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 SithLordSparklePants (talk | contribs) at 13:46, 27 July 2018 (→‎UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:James F. Allen (businessman)
    Talk:American Council on Education
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Anaxam
    Talk:Florence Ashley
    Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Bank of Greene County
    Talk:Rich Barton
    Talk:Bastion (agency)
    Talk:Bending Spoons
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Bound (2023 film)
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Brookfield Properties
    Talk:Burford Capital
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Change Healthcare
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Chime (company)
    Talk:Sujit Choudhry
    Talk:Citadel Securities
    Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square
    Talk:Slaid Cleaves
    Talk:CoBank
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol
    Talk:Community-engaged research
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment
    Talk:Louis DeJoy
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:DISA (company)
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Ed Dodds
    Talk:Double Union
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:EF Education First
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Farm Credit Council
    Talk:Farm Credit of New Mexico
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Mark Felton
    Talk:Anne Finucane
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Bradley Fried
    Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:Judy Genshaft
    Talk:Geotab
    Talk:Kellie Gerardi
    Talk:GetYourGuide
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Holly Ham
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Heterodox Academy
    Talk:Eric Hippeau
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Industrious
    Talk:Infillion
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:International Churches of Christ
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Valerie Jarrett
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Michael Jones (entrepreneur)
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:King the Land
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Latvian ISBN Agency
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Dion Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Ronnie Liang
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:List of people from Darwin
    Talk:List of University of Queensland people
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:Media.Monks
    Talk:Metlifecare
    Talk:Christos Metskas
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MP Materials
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:List of New School people
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:David Nirenberg
    Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0
    Talk:Oasis Management
    Talk:Olivier Cornet Gallery
    Talk:OneHope
    Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:V Pappas
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Gregory Pence
    Talk:Pendragon (role-playing game)
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker)
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    Talk:Pure Storage
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Revel Transit
    Talk:Revolut
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Jay Ruderman
    Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist)
    Talk:Scandia (theme parks)
    Talk:Stephen Schlesinger
    Talk:Schott AG
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Milton Shedd
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SolidWorks
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:South Fort Myers High School
    Talk:Space Capital
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:TaskUs
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Grey Knight
    Talk:The Red Sleeve
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Edward Trobaugh
    Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Up TV
    Talk:Veris Residential
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Terry Wahls
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Washington University Medical Center
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Xavier University
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Yelp
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Zillow
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Another round of ACPERM evaders

    I've cast the net somewhat wider this round as the previous heuristic was getting less effective, so expect a few more false positives. Still, there's plenty of spam to go around and quite a bit has been nominated for deletion. MER-C 19:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ErnestCarrot

    And sure enough, there was another large bunch of socks.

    Sigh. MER-C 14:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    MER-C holy smokes, thanks for doing this research. I'm a little distracted by other projects now but if a nomination like that for PCO Imaging comes up again, would you ping me? I would have def voted "delete" on that but didn't see it in time. Obviously cutting the legs (paychecks) out from under the paid editing advocacy editors is important. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And today we have a new user TheRainMandem whose first meaningful edit is to deprod Fiona Scott Lazareff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lyndaship (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Make that two, with another spam page under construction. I prefer not to follow up spam SPIs quickly for BEANS reasons, so I'll keep this in mind next time I run the detection program. I suggest taking the article to AFD. MER-C 18:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've listed it at AfD. I also PRODed Boulevard (lifestyle magazine) yesterday as it has same creator and one of the socks linked to it from this one as his first edit, today I see a new IP editor has done some work on it but not as yet dePRODed Lyndaship (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Some historical stuff. MER-C 16:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    From the latest SPI. MER-C 08:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A week's worth of articles just clearing the ACPERM bar

    I think there are a few socks in this dump. Note that there is another new heuristic for catching accounts that clearly aren't the first ones operated by the relevant editors. MER-C 16:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Here we go again

    Might as well post these while I'm here. MER-C 14:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Bump to keep out of the archive for another couple of weeks. MER-C 20:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparent edit war between SoulPancake, Aviv Hadar, myself, and perhaps at least one other unknown party

    I realize the potential for BOOMERANG here. I should not have never gotten involved in this edit war between these two parties, one of whom is my client Aviv Hadar. I was contacted by a former client who asked for assistance after his page was repeatedly and for months was being vandalized (see history of Aviv Hadar). I cleaned it up, upload a photo he sent me, and requested page protection which was granted by Amorymeltzerto expire on 6 July 2018. The exact moment protection expired yesterday, KillroyMichael came into the picture with the recent POV edits to Aviv Hadar. What I did not realize is that my former client was also doing POV editing of his own to SoulPancake with whom he has had a lengthy legal battle which you can read about here.

    The most recent changes to Aviv Hadar are IMO precipitated following this edit most like by my client. Notice how KillroyMichael removes all wikilinks from Aviv Hadar to SoulPancake. All in all a very messy situation that will likely lead to me being deservedly blocked, topic banned, or permanently banned. I bring it to your attention because of the potential BLP ramifications. I truly apologize for my part in creating this dumpster fire. Consider me at the very least topic banned. I don't do paid editting on Wikipedia anymore and will likely never edit at all from this point forward.—አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh64) (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @DGG:--That you did not note anything over here, are you certain about the G11 deletions? ∯WBGconverse 05:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I shall double-check. It may take me a day or two to think this through carefully. Thanks for asking me to have another look. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    btw I had nominated the pages for speedy per PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Charlie Engle (marathoner)

    Editor removes unflattering content from Charlie Engle (marathoner), and has stated that they "represent Charlie Engle":

    • [1] - Removed sourced content about Engle's prison sentence.
    • [2] - Removed "advert" template. Stated in edit summary "I removed the advert. I represent Charlie Engle. This page is factual and not promotional. All information can be referenced, thoroughly."
    • [3] - Removed sourced content about Engle's prison sentence. Stated in edit summary "A user keeps changing things and commenting. Please stop editing a page that is not of your expertise. All of my edits and info are %100 factual. I represent Charlie Engle, and this is his wikipedia page." Magnolia677 (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @magnolia677 Thanks for the feedback. I apologize if I have not understood protocol for Wikipedia. Please allow me to address some of these things.

    I did not remove any unflattering content. Other people, however, have removed lots of referenced materials from this page. Yes, I wrote that I represent Charlie Engle. Perhaps that is a poor choice of words. I was simply trying to assert that I know that my information is factual. I did not think there was a conflict of interest.

    The prison section that I deleted today was much shorter than the one that was already on his page. **The original one referenced two articles in the New York Times, an article in Outside Magazine, and a PBS special about Charlie's prison sentence. All of those sourced materials were removed by another editor. Therefore, I deleted their trimmed-down (and insufficient with respect to references) version to restore the previous, very well referenced section.

    I felt like there was an onslaught of activity on this page as I was simply trying to add referenced information. Editors, such as yourself, started undoing not only my changes but content that was created several years ago by other parties. I did not know how else to respond to the onslaught of changes other than to "undo" them. In the end, none of that worked.

    this is not a board for discussing content
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    For example, why would a world-record setting run across the Sahara desert that was referenced in a myriad of ways be removed? Along with the people involved such as the other runners, the narrator of the documentary film, the name of the person who wrote the score to the film....? http://www.runningthesahara.com/about.html

      • These are all facts. Not opinions.

    Examples of referenced materials that were removed today. This is a limited list: http://www.simonandschuster.com/authors/Charlie-Engle/464934587

    Running the Sahara: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/extreme-athletes-run-length-of-sahara/ http://www.runningthesahara.com/about.html http://www.runningthesahara.com/science.html

    Race results and running: http://dbase.adventurecorps.com/individualHistory.php?p=14 https://www.rockymountainultra.com/blogs/news-and-blog/38930305-10-questions-with-ultra-runner-charlie-engle http://www.thepilot.com/news/this-time-it-s-personal-charlie-engle-s-newest-cause/article_e9819b72-2745-11e6-8931-b35bc64dea63.html https://www.4deserts.com/past_results?page=&competitorsBiosNum=5&firstName=charles+engle&sex=&age=&nation=&residence=&team=&Select+Year=allyear# https://www.4deserts.com/past_results?page=&competitorsBiosNum=5&firstName=charles+engle&sex=&age=&nation=&residence=&team=&Select+Year=allyear# https://www.4deserts.com/past_results?page=&competitorsBiosNum=5&firstName=charles+engle&sex=&age=&nation=&residence=&team=&Select+Year=allyear#

    Prison: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html

    https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/opinion/nocera-the-mortgage-fraud-fraud.html

    https://www.outsideonline.com/1915671/ultrarunners-long-road-back

    -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactsMatter (talk • contribs) 02:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FactsMatter thanks for replying here. I have hatted the discussion of content, as this is not a board for discussing content. This is a board for discussing conflicts of interest.
    Your claim above about what you meant by "I represent Charlie Engle" isn't credible.
    It is OK to be present in Wikipedia if you have a relationship with a subject that you want to be involved with. There is a process to manage this. It has two steps -- disclosure, and prior review of edits.
    The first step is disclosure.
    Would you please explain your relationship with Charlie Engle? Thanks. (And please don't discuss content further here). Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that this person resorted to socking; the sock was indeffed and the master was blocked for 1 week, which expires 18 July. So I guess this matter will be quiet until then. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Arya Samaj

    A new editor with a suspicious username is making suspicious and incompetent edits here. I do not speak any Indian languages, and this subject is so very controversial that I am uncomfortable dealing with it. Orange Mike | Talk 16:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    JS Bank‎ and Ali Jehangir Siddiqui

    It appears that COI editing has been happening with both of these related articles, and they are starting to resemble adverts. I'm a bit too busy with other tasks at the moment to sort out the content, but would appreciate some extra eyes on them. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've got JS Bank on my watchlist, as it's a perennial copyvio target. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Diannaa. It seems that Ali Jehangir Siddiqui has some copyvio content as well, but on an initial look it's going to be more difficult to fix because it's mixed in with material that seems OK. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, the majority of the text could reasonably be deleted as promotional. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cordless Larry: Sure. Will keep my eyes peeled on them. Am surprised that he didn't bothered to edit JS Group article.--Biografer (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Author pak has edited JS Bank, Biografer. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, @Cordless Larry:, but I was surprised that Author pak didn't bothered to do the same edits to JS Group, since they are related. Usually, when COI occurs, COI editors tend to edit all related articles (that includes in this case JS Group), since Ali Jehangir Siddiqui is the founder of not only JS Bank but also of JS Group.--Biografer (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, Biografer - I misread JS Group as JS Bank! Cordless Larry (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding potential copyvio on Ali Jehangir Siddiqui, he was only appointed as ambassador on May 29, 2018, so it's unlikely the page http://embassyofpakistanusa.org/biography/ existed much earlier than that date. No further overlap between the pages has occurred since that date. It's likely that the same person or PR team has written both. Is this another sock of Islooguy? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It did cross my mind, Diannaa. I've since realised that there are significant matches with other sources, not just the embassy site (though good point about that). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My suspicions raised, I have filed an SPI report. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Unrelated, apparently. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hastings Center

    The above two editors, and seemingly a few IPs, are single-purpose accounts, not disclosing an obvious COI (based on edits and the username), and are abusing multiple accounts and IPs under WP:SOCK. I cleaned up most of the article just now, will appreciate more help. Thanks, ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, the articles on the two center's two founders are evidently also linked to COI editing. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Lemongello

    This is my first post to WP:COIN and I'm not really sure what to do in this situation:

    An IP editor made several edits to this article that have since been reverted (not by me at first). In comments of one of the reverts [4] they said "This is my page! I am Peter Lemongello. Stop trying to change it!." I was most concerned with the blanking of 2 sections that contained content that appears to be reliably sourced. I went ahead and reverted the edits and blanking [5] and explained in the edit summary "Please see WP:COI and WP:BLPEDIT. Please obtain consensus on the talk page before removing sourced content." I then posted on this user's talk page a similar heads up.[6]

    Despite this, the user has gone ahead and reverted my (and other editors) reverts and continued to edit the article and another (The Crests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) they may have COIs with.

    I was hoping to seek help from WP:COIN on the appropriate course of action. Thanks — Schistocyte (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The anonymous editor should be notified of the procedures for remedying BLP issues. It's too bad they didn't register, because the odds of them seeing the notice aren't great. WP:AUTOBIOG says what they can do. {{Uw-autobiography}} is an appropriate talkpage notice. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Flags of the Australian Defence Force

    When I created the article on Flags of the Australian Defence Force I disclosed a potential conflict of interest in that I had an affiliation with the Flag Society of Australia which has now been severed. However on closer inspection it appears this would not have given rise to any conflict of interest in the first place. Not only does the FSA have no wikipedia page. It is a non political organisation dedicated to the study of flags in an entirely academic sort of way. Which as I read it means I'd only have some special expertise to bring to the subject as opposed to being too close to the Australian Defence Force itself. On the basis that I have been made aware of the need to use sources independent of this organisation would it now be possible and proper for me to remove the COI tag on my talk page given that there will still be a thread there which draws attention to the fact I was once an FSA member and where the issue has been discussed at length? Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Aussieflagfan, removal is not prohibited but archiving is preferred. See WP:REMOVED ☆ Bri (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:R. Raghunatha Reddy

    This looks like an undisclosed paid editor as per a number of images he uploaded in commons and he's only here to promote Draft:R. Raghunatha Reddy and Rathan Linga which he also recreated under Rathan linga. I left a COI notice on his talk page and then also left a reminder but there is no reply. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 08:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Video with advice and instructions on dealing with your own COI?

    An editor with a COI recently asked me if there is a video that he or she could watch that has advice and instructions for dealing with a COI. Does such a thing exist? ElKevbo (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Cap2201's paid contributions

    Cap2201 (talk) recently disclosed that they have editing for pay on behalf of various unnamed clients via Upwork. They made their disclosure [7] after Jake Brockman (talk) notified [8] them that their edits seemed to be a possible conflict of interest. Since this first disclosure (noting that by this point Cap2201 had been editing for over a year), Cap2201 disclosed they were paid to create Draft:Anthony Esposito (musician). However, they did not reply to Jake Brockman's ask for them to disclose any other articles they created for pay; I seconded this question, and then later started a new thread [9] asking the same thing. None of these questions have received a response, and Cap2201 has ceased editing.

    In light of this, some sort of action should be taken. The best evidence for another article created by Cap2201 for pay is Joanne Wilson, which contains promotional language and an image that (per its WM commons page [10]) was given to Cap2201 by Joanne Wilson's husband, Fred Wilson, indicating a clear COI. Other articles created by Cap2201 could also be forms of effectivly placed native advertising.

    My solution would be to tag all of Cap2201's work with UDP tags and quarantine them in the draftspace until they respond. Would anyone be opposed to this (some article subjects seem notable), or offer an alternative?--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Done all articles now moved to the draftspace, categories removed, and UDP tags added. I will leave an additional note on Cap2201's talk page.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Marc Randazza

    Notability of an attorney's claim of retention requested to be made in their WP article

    Just placing this notice to attract other editors to weigh in on a COI edit request. The full discussion is at the talk page here. Thank you !  spintendo  12:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Languages used on the Internet

    I am an expert on the referenced subject since many years (producing indicators and discussing biases) and I am logically involved in some of the references existing in the article prior to my contribution. Few months ago, I made a contribution, without hiding my identity (my Id is my name), trying to clarify a subject poorly treated in Wikipedia for years (two commercial linked sources are shown without any advice on biases and the historical controversy about the place of English in the Web is not covered, all that making this article misleading).

    I edit my contribution with an extremely prudent attention in terms of neutrality and avoiding auto-promotion As a matter of fact I just added a pedagogic introduction removing the confusion between the 2 main indicators, presenting/comparing in a flat manner the main results of the existing 3 indicators (the third and new one being from my own researches, which was one year old and has not been mentioned so far) to warn about discrepancies and let the rest (the data from the other sources) as it was, avoiding to present my figures as a mark of respect for the existing sources. The important aspect of biases was mentioned with a clear reference to the source. Note that for the past years there were only 2 sources on the subject and this new third one covers both indicators and discuss extensively all the biases (including its own).

    Recently I discovered the contribution was entirely scratched away. I am not an experimented wikipedian and i am trying to found my way in the rule, procedures an usages around. I entered in the corresponding talk page I read I was accused of having a "blatant conflict of interest" (which is the subject which deserve discussion here) and that I "should not assert in the article that my organisation's methodology is superior" which is absolutely false and really defaming. The referenced talk includes many value judgments which professionally are weak to say the least, but this is it out of scope here. I followed the opened thread and after explaining that the rules does not prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject and asking this editor to document the unethical claims, i concentrated on content which is what really matters to me.

    In the following discussions (Talk:Languages used on the Internet#Lead is awful) I never managed to have this editor focusing back on content neither documenting the claim of conflict of interest beyond the fact that i am one of the researcher on that field. I tried very hard to keep my patience and avoid a revert war, but it was useless, this editor never accepted to discuss the content and kept accusing me of conflict of interest with no solid ground as a way to escape any discussion on content.

    I requested a mediation and it was rejected due to the disrespectful manner to (not) agree from this editor.

    I am now convinced that the only way out of this situation is to have a neutral party investigate if I there is really a conflict of interest on my contribution to this article (or if I had made controversial edits) or, in the opposite, if I am correct to see this a perfect example of an editor using COI allegations as a "trump card" to avoid discussing the article content. If I am correct, I expect this will permit to have this editor to comply to the following rules :

    - refrain from further accusing me of having a conflict of interest

    - focus on content

    - stop playing gatekeeper of this article and stop blocking badly needed improvements (note that this article is classified high importance within the scope of WikiProject Internet.

    Danielpimienta (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not currently have time to be involved in lengthy Wikipedia disputes. At the Talk page, the editor cited the COI page, "Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits", but the editor's changes to the article were neither discussed before they were made nor are they uncontroversial. The edits were nearly a year ago and I don't want to confuse the issue with vague memories of specific content that would only overshadow the inherent conflict of interest here. The claim of 'defamation' is quite odd, since it would ordinarily be expected that a professional who views other sources as "biased" would inherently view their own methodology as superior; it therefore seems that accusation has been inserted to elicit sympathy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to open a thread here but now see that it's already done. I just posted a standard COI notice on the user's page. I see that there were previous attempts at creation of an article that appears related (the reason for deletion was copyvio so that doesn't assess its reliability as a source or its notability). —PaleoNeonate – 17:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Selected diffs pointed out by Jeffro at the article's talk page: [11], [12]. Article that was deleted: MAAYA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The first diff seems to give a lot of weight to this organization's results. It seems to also be used to contest the results of other bodies. It does not seem to be a random source from the internet however, here's an entry for them at the ITU website: [13] and a paper hosted at the Unesco website: [14]. What is clear is that this material was added by someone related to the project. What is unclear is if the source can be used in that article. If so, other editors with an interest in the article should deal with its representation in the article, with FUNREDES/MAAYA personel limiting themselves to suggestions at the article's talk page, or to minor updates that are unlikely to be contested. Should I open a thread at WP:RSN to assess this, or is this discouraged while a COIN discussion is active? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    As I am the "subject" of the request of the inquiry on COI I will from now let the discussion develops without interfering. When it reaches the conclusion step I may feel the need to express my views. I remain available to answer any question which could arise meanwhile. Danielpimienta (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Keeping the pressure up

    Again, the net is cast somewhat wider to haul in more spam. I don't think there are as many false positives as last time. MER-C 20:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes on this

    Patrick J. O'Rahilly, edited by a former co worker of his. See his AFD JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor in question has promised to remain neutral and follow policy. Speedy close please. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Brian Tarquin

    Postings by User talk:Jungleboy65 on his Talkpage and on that of another editor, lead me to think he has a clear, but undeclared connection with Brian Tarquin, and with the many pages associated with Mr Tarquin and his music. Many of the articles are unsourced, e.g. Soft Touch (album), and he is the main contributor to all of them. The full list can be found here, Brian Tarquin discography. I have raised the issue on his Talkpage, but he hasn't replied. I shall also let him know I've posted here. I'd be grateful if somebody could have a look. At the very least, I think a COI declaration is required. KJP1 (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, I've had a go at initial editing the article - some of the worst WP:PUFFERY I've seen including lists of people he went to school with and which museums he visited as a child. Definitely needs further investigation into other articles if they are anything like this. Melcous (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Melcous - Many thanks for having a look. I do think there may be quite a serious COI issue here but we'll see what the reviewers say. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also left a note and the COI guidelines on the user's talk page. Assuming good faith, they may not have been aware of these, but it does seem clear from comments about another article that it is the subject themselves. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to nag, but the editor's still not responding. Would it be possible for someone to have a look at it. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a look and the article is pretty horrible a mass of self promotion and very poorly sourced. The claims about being a multi emmy winner are dubious as he was one of the composers on soap that won a couple of daytime emmy awards for music but he was only one of a list of about ten people. Also there are some dubious credits notably for films as they do not say exactly what he did and when you check out the cast and crew list on IMDb he is not listed. I would be tempted to WP:STUBIFY and ensure that any edit he wishes to do goes through an edit request. I doubt very much that he meets WP:NMUSIC. He has been editing about himself for over 10 years now and has passed under the radar until now. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Domdeparis Many thanks for having a look and for the suggestion. Given there's no inline sourcing, I might take a very vigorous scythe. I think that may prompt a response. That kind of sickening undeclared self-promotion really is the pits. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Maxime Bernier

    It looks like two editors, possibly the same person, with links to Canadian Member of Parliament Maxime Bernier's office in Ottawa may be editing the article on him. Please see User: Ottawa11 and User:63.92.233.153. 162.222.159.228 (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    Sorry, I am confused and concern by talk befuddled statement. I don't get what the user intentions with his/her request, people make edits on articles all the time. Also, the user never asked me what his/her issues are or why he accuses me of having links to Canadian Member of Parliament Maxime Bernier, which I can tell you is false. I have dealt by a similar accusation by a sockpuppet already.

    If you want to check if talk, which I am not the same person, is part of Berniers' office, I suggest anyone to see if @gcaEdits[15] found that the edits came from Bernier's office

    Ottawa11 (talk) 3:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

    Your editing is overwhelming on Maxime Bernier and his main issue of Supply management (Canada) and seems to be always intended to promote Bernier and his views and mitigate or soften criticism of him. Since you admit being in Ottawa I think it's prudent to check the IPs you've used to see if any of them are linked to Parliament. 162.222.159.228 (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    So, I do not get why this has to be a conflict of interest. I never push Bernier on Supply management (Canada) that was talk and he/she has been overwhelming on the issue of Supply management (Canada). In addition, do you have proof that "I promote Bernier and his views and mitigate or soften criticism of him", because if he responded to an issue, should it not be on Wikipedia? As I stated I have no ties, Also, if you want to check the IPs, request a check user not add to the conflict of interest board. Ottawa11 (talk) 14:31 July 2018 (UTC)

    Also,talk has is "postpone publication of the book indefinitely" and "He later told the Toronto Star in an email that he defended his comments and that "the book will be published one day and you have to be patient” softing criticsm.

    Ottawa11 (talk) 14:47 July 2018 (UTC)

    Jeremy Griffith/World Transformation Movment

    I need help from a more experienced editor to fix this:

    So Jeremy Griffith and his "World Transformation Movment" have been mentioned with regards to new sockpuppets of ErnestCarrot, who seems to have been hired by him.

    The whole article is extremely WP:NPOV, and is laudatory in tone, so I added the template. I described the article's issues and my reasoning here, so please check it out. - Av = λv (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ma Long

    Ma Long (Architect) was created by a account with the username Ma Long. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Speedy deleted as a WP:CSD#G11. – Joe (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Colonel Jon Ullman

    I stumbled upon a draft of an article about Colonel Jon Ullmann being created by a user who also has that name. Obvious COI JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Please link to the articles you're talking about. I can't find any drafts under that name. – Joe (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume JC7V7DC5768 is referring to User:Colonel Jon Ullmann/sandbox. Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't be filing any more reports here unless all other avenues are exhausted. Yeah it's his sandbox, but sometimes WP:IAR is needed. COI is a serious problem here and the sooner we weed it out the better it wil be. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please properly indent when replying to other editors, as it makes the conversation easier to follow. I've tagged the page as CSD under the grounds that it's an autobiography. StrikerforceTalk 16:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now  Done resolved, as the page in question has been deleted under CSD guidelines. StrikerforceTalk 17:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Bamullen

    editor

    This person's edits are blatantly commercial and focused on one field, which is very typical of conflicted editors. They ignored my initial inquiry, and in response to the ramped up request for mandatory paid disclosure, they said they are not paid and are trying to learn, and in response to my request for a more credible answer, they wrote that they have no COI and are just trying to learn.

    I do not find this person's responses credible. We cannot manage COI when someone will not disclose and from this person's editing it is obvious they have something to disclose. Their initial userpage said Bamullen is a Wikipedia user with educational and professional backgrounds in healthcare, life science research, and scientific marketing and communications and they have subsequently changed that. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    They have blanked jytdog's notification of this discussion but decided not to participate for some reason. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    L3 warned, pending which the trigger ought be pulled. ∯WBGconverse 12:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Modani Furniture

    Can I get some additional eyes on Modani Furniture. I came across the article a couple years ago. It was created by a blocked sock puppeteer/paid editor via two of his/her socks. As the article was created before he/she was caught (but well after the abuse started), it didn't qualify for CSD. There were no other substantial edits by other users when I tagged it for PROD, but it was removed by an IP with no explanation. I figured an AfD would be uncontroversial, but it attracted only one keep vote and closed as no consensus. Now it is a user with the name of the company stuffing it with promotional material. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Bitcoin - part 5(?)

    Audacity has been editing Bitcoin, where he has an obvious COI. I strongly suspect that he is also an undisclosed paid editor. Bitcoin is operating under Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies including 1RR. A typical edit of Audacity on Bitcoin is to remove any edits I make that are placed near the top of the article and to move them (bury them) lower in the article, e.g. the following 2 reversions in 34 minutes [16] [17]

    Audacity claims that the 1st diff is not a revert because he only moved my text, rather than deleted it. This contradicts WP:Edit warring which defines a revert as “An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.”

    I’ve asked Audacity 3 times to declare his obvious COI and he just stonewalls, 1st saying only “ I don't edit to promote my own financial interests “ rather than addressing the situation he’s found or put himself in (as COIs are defined). His only other response was a veiled link to WP:HOUND (part of WP:Harassment).

    Audacity has been an administrator since May 2007. He does have a odd history however, with his edits dropping by 90% in September 2007 and then dropping further until there were almost none (with some exceptions) until April 2018 when he started becoming very active again. As far as I know, being an admin does not grant him any exceptions to the rules, but we all know that there are some protections that admins have, mostly justified, against folks who have an axe to grind because of their exercise of admin powers. If anybody has suggestions on how to deal with an admin in this case, please let us all know. To Audacity - do you claim any special exceptions or the use of any special procedures because of your admin status?

    I am demanding that @Audacity:

    1. read WP:COI and WP:Paid-contribution disclosure
    2. give a straight answer on this page about his COI - that is about the situation he is in, not about his intentions, and about his paid editing status
    3. link to his user page showing the required declarations near the top of the page.

    Folks probably want to know “where is the evidence?” Since Audacity has linked to WP:Harassment, and since there is some personal info in the evidence, I want to be especially careful here about following all the rules regarding WP:Outing. There it says I may e-mail a minimum number of admins to provide the evidence. Is 3 or 4 OK? I’ll send a fairly short e-mail to any admin who asks via e-mail, as long as they commonly edit this page and the number doesn’t get too large.

    Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd email an arbitrator. MER-C 07:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'll wait awhile for Audacity's response here. In the meantime any arb can request that I send them an email. Smallbones(smalltalk) 11:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In similar circumstances, I've used the email list mentioned at WP:FUNC but without further response. A trusted admin has been more fruitful, for me. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Coast Digital

    accounts
    pages
    Was a client per this along with CAFOD, Wiltshire Farm Foods, Essex County Council.
    see for example this version of Waterscape (now a diambig page, content was merged to parent). Was spammed into a bunch of pages.
    note, the person added blatant advertising copy with spam "ref" like this. I've searched for the link and deleted them.
    Page has a history of paid editing - see also User talk:Anastasiageva, as well as this and User:Becsmorice/sandbox
    have not cleaned current page...needs looking at. See also User:Rathfelder/Audley Retirement

    Black hat paid editing. Have added to PAIDLIST. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note also SPI here Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They apparently started in 2010, yikes. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Valleyhollandman

    User appears to have long-time undisclosed WP:COI relating to The Raw Story, Alternet and its co-owners Michael Rogers (publisher) and John K. Byrne. FlamesElite (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Taylor Swift

    This account appears to solely exist to promote Taylor Swift and her commercial empire. FlamesElite (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe fan cruft, but I don't really see conflict of interest. Alex Shih (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Streaming television articles

    We seem to have a group of IPs editing only articles related to streaming television for an extended amount of time. Due to the number, I don't think this is a personal interest.

    Articles such as, but not limited to:

    IPs identified so far include:

    At least some of these IPs are registered to Citigroup. What should be done about this? Natureium (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I originally noticed this after someone came to #wikipedia-en-help asking for advice for a "client." Looking closer, I noticed a number of IP's that have similar editing patterns and most seem to be from the same place. Not too sure what we can do about this, but they need to disclose their COI's, either through autoconfirmed page protection or some other method...TJH2018talk 19:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy

    This is more academic self-promotion. I think there is more but I don't have time to dig the rest up now. Am filing at SPI as well.Jytdog (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Jytdog these are articles on a variety of topics that just so happen to be areas related to UNC SOP. According to you, any mention of the program at all is academic self-promotion. This seems over zealous regarding the definition of COI. SithLordSparklePants (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no more to say to you at this point in time. The pages above are abuse of Wikipedia for promotion. We have a bunch of clean up. The Acetalated dextran page is a blatant advertisement for work by Ainslie and Bachelder., even citing a patent application by them. This is not what editing privileges are for and this is not the first time WP has been abused in precisely this way. Jytdog (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Plenty of apparent SELFCITE refspam like this as well. Jytdog (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Or they are the main contributors to the field. A patent is patents can be used as citations, and even have a template in wiki. This argument is not well substantiated.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=852229557"