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The references used for some of these pages look like content farms. Could likely find more by tracking the domains to other Wikipedia pages. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    An editor on the "2023 Manipur Violence" page has been pushing his agenda

    Dear Wiki Admins,

    This is a very sensitive page/topic, and Wikipedia needs to ensure that the editors with more access to this page are not personally involved in this violence and tragedy currently happening in the state of Manipur, India. But one of the main editors on this page Kautilya3 has been pushing his agenda, taking sides, and making edits that support his views and pushes back edits that he doesn't like. Here is his Twitter page https://twitter.com/Kautilya33. All his tweets and interactions clearly validates that he is personally involved in this event, totally one sided (supports the Kukis), and abuses/insults the Meitei community that he doesn't like. I have also attached screenshots to provide examples where he has insulted the Meitei community.

    1. [1]Tweet calling the Meiteis barbaric people

    2. [2]Tweet in Hindi saying, "Hills are the land of the Kuki-Zomi, not your father's!"

    Not only this page, but Kautilya3 has been monitoring edits on Wikipedia articles related to Manipur (India) and reverting edits by others and/or making changes to push his anti-Meitei agenda. Can someone please look into this? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaintSinner01 (talk • contribs)

    Having politics you disagree with is not a conflict of interest. Even if it were, misquoting a couple of sarcastic twitter posts isn't going to convince anyone of anything. - MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you look into his tweets at all? There is an ethnic violence happening right now with people being killed on both sides, and this editor is taking sides and editing the article based on his narrative. How does that not trigger a COI? This is from Wikipedia regarding COI, "Any external relationship—'''''personal''''', religious, '''''political''''', academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI." SaintSinner01 (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A 'political COI' would be if they were a party leader or an elected official editing about their campaign for reelection. Having an opinion is not a COI. MrOllie (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, on the political COI. But COI can be personal, especially close relationships. Example and explanation of "Close relationship" from Wikipedia, "Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx. Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest."
    This user has been talking to this one group in the ethnic violence and very much involved in their Twitter spaces/talks. His tweets/retweets support this group only and he pushes back anything from the other side by saying it's a lie. Surely, this goes beyond having an opinion and demonstrates a very close or strong relationship.
    Also, calling an entire group of people "barbaric" in the middle of a debate with the same group of people, is not sarcasm. Substitute "Meitei people" in his tweet "..has apparently failed to civilized the barbaric Meitei people" with "black", "white", etc. and let me know if that will be considered sarcasm in a debate.
    Can Wiki admins please share your views/opinions on this? Thanks. SaintSinner01 (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Having an opinion you don't like is not a conflict of interest. You're grasping at straws. MrOllie (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely agree that this is not what is meant by WP:COI. If you see content issues (neutrality) you can take them to the WP:NPOV noticeboard. If you see behavioral problems you can try WP:ANI. But read the relevant guidelines first. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://twitter.com/pikaso_me/status/1688768100240400384?t=IS4-Wvwzi9jlewWGzll6NA&s=03
    2. ^ https://twitter.com/pikaso_me/status/1688770491069132800?t=XC6mtezdSdfpjdVQnypc0w&s=03

    Possible paid editing

    Seeing this spam post on Reddit advertising paid editing services, I asked for a sample of their work, to which they replied with this list: Pushkar Sharma (cricketer), Anushka Sen, Tomas Mackintosh Sabater, CricTracker, Jindal Steel and Power and fr:CerbAir. Note that there is no confirmation that this work was really created by the OP of the reddit post. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 07:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    New Page for Andy Alaszewski

    I have created this page again after initial content legitimately taken down by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimfbleak - content has been revised accordingly and I declare that I worked with subject over 20 years ago - but not directly with him on research or publications - when we were both briefly employed at the same university (Hull) Rwatson1955 (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1169821842"