Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 237: Line 237:


:I have made edits to many micronations. Look at my contributions. I do have an interest in Verdis as I have found it to be the most 'serious'. I have also frequently made edits to articles surrounding Asgardia, Austenasia, etc. I am not that Verdis micronations President or even a citizen - I don't see a point in paying a fee for citizenship from a 'country' that will never be recognised. I do find it quite inspiring and satisfyingly interesting though. If it ever does seem to stand a chance, I will probably apply i dont know. i think they should just declare themselves an organisation like Flandrensis judging from their PoV on things. I recently made a list on wikiproject micronations on the articles i am drafting on adding to wikipedia soon. [[User:MicroSupporter|MicroSupporter]] ([[User talk:MicroSupporter|talk]]) 19:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
:I have made edits to many micronations. Look at my contributions. I do have an interest in Verdis as I have found it to be the most 'serious'. I have also frequently made edits to articles surrounding Asgardia, Austenasia, etc. I am not that Verdis micronations President or even a citizen - I don't see a point in paying a fee for citizenship from a 'country' that will never be recognised. I do find it quite inspiring and satisfyingly interesting though. If it ever does seem to stand a chance, I will probably apply i dont know. i think they should just declare themselves an organisation like Flandrensis judging from their PoV on things. I recently made a list on wikiproject micronations on the articles i am drafting on adding to wikipedia soon. [[User:MicroSupporter|MicroSupporter]] ([[User talk:MicroSupporter|talk]]) 19:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

== Khowar Academy, Rehmat Aziz Chitrali ==

<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{pagelinks|Draft:Rehmat Aziz Chitrali}}
* {{pagelinks|Khowar Academy}}
* {{userlinks|Muhafiz-e-Pakistan}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Isn't Rehmat Aziz Chitrali and Khowar Academy notable enough to have its own article? Previous nominations for the deletion of the article have succeeded when sockpuppets and so-called "hoaxs" were made, but I believe these two topics are notable enough [[User:Muhafiz-e-Pakistan|Muhafiz-e-Pakistan]] ([[User talk:Muhafiz-e-Pakistan|talk]]) 21:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:25, 12 October 2022

"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&P
    Talk:David Adjaye
    Talk:James F. Allen (businessman)
    Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Timothy Archambault
    Talk:Avia Solutions Group
    Talk:Bastion Collective
    Talk:Bell Bank
    Talk:Boku, Inc.
    Talk:Doug Bremner
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Martin Casado
    Talk:Cboe Global Markets
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Brian Chesky
    Talk:Cheyne Capital Management
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:City of Whittlesea
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Cyberattack
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Edmund de Waal
    Talk:Derby della Lanterna
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Discovery Land Company
    Talk:Michael Douglas
    Talk:Edelman (firm)
    Talk:EF Education First
    Talk:EMarketer
    Talk:Engine No. 1
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:Foster and Partners
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Steven Furtick
    Talk:Gibson Dunn
    Talk:Global Strategy Group
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Graph database
    Talk:Evan G. Greenberg
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace
    Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:Roy Hamilton III
    Talk:Richard Harland
    Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
    Talk:HOK (firm)
    Talk:Hong Kong Free Press
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Infillion
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:Barry Irwin
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service
    Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:Labaton Keller Sucharow
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Alison Lawton
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Lemelson Foundation
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Anthony Marinelli
    Talk:Mascot Books
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:Michael Meldman
    Talk:Christos Metskas
    Talk:Milwaukee Electric Tool
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Omaha Steaks
    Talk:Operating system
    Talk:Orphan Train
    Talk:Orphanage
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Overseas Development Institute
    Talk:Pacific Equity Partners
    Talk:Lubos Pastor
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Programming language
    Talk:PureTalk
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:QIAGEN
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Quarter Pounder
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Marc Rowan
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Security AppScan
    Talk:Diana Senechal
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Software
    Talk:Software license
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation
    Talk:Stikeman Elliott
    Talk:Subway (restaurant)
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:The Inter Faith Network
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Titmouse, Inc.
    Talk:Tricentis
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Bradley Tusk
    Talk:Union Pacific Railroad
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Bulat Utemuratov
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Romesh Wadhwani
    Talk:Dan Wagner
    Talk:Wasserman (company)
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator
    Talk:Maya Wiley
    Talk:Andy Wright (music producer)
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Zearn
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Alice Zorn

    User:Ovedc

    Those two, as well as other articles. The pattern of editing suggests that the user, who have had a run in for undisclosed paid editing seems to be under the impression that as long as they disclose they're paid, they're free to make promotional puffery and mold the articles to be more favorable to the clients than encyclopedic. Inclusive of, but not limited to this edit. I've reviewed many of their edits and I am seeing a clear conflict between encyclopedic goals vs doing advocacy editing in the best interest of their clients. Graywalls (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, but this only half of the problem. The other half is: he submit drafts and at least 70 percent of them don't approved and he submit PR stuff again and again, and the reviewrs need to work hard to check them, User:Ovedc exhaust the volunteers trying to check his drafts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1FC:B2D2:0:0:B37:3CCD (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I find this edit very questionable where the COI/U tagged the code to make the contents they do not like invisible from public view. Graywalls (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    As someone who has dealt with Ovedc in the past, I find their tenacious paid editing & shoehorning of non-notable subjects into the mainspace disruptive. Would love to get some fresh eyes on their edits. -FASTILY 03:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The earlier articles seem a bit puffy but the later ones aren't. The newer article are tend to be eminent doctors and they are all notable with little puff. It might have been taken out, right enough. The last artist articles are notable and fine. The editor seems to be improving over time, with less promo content. scope_creepTalk 09:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Another autopatrolled UPE

    It was obvious when they started pushing Nigerian spam like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiriku (a spam page created by a global spammer) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Ofure (where they did everything to save it) and then this (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adenekan Mayowa. Nazan Saatci is their oldest client as they did some Urdu translations of their website. There are a plenty more in their profile. For Nazan Saatci, Doreen Majala, Calin Ile, and Lisa Punch, explicit private evidence is available. 2A02:C7C:40:2500:31F2:747A:76A6:814 (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Any chance they're related to the global spammer? If they're operating in areas a sock operator was working in, and defending sock work, and socks are defending their work, might be worth an SPI. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case I think it is unlikely that they are the same. It seems more likely that they were hired separately or by the other UPE editor. - Bilby (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll give them a bit more time to respond. If they don't I may have to block unless they agree to meet the ToU. - Bilby (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the lack of edits since the COIN report, I’d say a namespace block would be warranted at any time, to prevent them from flying under the radar until this report is gone. If they engage, the paid editing can be dealt with. If not, takes care of the issue of the paid editing anyway. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree - I normally give a week to respond, but I won't wait that long. If they haven't responded in the next two days I'll block unless they start disclosing. In the meantime I've removed auto patrolled as that isn't going to stay even if they disclose. - Bilby (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User blocked. They've had enough time to respond. I'm open to unblocking if they start disclosing per the ToU. - Bilby (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They requested unblock shortly after 24 hours after the block, but didn't respond here, or edit at all, for several days before the block. How convenient. Nice job, they're not flying under this radar. FrederalBacon (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:William Bishop, AfC abuse

    Articles deleted and salted; editor and CU-confirmed socks blocked.

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

    recently active IPs

    There's something smelling odd here, with a question about the creator being involved in PR, and an IP editor taking over the AfC draft after the question was posted to the creator's talkpage.

    The creator says he or she is not the IP so I have added the IPs to this report. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Per the user's talk page, a PR piece about the subject written by someone with the same name as the editor was written in the few days before the article was first created - I find it stretches credulity to believe there is no connection as the editor has said. I have also just gone through and checked the sources in the draft and a large number fail verification: from those with zero mention of the subject, to blatant contradiction of its claims (e.g. an album released by major label Sony sourced to a site that explicitly says the album was self-released), to ones about people with the same name but obviously not the same person (e.g. someone working as a professional six years after he was born). This kind of poor sourcing and overstated claims is often a hallmark of COI/promotional editing. Melcous (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,
    Just to clarify, I will of course review all the sources and correct them accordingly. I only edit when logged in, if other people are involved in the editing I will correct any other poor sourcing as well.
    To further clarify I’m a therapist professionally, and I do not work for any performing artists.
    Kind Regards,
    J.H. JohnEricHiggs (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Undisclosed paid editing?

    Was given COI warning on 9-25, but continues to create article about non-notable subjects; userpage suggests a business. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    They just re-created K. Kawaii after two previous deletions. I agree they look like someone who is paid to create articles for non-notables. Uhai (talk · contribs) 10:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed by Bbb23 as nothere. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wedderkop

    Wedderkop is very likely a UPE who's been mostly active on de_wp, but he has also made some suspicious edits here on en_wp in the Akilnathan Logeswaran and Anders Indset articles. The Logeswaran article had to be deleted because it was promotional; for those non-sysops with a decent knowledge of German, here is what the English Logeswaran article used to look like: de:Spezial:Diff/173438504. Wedderkop and Logeswaran also know each other in person, and I could elaborate on this further, but for anon reasons I won't. The Logeswaran articles for deletion discussion is also very interesting because of Wedderkop's ridiculous keep arguments, (i.e. blatant lies). And well, for the Anders Indset article, just look at this: Special:Diff/895916170/912893778. The added text is promotional and poorly referenced, it doesn't help with showing how the subject is notable. And as far as I'm concerned, adding more sources closely associated with a subject doesn't justify removing Template:third-party I reckon, does it? I have previously contacted User:MER-C on his talk page, but I suppose he's been too busy to have a proper look at this. 2A01:598:90F9:89C4:BD1B:B7EE:BB3D:AE (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Ariana Raykotto

    Page is almost exclusively edited by a user whose username matches the article subject. The only non-Raykotto edit I can see through the page history is an edit where it was requested for speedy deletion. DizzyTheMan (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Konstantinos V. Petrides

    OscarKoryagin created both these articles, which respectively are about an academic and an idea concieved by this academic, with almost all of their edits relating to them. The article on the academic was created nearly four years ago in November 2018, with intermittent editing since by Koryagin, while the second article was created today. They appear to have a close association with Konstantinos per a 2018 edit in which they said By the request of Konstantinos I've added a "See also" section, as well as "External Links" section. Their editing around the subject and the idea look to be heavily promotional. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I endorse your interpretation of this as a conflict of interest, those articles look purely promotional and should probably be WP:G11'd once OscarKoryagin is blocked. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added 213.182.55.105 because they match the pattern at Konstantinos V. Petrides and use of "we" in edit summaries as in "We have checked..."[1] and "... we cannot find..."[2] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks y'all. See also the activity today of IP 2.96.64.65, which appears to be OscarKoryagin editing while logged out. I've added them to the above list. Generalrelative (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with the suggestion that these pages be deleted as spam. XOR'easter (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I G11'd the "Konstantinos V. Petrides" and its now gone. scope_creepTalk 15:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Student Organisation of India

    They are including their name in each and every article. I have mentioned only three.-Satrar (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've made a report to WP:ANI. It is really out of order doing this. It seems to breaking every policy I know. scope_creepTalk 08:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, I've closed the ANI thread per WP:FORUMSHOP, and the COI noticeboard anyways is in line with WP:COICOIN.—Bagumba (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking over the edits, it seems to me a case of someone who doesn't really know how the Wikipedia works. Isabelle 🏴‍☠️ 09:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bagumba: It wasn't forumshopping. It not a problem for this board, i.e. not a conflict of interest. scope_creepTalk 13:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your ANI post said they were writing about themselves, and they had received a COI warning a month ago. It wasn't clear that you had another issue; it also might have been clearer, if that was your intent, to have closed this thread, instead of leaving concurrent ones open. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Akinnubi_David

    Only editor of this article appears to be Akinnubi himself. DizzyTheMan (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Travis Banks

    Unsourced crosswiki edits, specifically, this wrestler’s career in Mexico and nothing else in both eswiki and enwiki. Also, several uploads to Commons.MexTDT (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr


    Persistent edit warring via multiple accounts to include promotional content, with copyright issues. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yip, both seem to be edit warring in concert, to protect the "Reputation" section of the article and enforce a promotional viewpoint which breaks WP:NPOV. Also acting in concert to promote their client list and clients. Both of them removed the "Advert" maintenance template which ethically they had no right to touch as its a brochure article. scope_creepTalk 14:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what it is about law firms and thinking they don't have to follow the rules but they're near the top of the list of industries that meddle in their own pages on wikipedia. I get the feeling that out "COI with extended legal warning" serves the opposite purpose of dissuading them because they generally get bolder after being shown it... Perhaps our "extended legal warning" is better at producing laughter than compliance. Added other likely COI users. Note that some early ones actually admitted to being "WH Public Relations" like 72.165.200.210 [3][4] and 64.125.175.43[5] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    El C has put it under protection, so that should put a stop to most of it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Kent Steffes

    User says they are the subject of the article here. Says they have been editing the article for "decades" and that their friends sometimes make joke edits to the page. Tacyarg (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I was a Professional Beach Volleyball player in the 1990's. The sport is very niche and has few followers. Since at least 2008 I have made the majority of the major edits to the page which is about me. I understand the COI and believe I am operating within its guidelines. My previous username was Elstuf and I made edits under that username. I do not remember why or when I changed usernames but now it is Kentsteffes which is the same as the Wikipedia page. Anyone can see that the edits I make are from my username. Because the sport is so niche, I believe that I add value to the page by providing updates for example I was recently (2020) inducted into the USA Volleyball Hall of Fame as the All-Time Great Male Beach Volleyball Player and have provided a source from USA Volleyball. USA Volleyball is a very legitimate source as they are the Sport's National Governing Body operating under the auspices of the United States Olympic Committee. Other sources I have provided are from one of the premier online Beach Volleyball coaching resources in the sport as well as Sandcast the sport's most popular podcast which is affiliated with volleyballmag.com the sport largest US online magazine that covers the sport of beach volleyball. Another update I provided for the page is that I have recently published a book on the history of the sport with co-author Travis Mewhirter a noted sport's writer, journalist and professional beach volleyball player. I believe these and my other edits add value. Any possible editor of this page would need to not only be current in the sport of beach volleyball but up to date on its history as well. It is true that my friends occasionally add "joke" to this page but usually subsequently remove them. I have no control over these "joke" edits. Kentsteffes (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What possible benefit is there to a reader by repeatedly inputting the names and birth details of your children?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    None, except if they're actually notable, which they probably aren't. Closest thing I got to a softball player whose name I will not say, in a Google search reveals no Wikipedia Reference result relating to the softball player herself. One of the first results on the second page is the Kent Steffes Wikipedia article. As for Kent, he is notable to an extent. DizzyTheMan (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, my comment broke and published itself. Lol. DizzyTheMan (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The names and ages of the children have been on the Wikipedia page for years. Why were they removed only recently? Was there a change in policy? If people believe there is no benefit to the readers than I am fine with removing all mention of them although my daughter is a notable softball player at her High School and in our community but maybe not notable enough as I am not sure what is the standard. Kentsteffes (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been no change AFAIK - it's just that some things jump out to some unconnected editors, whereas others will let it slide. You have reverted a deletion to promote your children - one editor cited WP:BLPNAME in the edit summary, and requested you to not do it again, so it was deliberate. Putting it another way, often, well-meaning members of the public rush-in to take newspaper article content (or more recently 'new' media online) to swell the Wikipedia content. We had one young lady (14 years old) putting herself into her dad's article (a TV presenter) with social media content including contact details at her user page that had to be removed (no trace remaining) by an administrator. Another recent episode was a professional media person "It’s now my main responsibility to manage the *** C****** Group’s social media accounts..., instagram, facebook, twitter, tiktok, linkedin" (from Linked In) trying to make changes to the Wikipedia article; that's the sort of thing regular editors have to watch for. Letting it slide can encourage others into thinking Wikipedia is another form of social media.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the child's name again. DizzyTheMan (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For those of you who are following this thread, he's now editing again on his page. DizzyTheMan (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rocknrollmancer: Just curious; what are the cases you are referring to? 49.144.200.165 (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have avoided details for good privacy reasons, but here is an example of a Single-purpose account adding details to a WP:BLP that should not be in an encyclopedia.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Account is blocked now due to WP:IMPERSONATE concerns. If this person truly is who he claims to be, he can provide verification and be unblocked. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Account now unblocked because the user was verified to be the real-life Kent Steffes. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Middle East International

    Thus is not a standard COI notification. In fa ct, I'm not sure that the user has a COI. However, I'm at a loss on how to handle this and perhaps somebody here can give me some advice. The issue is a draft for a defunct magazine (Draft:Middle East International). The editor who created this clearly has put a lot of effort into this, but the draft has been rejected by two different editors. The problem is as follows (and I assume that the COI is the defense of the draft): Apparently in an effort to show the importance of this magazine for WP, the editor has been "seeding" numerous articles with references to the magazine (see Draft talk:Middle East International#Do we have a problem). Whether those citations are pertinent/warranted is mostly beyond me, as I don't generally work in this area. Advice welcome! --Randykitty (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Randykitty, it is actually the other way round. I have a collection of Middle East International that my father subscribed to and I think they have pertinent information about places and events in Lebanon. Once I had started I thought some readers might want more information about my references. Hence the article now held in Draft. It has been an interesting six months and I don’t envy editors making the decisions on some of the oddities that turn up. I honestly think that my article is useful. I will continue using MEI as a reference until I am told to stop. So far none have been disputed or deleted. All the best. Padres Hana (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Having edited with Padres Hana for years, I have no doubth that he is telling the truth, and that he has no COI wrt Middle East International. Padres Hana has made countless very good additions to the history of Lebanese villages/places, sourced to Middle East International, a work I hope he will continue doing, Huldra (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kspoty

    Kspoty has mostly edited on Wikipedia to improve references and add short descriptions to articles of businesses and businesspeople. However, they recently created their first article, which is on a businessman by the name of Nick Wolny. I encountered the article during New Page Review and found the notability to be borderline, so I started digging into the sources on the page and looking online to see if this should be straight-up AfD'd. When looking through the sources added by Kspoty to the page in this edit, I noticed that they included five references to YouTube videos that were uploaded by Wolny ([6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Ordinarily this isn't a terrible red flag, but they are all unlisted at this moment and appear to all have been unlisted at the time of their insertion into the article (see: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]), which indicates that Wolny (or whoever runs the YouTube account in his name) would have to have revealed the url to whoever actually found it and then inserted it into the page. Moreover, one of the videos had a mere 1 view at the time it was cited in the article, which is strong evidence that the editor has a close connection with Wolny.

    I'm leaving this here because this appears to be obvious undisclosed COI editing in light of the YouTube links that the editor inserted into the article, but also because if they are engaging in COI editing about a businessperson then the remainder of their edits about businesses and businesspeople might need a check. One of the sources cited in the article on Wolny and inserted by Kspoty was a link to a podcast put on by marketing/ad strategy firm BigEye , so I have a concern regarding potential UPE extending into short descriptions and the like. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I got your message on my talk page and I have already responded regarding this on the article's talk page[16]. If you think the person is not notable then why you didn't nominate it for AfD? Every reference I used are available on Google search including his website where you can see his press and youtube links which have been there since 2020 as I could find using web archive[17]. If you click on those videos, you land on the youtube page. You don't have to search on youtube for these. And if I have any connection with him then I wouldn't be using this link[18] by a marketing/ad strategy firm. You could have simply flagged the link or send the article to AfD instead of moving my all work in draft-space. Anyway, I am going to submit the draft but if you have to add anything, please do so on the article's talk page, not on top of the article. Kspoty (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    userWay

    I am suspicious in this case because, having nominated the article for deletion, these SPA editors have appeared to defend it, which constitutes each of their only substantial activity in Wikipedia. BD2412 T 18:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    OfficialHSAKSA

    Hassa bint Salman Al Saud, a daughter of the Saudi king, and a sister of Saudi-Arabias "strong-man" Mohammed bin Salman; is, AFAIK, most famous for ordering the beating of a workman on her estate in Paris, an incident covered by CNN [19] [20], The Guardian [21], BBC [22], The New York Times [23], CBS [24], etc, etc. Recently, the article about her has been given a re-write, with headlines like: "Princess Hussa's contributions to the advancement of Saudi Arabia and its people",

    Worst of all, her conviction in a Paris court has been re-written as: "Princess Hussa bint Salman Al Saud, as head of the household at the time, was found accountable for not preventing an assistant from engaging in an altercation..." She was in fact found guilty of ordering the beating.

    The account behind most of this rewriting seem to be User:OfficialHSAKSA, comments? Huldra (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Verdis

    MicroSupporter, whom created the above article, has almost exclusively made significant edits regarding Verdis across multiple Wikimedia projects. MicroSupporter made a few gnome edits between June and July, but in August requested that Verdis and Free Republic of Verdis be unprotected. They added WikiProjects to the redirect Verdis (micronation) on 7 September, and added a wikilink to the Spanish entry about Verdis (which they created) to template:Micronations on 26 September. They are also very active on the current AfD for Verdis started on 11 October (which is the second time the article has been nominated).

    On Spanish Wikipedia, MicroSupporter created Verdis and Daniel Jackson (político) (the "leader" of Verdis) in September, has somewhat frequently edited Verdis on Wikidata since August, and created the Wikidata item Daniel Jackson in September. Additionally, all four of their uploads to Commons relate to Verdis (granted these are in fact sourced, to verdisgov.org). Their only other article creation is Carolyn Shelby, another micronationalist, which was created on 8 October. Perhaps this was created so that they would not look affiliated with Verdis?

    I felt the need to leave this here as Verdis was repeatedly recreated and edit warred in the past by IPs and sockpuppet accounts of SwedenAviator clearly associated with Verdis; see the first AfD for Verdis (December 2020) and AfD for the Free Republic of Verdis (July 2019). I do not know if MicroSupporter is SwedenAviator, but they are likely to be associated with Verdis or even know Daniel Jackson personally at least. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 18:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have made edits to many micronations. Look at my contributions. I do have an interest in Verdis as I have found it to be the most 'serious'. I have also frequently made edits to articles surrounding Asgardia, Austenasia, etc. I am not that Verdis micronations President or even a citizen - I don't see a point in paying a fee for citizenship from a 'country' that will never be recognised. I do find it quite inspiring and satisfyingly interesting though. If it ever does seem to stand a chance, I will probably apply i dont know. i think they should just declare themselves an organisation like Flandrensis judging from their PoV on things. I recently made a list on wikiproject micronations on the articles i am drafting on adding to wikipedia soon. MicroSupporter (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Khowar Academy, Rehmat Aziz Chitrali

    Isn't Rehmat Aziz Chitrali and Khowar Academy notable enough to have its own article? Previous nominations for the deletion of the article have succeeded when sockpuppets and so-called "hoaxs" were made, but I believe these two topics are notable enough Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1115721130"