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 DoshNomad (talk | contribs) at 22:22, 13 March 2020 (→‎Olive Writing Hub: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:A Time Called You
    Talk:A&P
    Talk:Access Industries
    Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Florence Ashley
    Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals
    Talk:Avia Solutions Group
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Bank of Greene County
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:William Bolcom
    Talk:BP
    Talk:Brookfield Properties
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Carbon Trust
    Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Change Healthcare
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:Chime (company)
    Talk:Citadel Securities
    Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Ed Dodds
    Talk:Dowa Holdings
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Randy Fine
    Talk:Anne Finucane
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Bradley Fried
    Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:Judy Genshaft
    Talk:Geotab
    Talk:GetYourGuide
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Green Line (TRAX)
    Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Holly Ham
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Heterodox Academy
    Talk:Eric Hippeau
    Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Industrious
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:International Churches of Christ
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Valerie Jarrett
    Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service
    Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:King School
    Talk:King the Land
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Dion Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist)
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:Metlifecare
    Talk:Christos Metskas
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MP Materials
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0
    Talk:Oasis Management
    Talk:Omaha Steaks
    Talk:Operating system
    Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting
    Talk:Orphan Train
    Talk:Orphanage
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker)
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Plinabulin
    Talk:Programming language
    Talk:Pure Storage
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Revel Transit
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Jay Ruderman
    Talk:Scandia (theme parks)
    Talk:Schott AG
    Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:South Fort Myers High School
    Talk:Subway (restaurant)
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:TaskUs
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Peninsula Hotels
    Talk:The Red Sleeve
    Talk:Titmouse, Inc.
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Veris Residential
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Dan Wagner
    Talk:Terry Wahls
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Washington University Medical Center
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Thomas Albert Work
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Zearn
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    MNB9911 sockfarm and Pro Creative Writers

    Referring back to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_151#Wikipedia_Procreative_Writers. It turns out that at least one article they used as a sample is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MNB9911 – 27 confirmed sockpuppets. Maybe time to compile a list of article creations of this bunch... ☆ Bri (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Added another account, not (yet) roped in to the sockfarm, who helped on a businessperson draft. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have some information that may be of use to the wider Pro Creative Writers situation but I wish to disclose it discreetly. Whom would you recommend I contact @Bri? Thepenguin9 (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thepenguin9: See confidential procedures in the box at too of the page. Thanks ☆ Bri (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Edith Covensky

    Months of promotional edits here. I've removed a ton of author testimonials, and multiple issues remain. Needs more eyes. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor also removed a COI notice on the page today. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Now blocked 24 hours due to their removal of the COI template from the article. This user has never replied to any messages. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They came back after the block and promptly edited the article adding a statement of authenticity for what it's worth. Still no reply to COI notice. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sam Ayoub

    I believe this user (Kirsh80) to be the individual this page is about (Sam Ayoub), or someone working for them. The page is about a rugby league manager. Every edit made by this user has been to update pages to include hyperlinks to the individuals personal linkedin page and the individuals personal business website. This is clearly promotional. The users most recent edit is predominantly self promotional of Sam Ayoub, and describes the individuals personal business and its practices, while also linking to the personal website again. It provided no citation

    Evergreen Valley College

    This editor has explicitly acknowledged working as a "member of the marketing team" for the subject but has not made any other attempt to abide by WP:PAID or WP:COI despite multiple, explicit warnings posted to User Talk. ElKevbo (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit summary seems to meet the disclosure rules for paid editing, and the edits I can see are minor factual items.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ElKevbo: Please review WP:PAID or WP:COI, then WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Also try to understand how your wall of warnings on the user's talk page must make a good-faith and beneficial contributor feel. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pigsonthewing: Thanks Andy. Glad to know that we're now totally cool with an organization's paid marketers editing articles as long as they strenuously ignore all of our messages! ElKevbo (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ElKevbo: the user you reported here has made three edits to the article, and while the first was not extremely clearly disclosed, you could tell it was the College from the summary. Subsequently they clearly disclosed their COI in the third edit. These edits were really minor, there is no POV pushing or promotion in updating their logo; it is a minor factual update. These kinds of edits are allowed according to the COI editing policy, and they have made the proper disclosure in the edit summary. Are there other edits you are concerned about?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't matter to me if they stop editing that article or explicitly acknowledge our policies. Continuing to edit while also ignoring our policies isn't acceptable so it's good that isn't happening. ElKevbo (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "They have followed policy by disclosing in the edit summary, per WP:DISCLOSE: " You can also make a statement in the edit summary of any COI contribution." It would be nice if they responded on their talk page and posted the COI on their user page, true. As there is no problem here, this issue can be closed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sad that you apparently refuse to become familiar with the policies you claim to be upholding, and those you are required to abide by. I'm totally cool with an organization's paid marketers editing articles as long as they abide by our policies. In this case, your breach of policy is far worse than anything they've done. Please take time to reflect on that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Judith Cloud

    WP:SPA account, adding unsourced, unencyclopedic content and removing what little is sourced. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    An edit from last year was reverted as a copyright violation, so rev/deletion may be necessary. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Fankaar

    Blatantly self-promotional draft article creator, no prima facie COI disclosure.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Da Vinci Globe

    The edit is clearly a WP:SPA single purpose account, only editing about material connected with Stafaan Missinne, the person who allegedly identified an old globe as being by Da Vinci. The article in question had and may still have a lot of material copied from Missinne's book[1] and Talk:Da Vinci Globe. That's not enough evidence to prove a coi of course. But there's the images. File:The Leonardo da Vinci Globe, 1504, Photo by Geert Verhoeven, © Stefaan Missinne 2018.png says ©Stefaan Missinne it also says own work by David Guam. Looking at some other images uploaded by Guam, the CT scan at File:Counterweight Da Vinci Globe.jpg is the scanner's property, isn't it? And that's copyright to Missinne but uploaded by DavidGuam. And how can the photo at File:The Leonardo da Vinci Globe, 1504, Photo by Geert Verhoeven, © Stefaan Missinne 2018.png be copyright to Missinne but Guam's own work? Or File:Schmidt da Vinci Globe.jpg? I asked Davidguam about any possible relationship but they haven't replied although they've edited since. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    See also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schmidt da Vinci Globe.jpg. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple articles

    Trishneet wrote on their userpage recently that they work for Rudhra Technologies, a digital marketing company, however despite warnings and requests for disclosure by myself and Discospinster they've failed to follow WP:PAID and do the actual disclosure and have gamed their articles, without AFC review into mainspace. Ashish Rudhra, per their own draft is the owner of Rudhra Technologies and nearly every article they've written is a client, a fact that they are now trying to hide. I suspect the rest are as well. I think after several warnings, this is grounds for a block when combined with the fact that they've now recreated at least four articles by past paid editing farms:

    Now they're disruptively removing tags despite the very obvious policy and tou violation and trying to obfuscate their involvement by claiming "it was an accident". Praxidicae (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Trishneet Arora India: How is it exactly then that these images are your own work:
    GMGtalk 15:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GreenMeansGo I moved this to the correct section but I hadn't even looked on Commons yet. Also see above...Praxidicae (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I happened to have Draft:Ashish Rudhra on my watchlist, I believe because the user previously uploaded File:Jayvijay Sachan.jpg and File:Sahher Bambba.jpg (now deleted), also uploaded as dubious own work. GMGtalk 15:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a paid user i'm just creating article. Let me quote your userpage for you: I am working in a company, Rudhra Technologies. Even if you "work" for them, for free, they are still clients of your employer and that makes you an editor with a conflict of interest and also paid.Praxidicae (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think this user has been given enough chances and should now be blocked for advertising. I would have done it already if this discussion were not ongoing. Deb (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ain't gonna hurt my feelings any. GMGtalk 16:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deb I'm not sure why that means they shouldn't be blocked. That's precisely why I opened this discussion, they clearly don't intend to follow the terms of use (and honestly this probably warrants a lock given this is also paid xwiki editing.) Praxidicae (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also courtesy ping for @Mala chaubey: who appears to have been somewhat involved in this on hi.wiki. GMGtalk 17:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay then, I've put a short block on and I hope the user may take the time to understand why. If there is any further advertising or creation of inappropriate articles, there will obviously be a follow-up action - but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Deb (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deb Would it be possible to make it a condition of their unblock that they disclose as per WP:PAID even if they don't intend to further edit such articles? They've basically already done the damage. Praxidicae (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How confident are we that we can prove they are paid? Deb (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they're employed per their own admission by Rudhra Technologies and each of the articles I noted above (and with the diffs that show they're paid clients, which can also be seen on Rudhra's website) are of their clients. Whether they're paid directly or not is irrelevant at this point as they're a digital marketing agency and writing an article about their clients on the world's largest encyclopedia seems to be right on target...of course we can't ever prove that anyone is definitively paid but I'm not sure how much more evidence I can present to make it clear. also as I noted in the second paragraph, there is far too much here to be a coincidence given that four of their creations are recreations of known pay-for-edit spam farms. Praxidicae (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also have some damning off-wiki evidence that I can submit to arbcom if needed. I think this should be an indefinite block because I can say with certainty that this isn't a mistaken "oopsie, I didn't know I couldn't edit for pay even after a dozen warnings!" ;) Praxidicae (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deb: per PAID: Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia. So the argument that they somehow publicize these subjects on-the-clock but edit Wikipedia off-the-clock doesn't hold water. GMGtalk 18:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GMG, not to mention that this almost certainly qualifies as a g5 too, as it's clear they're continuing the work of 4 sets of other paid editors. Sent off wiki evidence to arbcom too. Praxidicae (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, okay, I accept all that, but the fact that there's a discussion here means I need to make sure no one disagrees before I move to a permanent block. You know how admins get it in the neck if they step out of line :-) If he returns, he'll need to be squeaky clean. Deb (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On an unrelated note @Praxidicae: Curious that when you move a page to draft space here it doesn't affect the Wikidata item...presumably because its a cross-namespace move? That doesn't seem quite right. GMGtalk 18:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    London Square (property developer)

    This editor has repeatedly added promotional uncited content to this article. They have responded to a COI notice (and follow-up) on their talkpage with "thank you for this but this is not advertising. Is just reporting right pieces of information about this company. I'll cut all the links to the website, if this is working better." They seem to be ducking the COI issue. Edwardx (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of classical music competitions

    WP:LINKSPAM to the website of chinese NTD Television is added to List of classical music competitions by user NTD-Competition. The user is disguising the spam by giving it english titles and language codes. Username implies a COI connection to the target of the links. --OrestesLebt (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Upwork sockfarm

    articles and drafts
    users not listed in sockfarm

    Just a run-of-the-mill Upwork sockfarm. Noting here for the record. Some stuff has been draftified and deleted by the SPI team. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bri: Hashamtere: "OhmniLabs". Zeeshantere: "Australia’s Top 100 Graduate Employers"/gradaustralia.com.au. Dlinksma: "T & T Supermarket". Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @L235: two more please? Tegrat1042/sandbox and Mather90/sandbox ☆ Bri (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure! Tegrat1042/sandbox is "Keyo" (keyo.com), and Mather90/sandbox is "Kristel Bechara". Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    North East Delhi riots

    Boomerang: The OP has been topic banned from Indian subjects. Bishonen | tålk 11:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Article on the recently reported riots in the national capital of India, Delhi seems to be getting tons of arguments where the involvement of the editors mainly from India and Pakistan having edit-wars which is not only harming the 5 pillars of Wikipedia but also the article seems to be an attempt of whitewash by covering only about a specific political party and the people from a specific religion. Also, the well-cited facts are being ignored on the bases of onesided discussed on the talk page of the article. Where the edits from certain users (included above) seem to be more of conflict of interest which can be seen in their aggressive arguments and cleaning up of the discussions on the talk page of the article and their talk pages. Personally, some of these users left baseless ban notices and warning on my talk pages. Involvement of editors for a specific country in promoting radicalism may have conflict of interest which should be monitored by a neutral editor — Sanskari Hangout 09:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Where is the evidence for the WP:COI
    For the record, there is no COI in my case. I suggest User:Sanskari be topic banned from wP:ARBIPA for blatant WP:BATTLE and wP:ABF against editors who he disagrees with. We cannot possibly have such editors editing controversial and heated topics. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems User:DBigXray have a strong conflict on interest on the topic which can be seen:

    • In his aggressive arguments and the interest in the topic
    • Media coverage about his edits here and here
    • Interest and involvement mainly in the Indian sub-continental topics
    • His Origin of the country
    • Hiding talk pages (his and of the article) by archiving it while keeping the arguments that favor onesided edits.
    • Despite the fact New York Times, Times of India and various other reliable third-party media agencies named various other people mainly from a specific involvement, but he personally refused to include their names under lead-role while promoting about a specific religion.

    Not only his arguments but also the discussion and questions raised from various other editors on the talk page of the article should be examined carefully. — Sanskari Hangout 09:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BOOMERANG Please. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: @Kautilya3: has raised the concern over deleting the discussion (by archiving and hiding from the main page) on the talk page of the article and over his pointless arguments while repeating the same personal opinions. — Sanskari Hangout 09:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The OP evidently has no idea what WP:COI means. They should perhaps close this and take it to WP:ANI. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kautilya3, he is at the right place as he has repeatedly said COI on this page and his user page, where I had warned him to not accuse people of COI. He clearly started this thread to forestall the action I had referred to. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 11:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is not the right place. Being from any particular country is not enough to create a COI with respect to that country, and being a belligerent, enraged, and possibly unreasonable editor is something best handled elsewhere - ANI with respect to behaviour, WP:NPOVN if there are problems with achieving neutrality. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, this should be closed here. Unless there is somehow evidence that one of the editors is a local politician, police officer, engaged journalist, or otherwise involved member of the actual riots, it’s unreasonable to construe any COI here. (Not that you should attempt to dig some up, I‘m not encouraging attempted WP:OUTING) — MarkH21talk 12:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I am not watching this page so if someone responds, please ping me. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that an editor prefers only one source like NDTV in this case blacking out others is a conflict of interest which is Res ipsa loquitur or apparent itself. It implies that the editor is promoting the source not the information and that is not just conflict of interest but may actually be commercial expoitation. It may be noted that NDTV has lowest readership in TV viewership in India. Check here : https://www.barcindia.co.in/statistic.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian-sb (talk • contribs) 13:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That is just a stupid argument and one without any evidence, made by someone who seems to be grasping for straws. There are thousands of links from other news sites that I have added to articles. I will add whichever link I find is best covering the content and the article. that is not WP:COI⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mann Robinson

    Editor created an autobiographical article. Despite being warned about WP:AUTOBIO, they have edited that article futher. -- BonkHindrance (talk) 14:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Arash Shakour

    I think that I should report this here. On 3 February, FCBlinder submitted Draft:Arash Shakour. I declined it at AFC, and said that it read like a directory entry, and that it would be speedily deleted in article space because it did not make a credible claim of significance. On 1 March, FCBlinder posted a query to my talk page asking why it did not show up on Google search. I saw that they had moved the draft into article space, and it was then deleted by User:Cryptic as A7, no credible claim of significance. Don't say I didn't warn them. This is strongly suggestive that they are being paid for search engine optimization. I replied at User talk:FCBlinder, asking for a conflict of interest declaration, and my post there has been deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello i told you that i made changes to this page and ask you of it’s correct or not and you didn’t answer me so i think it’s okay to publish it. {{userlinks}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by FCBlinder (talk • contribs) 03:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FCBlinder posted on their talk page: "I made changes to this page then i asked him is the page now right and he didn’t respond me so i publish it yes because he didn’t answer me ". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that isn't true. They didn't ask me if it was all right to publish the article. They moved the draft to article space, and then asked me why it wasn't showing up on Google search. It wasn't showing up on Google search because it was deleted. So then I explained what had happened, and asked for a COI declaration, and they deleted that. They have a right to delete information from their talk page, and we have a right to infer from the deletions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    At User:Taylor-winnie-bk, a COI editor apparently associated with blocked User:MC-Brand-Knew disclosed that they were "paid by Brand Knew on behalf of Science of People". However, there are no notices on the page with the related COI edits, Vanessa Van Edwards, or on its talk page. Similarly, User:Taylor-winnie-bk discloses payment "on behalf of It's Over Easy", without any notices at the related COI-edited page Laura Wasser. The disclosed COI editor has been inactive for 7 months. I'd suggest that notices, at least, should be placed on the edited pages, and some of the more promotional COI edits should likely be reverted. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC) rev. 18:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Frode Alfson Bjørdal

    Autobiographical article written by the article's subject, a single-purpose account. This editor has been warned several times against COI/WP:AUTO, yet persists in adding content. BonkHindrance (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Danielle Pletka

    The editor User:Aleaiactm was created in January 2020 and has exclusively edited the Danielle Pletka page. The edits bear all the hallmarks of a COI account: removal of reliably sourced controversial information about the subject, addition of enormous amounts of trivial self-sourced text about the subject, addition of puffery, and changes to the kind of information that only someone with an affiliation to the subject would know (or be likely to care enough about to create a Wikipedia account and make changes). The editor is now edit-warring. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    In any of the edits I have made where have I deleted reliably sourced information? You also continue to not understand what self-sourced means - it makes absolute sense to quote a writer's work when the wikipedia page is that of a writer. The works, to which I have all provided citations for, are from mass market papers like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Philly Inquirer. I also did not engage in an edit war. That was something you initiated when you did a wholesale revision of the edits I worked hard on - which is against the guidelines of Wikipedia - rather than open a talk page to specifically discuss where you have issues with what I wrote. Something I am still waiting on after asking for it. Aleaiactm (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You removed text and sources about her climate change denial commentary. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I edited the text, I did not remove any of the sources - here is what I wrote - you can see all of the sources I left: "Pletka was involved in a controversy after an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press in November 2018. During a panel discussion on climate change she said, "I don't think we can have any doubts that there is climate change; whether it's anthropogenic I don't know." [1] NBC was criticized following her appearance by Esquire and other outlets.[2] [3] [4]"
    If that was your issue, you could have just reverted that part and we could have had a discussion about it instead of undoing all of my hard work. I made that change for two reasons 1) Climate change is not a core part of her research, although this issue did certainly make news and 2)While certainly not in step with the scientific consensus of climate change, if you watch the interview, her view isn't a wholesale rejection of climate change as was claimed before. I thought the fairest point of view as an editor was to note that it was controversial, mention some of her actual speech, and then note and link those who criticized her for it. Again, this is a discussion we could have had if you just pulled out that part. Aleaiactm (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a25304542/meet-the-press-climate-change-chuck-todd-danielle-pletka/
    2. ^ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a25304542/meet-the-press-climate-change-chuck-todd-danielle-pletka/
    3. ^ https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/climate_change_report_trump.php
    4. ^ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/nov/28/danielle-pletka/recent-cold-spells-irrelevant-climate-change-big-p/

    Aleaiactm, you have made 18 edits up to this moment, all concerned with the article Danielle Pletka. It's quite interesting to see you explain the principles of Wikipedia to an experienced editor like Snooganssnoogans (27,279 edits), who you believe (or say you believe) to be confused about them.[2] Moving to aggression, as you also do here, does not help your case or make your denials more credible. I have blocked you for obvious COI editing. Please note that you can appeal this block by following the instructions I have left on your page. Bishonen | tålk 18:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    Peter Golding

    User with very little edit history adding poorly sourced, previously deleted information to the page. GDX420 (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no idea whether the reported editor has a conflict of interest. However, the reporting editor has a history of making unsubstantiated allegations of paid editing, and has previously been blocked for those allegations. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not seem to be a valid report of COI. The user EricFullMetal made two edits in total to the page, both sourced. I'm not seeing a problem. As mentioned by Robert Mclenon above, EricFullMetal was previously blocked by @Cullen328: for making unsubstanted unsubstantiated claims against other users.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume that User:ThatMontrealIP actually means that User:GDX420 was blocked for unsubstantiated claims. Is that a typo? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks, fixed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Verge3D

    Alexkowel (and SanraWinsAgain) are two single purpose accounts who's activity is 100% related to citing and/or promoting soft8soft and their products, mostly Verge3D. Alexkowel states that he is not paid to do any activity on Wikipedia. I find this hard to believe, though I won't go into details. Alexkowel has now twice removed COI/paid cleanup tags from Verge3D. Can I have some more eyes on this? Alex already doesn't like me much, maybe some guidance from someone fresh to the situation will help. MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The vast majority of the sourcing here seems to be press releases republished in low-quality industry pubs. I removed three or four that were actually written by one of the founders. I am wondering if this is actually an AfD candidate.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe we have a WP:HARASS situation here which requires attention from mods. It's almost a year MrOllie has been following all my activity on Wikipedia, posting questionable "warnings" on my personal page and edited articles, as well as constantly removing all my contributions. I don't know who this person is but it's highly possible he has something personal against me and my work. I said it multiple times and I want to say it again. I'm not being paid for doing any activity on Wikipedia! This is not the part of my job, nor I receive any other financial incentives for writing about Verge3D. Yes, I'm one of the in Verge3D team but I'm just a coder doing writing on Wikipedia in my free time and completely on my own. Another thing I'd want to to pay attention to is MrOllie behavior in regards to other users. His personal page is filled up with tons of complaints from users who suffered from his radical and indiscriminate approach to editing articles. Hi (or she) is inflicting much more harm than doing good for Wikipedia. I believe this is against all ideas and beliefs which Wikipedia stands for from the ground up. Sorry for my emotional speech but I'm just tired of my efforts being constantly lost. Alexkowel (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're an employee of Soft8Soft, who develop Verge3D, then even if you're not directly being paid to edit the article, you certainly can be seen as standing to gain from it, and this is a very clear case of a conflict of interest. If you have an issue with MrOllie's conduct, this would be something to raise independently, but the fact you only edit Verge3D-related articles wouldn't help your case, MrOllie is simply the editor that has noticed this behaviour. If you must continue to edit Verge3D-related articles, it would be a good idea to follow the instructions at WP:PAID and disclose your affiliation on your user page. Ironically, someone has mentioned AFD above, which might mean your editing is doing more harm than good - people might well find this conversation when they search for your product! KaisaL (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how my contribution can be considered as paid or compensated either directly or indirectly, please read the terms of WP:PAID carefully. I edit Wikipedia at my spare time and have no direct or indirect instructions from my employer to do so. Of course I really enjoy the work I'm doing and want to spread the word about it. If it's required to disclose such affiliation please feel free to direct me to the corresponding guide explaining how to do so. Alexkowel (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI. KaisaL (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done! Please update info on the corresponding page (Verge3D). BTW can you please also update version info. It's now 3.0 released March 4. Thank you! Alexkowel (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Uttam Neupane

    Petter noca is, by my observations, an undisclosed Paid/COI editor based on the following facts:

    • This edit to Dinesh Raut supplies unsourced intricate personal details.
    • All but the lead image on Uttam Neupane are their "own work".
    • Every single edit accessible from their contributions history that is not on either of the mentioned articles is still about one of those two people (Neupane and Raut are frequent collaborators).

    I left a note at the user's talk page about COI editing on 6 January, but they did not respond and instead reverted me at Dinesh Raut on 15 January and the 16th... which is what brings me here before I can mount a cleanup at those articles. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Update: Editor has acknowledged COI with this edit. So, I request that a patrolling admin warn them formally, or place a UPE/COI or WP:CIR block. If not, I think there's now enough to take the matter to ANI if they resume edit-warring. So, this thread may now be closed. Thank you! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Lionbridge

    User NYCLion is a single-purpose account with an obvious conflict of interest, promoting the company Lionbridge not only in the company main article but also in multiple other articles. Literally every substantial edit (in Women and video games, Omnichannel, Languages of India, Telephone interpreting, Game testing, Video game localization and Legal translation) from this user adds content that is either directly promoting Lionbridge or is based on a PR publication authored by various Lionbridge employees. Counting 7 articles and the main article this is clearly a systematic campaign to place as many PR sources and other promotional content about Lionbridge as possible into Wikipedia articles.

    All of these edits should be reverted, but I have already been accused of trolling after removing phrases like "The company also orchestrates a network of one million passionate experts across more than 5000 cities, partnering with brands to create culturally rich experiences." from Lionbridge's main article. I'd appreciate an uninvolved editor looking into the case - two COI warnings on the user talkpage have been ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    GermanJoe, concur - SPA, probable COI/paid. The sources on the Lionbridge article look pretty bad as well, but I don't have the time right now to evaluate whether to apply a chainsaw to the article to cut out the fluff and promo or just outright send it to AfD. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 21:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I trimmed quite a bit of garbage from Lionbridge, including a staggering ten uses of Businesswire/PRNewswire as a source.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The promotional content in the main article and the ref spam have been cleaned up. Thank you all for the feedback and help adressing this issue. GermanJoe (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    UNESCO content

    Presumably as a result of Meta:Grants:Project/UNESCO/Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO 2019-2020, we have editors who work for UNESCO adding content from UNESCO reports (published under an open licence) to Wikipedia, including by creating new articles such as Large-scale learning assessments. I wanted to check, should these editors be making declarations of paid editing? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @Cordless Larry:, I've added a reply to your message at User talk:Besalgado. To avoid confusion in future I've added a reminder to disclose paid editing on Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, John Cummings. Is there a way you can contact all editors who are already involved, to make them aware of the need to disclose? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cordless Larry yes I have a list, I will ask them. One thing that would be really helpful to make sure this is done in a good way would be to provide a best practice example which was easy for people to use and copy. John Cummings (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term promotional editing by multiple accounts

    Not quite sure whether this belongs at COIN or SPI or here, but tl;dr: An American architecture firm has been engaging in promotional editing and probably undisclosed paid editing for the last 13 years under multiple accounts.

    Miguel Rosales is an American bridge architect and principal of the firm Rosales + Partners. He probably meets the GNG, but his presence on Wikipedia is far greater than you would expect. His involvement (largely as conceptual architect or lighting designer) is always prominently listed on projects primarily designed by others, rather minor pedestrian bridges that he worked on (ex 1, 2, 3, 4) have extensive articles, and awards for this works are prominently listed.

    Almost all of this has been done by eight accounts:

    It's obvious that these are either sockpuppets or (more likely) meatpuppets. editor interaction utility should make it clear just how much these accounts overlap. None of the accounts have made any significant edits not related to projects Rosales has been involved in; most also demonstrate immediate proficiency in referencing and infobox creation that is atypical for new users. On two occasions (Wsvan/Nionoodle and Bridge4us/Mwkas), one account has become active within 48 hours of another account making its last edit.

    Based on the promotional editing pattern, I believe this is undisclosed paid editing either by Rosales employees or a hired PR firm. The accounts have edited almost entirely Monday-Friday between 13:00 and 21:00 UTC - typical working hours in Boston where the firm is based - whereas most editors tend to be active evenings and weekends. Of the several accounts also active at Commons, Wsvan and Mwkas have used OTRS to provide permission for images owned by the firm. (Mwkas also oddly avoids denying a COI.)

    I would appreciate help removing promotional content from affected articles, and for the recently active accounts to be blocked. Given the scale and duration of the promotional editing, is there anything more that should be done to prevent it from continuing? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ​​Moved from WP:ANI § Long-term promotional editing by multiple accounts. — Newslinger talk 12:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I happen to have crossed paths with a couple of these accounts over the years, and, now that it's pointed out, they have indeed always been adding claims of awards and superlatives to structures with which Rosales was involved. (One of them also added lots of non-free suspiciously professional images to one of these articles, only to have them delinked from Commons.) If this is the community consensus about these accounts, then I'll go through and clean out the promotional bits from the articles I've seen them editing, and I'm happy to help with others if someone provides a list. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Over the years, I have edited a number of articles related to bridges and other infrastructure in the Boston area and elsewhere, and I have also worked on the Miguel Rosales article itself. I have repeatedly noticed and tried to tone down promotional editing in a number of related articles, and have myself given warnings about COI to some of the accounts mentioned here. I give credit to User:Pi for discovering and documenting a repeated and systematic pattern of promotional and COI edits spanning multiple accounts over a decade. I agree that there appears to be a persistent attempt to "game the system" by using multiple accounts, and that multiple warnings about COI over the years have been essentially ignored.
      • I also agree that the architect in question is notable and deserves a Wikipedia article. I admire his work, but the promotional tone in many of the articles related to his designs leaves a vaguely bad taste with the reader. The repeated introduction of blatant and more subtle promotionalism is contrary to NPOV, and a misuse of Wikipedia. The only reason I have not complained on this Notice Board or elsewhere is that I am unfamiliar with the tools for efficiently gathering evidence, or the detailed procedures for presenting it to admins.
      • I support User:Pi and his presentation of evidence here, and hope that appropriate action can be proposed and taken. Reify-tech (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear all, I wasn't aware that I was making such a mistake. Now, I started to read policies that Pi wrote about. How can I fix it all my updates? What are the possible solutions? Should I do cleanup myself? What means cleanup in reality - update all pages? Thank you for your help.Mwkas (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    My own view (whether it's supported by policy or not) is that editors associated with the firm should no longer be contributing to any articles remotely related to the subject - including fixing up the dubious contributions. The test should be whether the contributions help the encyclopedia. In this case, it appears that the firm has benefited more than the encyclopepedia. Wikipedia is not free advertising, nor is it a vehicle which one uses to boost one's apparent reverence. There are many instances where organisations have been quite embarrassed when it's revealed publicly they have been editing their own articles. --Merbabu (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. What are the next steps? Could you help me and send me a procedure?Mwkas (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mwkas: If you are employed by or work on behalf of Rosales + Partners, you must disclose this before making any further edits to Wikipedia. Use the {{paid}} template on your user page (User:Mwkas) to state this information. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if you are in any way connected to the accounts listed above, please disclose your relationship. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Mwkas recently removed a COI template at one of these articles. @Nat:: You were the OTRS reviewer for this file uploaded by Mwkas, so pinging you in case you have input here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pi.1415926535: Nothing to add. From an OTRS standpoint, the permission statement for the image was in order, and the EXIF matches the information I gathered from the OTRS email. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 04:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I am a volunteer editor. Nobody is paying for my updates. Wikipedia is only for volunteers. I am very sad, because I was not aware that adding award, I will be destroyed someone’s profile. AWARD- someone was working very hard to get an award and it is proofed. I asked you few times how I can do it correct, but you are not answering my questions, but instead you are writing that I support Rosales+. I am a big fun of all bridge architects. By the way, my working hours are not 9-21 I am from different country.Mwkas (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mwkas: Really? Your edits are very similar to the other editors listed above. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mwkas:, could you please explain if you have used multiple accounts to edit the page over the past several years?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I created my account at the beginning of 2020 – I think February. I started to do first steps learning Wikipedia. The idea was to update profiles of architects in the US and from Europe. It was complex to do something, but when we started COI discussion, I started to study all documents. For example, the most important is not to publish changes, but use talk page first – that was the mistake. I don’t know other editors or edits. My first name was Bridge4us, but soon I get message from Fredddie™ (02/07/2020): “If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)”, so after that I created Mwkas. I don’t use Bridge4us anymore. Also sockpuppets and meatpuppets was new for me. Know I know what it means.Mwkas (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Theyachtbreak

    User:Theyachtbreak appears to have contributed material associated with this business in good faith to Advance provisioning allowance The Yacht Break and have chosen a username, based on that business. HopsonRoad (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry if I caused any problems. I was purely trying to improve on what was there. The information on the original APA page was flagged as not having enough sources. It was also thin on the ground in terms of content. There is APA that HAS to be given in advance, for crewed yacht charters, and advisory APA that is given as a suggestion for other yacht charters as part of assisting with budgeting costs.
    It appears that my account has now been deleted. I did nothing in bad faith--Theyachtbreak (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Theyachtbreak: Accounts are not deleted, yours included. Your edits were reverted, however.
    As mentioned on your talk page, your username is a problem, so please follow the link to the place where you can have it changed.
    Even if you meant well, citing the website of the company you work for is not a good idea unless you also disclose your affiliation with the company, per the conflict of interest and paid contribution disclosure policies.
    Please also note that Wikipedia has certain standards for what can be used as a source: it must be reliable (established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight) and independent (unaffiliated with the subject of the article and no vested interest in the subject). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drm310:When I looked into changing names it said the easiest thing to do is make a new one if you have not edited much, so I did. I hope this is better. I have looked at other sources to cite such as [3] I may go back to it once I have fully understood all the complications and how to disclose COI. Thanks for taking the time to talk me through it thoughCaroline-TYB (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Caroline-TYB: That's fine. Just please make sure not to use the Theyachtbreak account anymore - using more than one account simultaneously is frowned upon.
    I'll leave a message on your talk page with some other helpful links. Looks like you're on the right path now... good luck. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Taseer Badar and Marketing agency

    Hi! I would like to point out an editor most likely working for a marketing agency (already tagged per WP:UAA) edited a client's page, including removing a COI tag. There appear to be other potentially problematic IP edits but those could be unrelated. They're relatively old edits, but it looks like another instance of UPE worthy of note. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    We have a policy on WP:Outing. You cannot connect editors to real life occupations, identities, addresses and so on unless the editor has already divulged this. Have they done so? Just asking, as I have not checked their history to see if they have. You also need to notify the editor so that they can participate in this discussion. I'll do that. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The Eye Wales

    Edits by User:Martin Clintergate‎ to the new article The Eye Wales and Nation.Cymru seem to entirely depend on citations from a fringe blog. It's the first I've ever heard of the website and the articles do not have any notability or credibility. It does have however a very promotional tone for the creator of the website, Phil Parry.

    Very recently, some uncanny edits have popped up from User:80.189.151.94 which lead me to question if this is a sockpuppet for Clintergate or another connected figure with The Eye Wales. It particularly likes [making edits to citations from Phil Parry], who is the operator of The Eye Wales.

    The user seems to be making [a number of deletions] to Nation.Cymru which is coincidentally a larger news website and politically opposing website to The Eye Wales. The article makes a number of [assertions] to the website's quality and reputation (not based on third party sources but often its own) and seems to generally be a highly promotional, non notable page created by user(s) with a conflict of interest. Llemiles (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m not an administrator, but User talk: Martin Clintergate is not a sockpuppet. They are not involved or indeed have ever met anyone from either Nation Cymru or The Eye Wales according to the sockpuppet investigation. I filed a sockpuppet report to be sure this person is an sockpuppet. Don’t falsely accuse innocent people who are good contributors to Wikipedia.JaneciaTaylor (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your response. I would add that I submitted the query in good faith due to edits which raised genuine COI concerns for me, and I would not target 'good contributors'. In this instance both are new users with few or no previous edits. I would also raise that it is Martin who has accused myself of having a 'political axe to grind'. I'm not satisfied that any of my points regarding the UK daylight hour edits of his were addressed, despite the fact he claims to live in Thailand. Nor were the similarities between his and the IP user's edits addressed. Just trying to objectively judge the facts as best I can here. Llemiles (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Stony Rapids

    A lot of edits coming from a new username with the same name as the title. Could be benign but wanted to bring up for attention regardless Thepenguin9 (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Lightwater Valley

    An anonymous IP address has recently started adding potentially promotional material that I had deleted back to the article without posting to the Talk Page. The user appears to only be editing this particular page and does not have a Talk Page of their own. I was not able to post a Conflict of interest notice due to this lack, however, I did provide an internal link to this noticeboard in the article Talk Page, while asking the user to cease and desist. Aleah H. (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing stopping you from posting on their talk page, the fact that it has not been posted on yet does not prevent you from doing so. Beach drifter (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The Lauter

    While checking a range for an unrelated case, I came across multiple accounts editing the same articles. Meatpuppetry is possible but all accounts are using the same model device with many on the same IPs at the same time on different occasions on three different mobile ISPs. They do not look like institutional devices since they are mobile. Best case, we have some COI editors possibly with UPE promoting a museum and Rolf Lauter. Worst case, we have some socking going on. I did not file an SPI case but putting this here for more investigation. I recommend reading the userpage for The Lauter first and then looking at the other userpages. Beans. Several of the accounts are inserting references to Rolf Lauter works.

    See Commons pages User:R. Lauter and User talk:R. Lauter to see that account's activity there.

    Zissuu attempted to reset the password for the account Otgo and may have succeeded. Also, see this. Notice Mazarin account made this edit.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Guten Tag Berean Hunter, bei der Durchsicht deiner Darstellung sehe ich, dass du auf Anfrage oder Anweisung eines deutschen Kunsthändlers mit einer Privatgalerie in Frankfurt handelst [[4]], der in extensiver Weise für seine Künstler wirbt und aus Eigen Interessen und persönlichen Gründen einen Feldzug gegen bestimmte Personen aus der Kultur in Frankfurt und Deutschland geführt hat und führt. Dieses Vorgehen widerspricht den Werten, die Wikipedia aufgestellt hat und ist mehr als fragwürdig. Die respektlose Behandlung und die Ablehnung von historischen Tatsachen, die keinesfalls mit Werbung oder Promotion eines alten, seit Jahren pensionierten Wissenschaftlers zu tun haben, zeigt leider, dass einige WP Autoren unter konstruierten Sachverhalten versuchen, in die Privatsphäre von verschiedenen Wissenschaftlern einzugreifen und ihre wertvollen Recherchen und ihre konstruktive wissenschaftliche Arbeit für Wikipedia zu zerstören. Ein weiteres trauriges Kapitel der Wikipedia Geschichte, wie in dem Zeitungsartikel von 2015 beschrieben. [[5]] Geschichte und Wissenschaft stehen über den persönlichen Interessen von Menschen und müssen beschützt, nicht durch persönliche Interessen unterhöhlt werden. Greetings from Germany to America

    Hello Berean Hunter, When looking through your presentation, I see that you are working on request or instruction from a German art dealer [[6]] who advertises extensively for his artists and is leading campaigns against certain people from the culture in Frankfurt and Germany for his own interests and personal reasons. This approach contradicts the values that Wikipedia has set up and is more than questionable. The disrespectful treatment and rejection of historical facts, which in no way have anything to do with the advertising or promotion of an old art historian who has been retired for years, unfortunately shows that some WP authors try to interfere with the privacy of various scientists and their valuable research under constructed circumstances and destroy their historically helpful work for Wikipedia. Another sad chapter in Wikipedia history, as described in the 2015 newspaper article. [[7]] History and science are above the personal interests of people and must be protected, not undermined by personal interests. Greetings from Germany to America --PH_C 12:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) PhilCult84 talk

    "I see that you are working on request or instruction from a German art dealer..."...No, I'm not and I find your accusation bizarre. Also, this has nothing to do with personal interests. You have not explained the apparent conflict of interest that you and the others seem to share. Instead of accusing me of anything, try telling us what is going on.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Deutsch

    Guten Abend Berean Hunter und User:Melcous, zur Klärung der von mir früher angegebenen Zusammenhänge sende ich folgende Informationen, die nach meiner Meinung in der Tat «richtige» Werbung und Promotion eines Galeristen und Kunstbuch Verlegers für seine Künstler darstellen, während es sich bei der Person Lauter um einen Kunstwissenschaftler mit einer nach Meinung vieler Kunsthistoriker sehr Qualität vollen Ausstellungs- und Publikationsliste handelt, den man nicht promoten muss, da die Fakten für sich sprechen. Personen die die Kultur prägen sind sicher nicht mit privaten Kunsthändlern zu vergleichen, die wo auch immer Werbung machen, um ihren wirtschaftlichen Status zu verbessern. Ich bin selbst Historiker und habe keine grosse Lust, Diskussionen über böswillige Angriffe von Autoren gegen andere zu begleiten. Es ist wichtig, Fakten in Wikipedia einzustellen und diese zur Bearbeitung und Diskussion zu geben, nicht andere respektlos und destruktiv zu behandeln.

    Referenz Artmax / Galerie Slutzky: Benutzer:Slutzky wurde durch Benutzer:Raymond als Benutzer:Artmax verändert: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Artmax&diff=47887284&oldid=47514233

    Referenz Artmax "Galerie Slutzky" Bearbeitung der Künstler seiner Galerie in Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Artmax&dir=prev&target=Artmax https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Artmax&dir=prev&offset=20080627102219&target=Artmax

    Referenz Webpage Galerie mit Künstlern: Beispiele aus der Künstlerliste Galerie Slutzky: Thomas Bayrle, Tobias Rehberger, Gerhard Richter, Walter Stöhrer https://www.galerie-slutzky.de/artists/

    Referenzen zu den Künstlern in Wikipedia (Auswahl): Thomas Bayrle (37 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bayrle https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=46093694&oldid=46093626 https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=45759810&oldid=45692914 https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=117916762&oldid=117646669

    Tobias Rehberger (20 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobias_Rehberger https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobias_Rehberger&dir=prev&offset=20060727121909&action=history

    Gerhard Richter (56 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Richter https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gerhard_Richter&diff=46430852&oldid=4576051556

    Walter Stöhrer (20 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_St%C3%B6hrer https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walter_St%C3%B6hrer&offset=20100914161222&action=history

    English

    Good evening Berean Hunter and User:Melcous, To clarify the connections I have given earlier, I am sending the following information, which in my opinion is in fact "real" advertising and promotion of a gallery owner and art book publisher for his artists, while Dr. Lauter is an art historian, curator and writer with - in the opinion of many Art scientists - a highly qualified exhibition history and publication list, which does not have to be promoted because the facts speak for themselves. People who shape culture are not to be compared with private art dealers who advertise wherever to improve their economic status. I am a historian myself and do not like accompanying discussions about malicious attacks by authors against others. It is important to post facts in Wikipedia and open them for editing and discussion, not to treat others disrespectfully and destructively.

    Reference Artmax / Slutzky Gallery: Benutzer:Slutzky has been changed by Benutzer:Raymond als Benutzer:Artmax: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Artmax&diff=47887284&oldid=47514233

    References Artmax general contributions for the artists of his gallery in Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Artmax&dir=prev&target=Artmax https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Artmax&dir=prev&offset=20080627102219&target=Artmax

    Reference Webpage Gallery Artists (selection): Thomas Bayrle, Tobias Rehberger, Gerhard Richter, Walter Stöhrer https://www.galerie-slutzky.de/artists/

    References for artists in Wikipedia (selection): Thomas Bayrle (37 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bayrle https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=46093694&oldid=46093626 https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=45759810&oldid=45692914 https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=117916762&oldid=117646669

    Tobias Rehberger (20 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobias_Rehberger https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobias_Rehberger&dir=prev&offset=20060727121909&action=history

    Gerhard Richter (56 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Richter https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gerhard_Richter&diff=46430852&oldid=45760515

    Walter Stöhrer (20 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_St%C3%B6hrer https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walter_St%C3%B6hrer&offset=20100914161222&action=history

    Thank you for your cooperation and greetings --PH_C 22:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC) PhilCult84 talk

    Multiple articles related to The Slants

    User has long-term history of editing of pages about the band The Slants and related topics. The username suggests this is a corporate account operating on behalf of Populuxe Entertainment, the promotion company founded by The Slants member Simon Tam. Chubbles (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pro-fossil fuel edits ?

    (Cross posted at WT:WikiProject Climate change. The journalist has been looking for clear examples for a couple of weeks.)

    I was recently asked by a journalist whether our articles are edited by people who seem to be from the fossil fuel industry, defending fossil fuels. Can any of you think of good examples of editing that show a clear pro-polluter POV? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Clayoquot: it seems not. You asked on this page on 26 February, the question was moved to Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Pro-fossil_fuel_edits_? on 2 March and has still not received any answers. TSventon (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for finding that - I'd forgotten where I'd posted it! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Goodspeed (internet provider)

    As depicted here, they want assurances that their work won't be deleted, which I think brings the article's creator, Dgtrittenwein, into question. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like user Meeanaya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to me so I have shared some details with MER-C. GSS 💬 17:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Olive Writing Hub

    Hi, I found the above listed articles listed as personal work samples on Olive Writing Hub's website: https://www.olivewritinghub.com/wiki-writing/. I am not entirely sure which users were involved in paid editing, since there are quite a few for each one, so I am not tagging any users here. I leave that to more experienced editors. Additionally, I have placed UDP tags on the articles and the corresponding tag on their talk pages. FelixtheNomad (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=945428021"