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 Hatchens (talk | contribs) at 11:27, 22 May 2022 (→‎Umakant Bhalerao's possible socks: Reply). 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&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:Bruce D. Broussard
    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:Valerie Jarrett
    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:Norwest Venture Partners
    Talk:Obama Foundation
    Talk:Olympus Corporation
    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:Plinabulin
    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:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Security AppScan
    Talk:Diana Senechal
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Snow Patrol
    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

    Bitag

    Adivaleza left evidence for their COI with this edit summary This is Adi, an employee of BMUI we change the history thru Mr. Ben Tulfo itself. BMUI is BITAG Media Unlimited Inc per the first sentence added with that edit. BITAGKATE's COI status is assumed by their username. I added a COI notice to both editors' talk pages. Adivaleza has not disclosed their COI despite the notice and a second request here

    • Adivaleza is removing out-of-date content and all four citations. It is being replaced with overtly promotional content with no citations.
    • Adivaleza added an edit request to their talk page (not talk:Bitag where it should have been placed). It was declined. No further edit requests were made. Adivaleza simply engaged in an edit war.
    • BITAGKATE has only made a single edit, removing an external link which does link to an apparently functional Bitag Media website: bitagmedia.com
    • After Adivaleza's fourth revert (at this time), I added an edit warning notice to their talk page.
    • Adivaleza then left a message on their talk page asking if the article could be deleted here.

    I wouldn't mind helping them update the article, but there is little communication. I personally have no interest in this article nor the company and would like to clear it from my watchlist. Adakiko (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: PP added to Bitag expires 04:15, 26 April 2022 Adakiko (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've let a message about WP:OWN on their talk page, and collapsed the improperly placed edit requests in {{hidden}} sections. Hopefully these messages will make them a little more cooperative. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A user - a new user - who places edit requests on their talk page is not being uncooperative, and our response should not be to hide those requests. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Diff/1083856656 is a disclosure. Maybe partial, but apparently made in good faith. Adakiko: Next time I would suggest to give some more time, not just 24 hours, between a {{uw-coi}} notice and a WP:COIN report.
    Adivaleza, BITAGKATE: Keep in mind that you can only use one account per person. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. And you must not edit while logged out (like this) to evade the mandatory paid editing disclosure. You can make further edit requests at Talk:Bitag. Note that, as other users warned before, edit warring could get your accounts blocked. MarioGom (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Emilio Sempris

    New editor User:Gudisoc has what I believe to be an undeclared conflict of interest at this article. Nearly all their edits so far are on this article, and most of the files they've uploaded to Commons, e.g. c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gudisoc, are what appear to be scans of original documents belonging to Sempris, uploaded as "own work" by User:Gudisoc. They've steadfastly denied any connection with Sempris, [1], but I've done image searches on Google and Tineye, and can only find the images at "public files in websites and social networks" for File:Reconocimiento de la NASA 2007 para Emilio Sempris.jpg (as pointed out by Gudisoc [2]) and File:Emilio Sempris dando discurso inaugural de SERVIR en 2003.jpg: they haven't yet explained where they found the rest. It looks like either paid editing or an undeclared close connection with Sempris, in order to get these files for scan and upload. The first two days' edits were full of unsourced and detailed claims about Sempris' life and family, [3], most of which I've since whittled out. Storchy (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no evidence of CoI. The explanation given is plausible and the "personal" images are apparently from publicly available sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pigsonthewing: two are apparently from publicly available sources. For the rest, they've all been uploaded as "own work", and as noted above I can't find them online, and the new editor has still not yet explained where they got the images, so until then, we should take them at their word that the images are their own work, implying that they scanned the original sources from Emilio Sempris. Storchy (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "I upladed the files I downloaded from servir.net, and twitter, facebook or linkedin. I undertand they are public files." [sic], per this edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a handwaving statement like that is sufficient? We don't need URLs to verify that they're publicly available?
    And what about the detailed and unsourced knowledge of Sempris' life and family added by the single-purpose account? Storchy (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Wilde

    Self-promotion and no secondary source references. 138.100.10.224 (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like an autobiography. Have trimmed it somewhat, but lack the academic expertise to go any further. Edwardx (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    AnyDesk‎

    This software is mostly notable for its use in Technical support scams. Lately we've had an uptick in single purpose accounts attempting to suppress information about this - which is fairly noncontroversial. A few years ago, in an interview about these scams, the company COO stated that the fraud is 'very common'. I guess the message strategy has changed. Situation could use more eyes, please. MrOllie (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    These are my accounts. I lost the login information for AndAmpersand187 so I made another. It's pretty apparent you don't understand how a lede works, or how to properly use sources. Judging by your edit history it's also apparent that you're just reverting edits to rack up the number of contributions you make, and not actually to contribute anything useful to the wiki. If you would like to re-phrase your edit in the lede to make more sense contextually, by all means do so. But reverting your bad line of text with improper citations over and over again is not actually contributing to the article. And claiming I have a COI because I corrected one sentence from a lede is nonsensical. Take it to the talk page of the article instead of resorting to petty disputes like this. BattleSpace736 (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Partially blocked BattleSpace736 and AndAmpersand187 from AnyDesk for breaking the 3 revert rule. This shouldn't and does not resolve the issue at heart, but my action is because the 3 revert rule was broken by this user. CU does not suggest any connections to other accounts, and supports the assertions made by BattleSpace736 with regards to their accounts (including about loosing a password). This block is not for any abuse of multiple accounts as the change in account was made in good faith. Any administrator is free to extend my partial block to a full block or longer partial block as they see fit, but would prefer if I was pinged if removal is desired. As I have run CU, I make no comment with regards to whether or not the IP address is related and will leave it to another admin to review. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dreamy Jazz, MrOllie did not bring his issue with me to my attention on my Talk page. As per the Conflict of Interest guide, users are to "raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, which is the first step in resolving user-conduct issues, per the DR policy, citing this guideline." It was not brought to my attention that MrOllie believed I had a COI so I could discuss this with them in a civil manner. Instead, I was promptly tagged here after he engaged in an edit war with me. It's my belief that he also violated the 3RR.
    While I understand MrOllie enjoys contributing vastly to the project, I don't think he should be running around acting as a moderator. BattleSpace736 (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BattleSpace736 while editors are encouraged to use the talk page of the editor(s) concerned, the next sentence says that If for some reason that is not advisable ... the next step is to open a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN). While discussion at your talk page may have resolved the COI concerns raised by MrOllie, from my perspective this discussion is also asking for other editors to keep an eye on AnyDesk for any single purpose accounts which is best done at this or other noticeboards.
    With regards to 3RR, MrOllie has not from my perspective broken the 3 revert rule because they made only three reverts over a 24-hour period (their fourth edit in that 24 hour period was not a revert and added content). If I am mistaken, and you see 4 reverts on the same page in 24 hours then please detail which edits these are (either by providing the diffs or the timestamp of the edits you are talking about). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dreamy Jazz while I understand he may be bringing up the point of single use accounts, there was no need for him to call me out publicly before reaching out to me on my talk page. If you look at the edit history, I even encouraged him to reach out to the talk page of the Article to discuss before he randomly posted on here in what feels like a petty attempt to end a dispute without a discussion. BattleSpace736 (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is the software that allows the screen to be switched on, on the "marks" computer, while your transferring the marks money out their bank, making it particularly dangerous. I will add it to my watchlist. scope_creepTalk 21:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Josegutierrezcarlos

    Hi, Please check Josegutierrezcarlos (talk · contribs) writing an article about his employer: Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation. See also c:File:RCBC PTG.jpg. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Yann please leave the required notice for Josegutierrezcarlos as described at the top of this page. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Yann (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have posted a {{uw-paid1}} warning to his talk page. This template contains useful guidance that is somtimes followed by some once they are aware. MarioGom (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ontario Party

    This is a SPA which first edited March 31st, making WP:PROMO edits to a minor fringe party involved in an upcoming election. User reverted me in order to restore the unsourced party platform, with no introduction of secondary sources and ignored the CoI template I placed on their talk page. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 12:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The primary sources used in the article are without question verifiable, without reasonable doubt. I will add secondary sources as they become more available. To provide the party's platform is not promotion, considering the content is included without bias. TrickieDickie1 (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An unrelated point, but much of the content added to Ontario Party was copied directly from https://www.ontarioparty.ca/our_platform_en, a website that does not license its content for use on Wikipedia. That makes the additions a violation of our copyright policies. I will leave some reading material about Wikipedia and copyright on your user talk page, TrickieDickie1. No comment on the CoI question (it's not my field). /wiae /tlk 21:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AnkurSainiYT

    User repeatedly recreates their userpage which is used only to advertise their Youtube channel. They have been told not to do so on their talk page already and have ignored their talk page messages. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been blocked by Deb. Before I had a chance to inform them of this discussion (would've done so after but didn't realize I had to until after they got blocked). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blaze Wolf: WP:AIV can also handle any repeat-offender promotional accounts who show no intention of listening to repeated warnings. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DavidPinedaOCSA

    This user has been editing Orange County School of the Arts, and apparently now with another account on that page (although it could be someone else). Ovinus (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Barrett

    There is a case pending at DRV concerning a promotional draft. The draft was speedy-deleted as G11, and that is being appealed, and the G11 is being endorsed. So far, so good. User:Acroterion and User:Stifle have both asked the author whether they have a conflict of interest, and there has been one reply that is a non-answer. Can we assume that failure to answer indicates Undisclosed Paid Editing? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I think we can. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company

    Single-purpose account repeatedly adding promotional material and marketing language to this article since 2019. The "UTM" in the username makes it even more obvious. --Sable232 (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is also repeatedly copy-pasting copyrighted material onto the page and not repodning to talk page massages. I would say this user is WP:NOTHERE. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ggux conflicted about polyphenol research

    I have been advised by User:Zefr to report here to have my conflict of interest assessed. I have been editing flavan-3-ol and other polyphenol related pages and have in some aspects a very different opinion. Since I have been working in the field of polyphenol research for more than two decades, I am clearly biased regarding the importance of the field (and welcome advise on what is encyclopaedically important), but I believe I do have some subject knowledge. Please advise. Ggux (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    See the COI notice on the Ggux user page. The editing history of this novice user (about 210 edits) is in two timelines, the most recent and majority of which, since March 2022, is 1) to push for acceptance of the COSMOS study, possibly involving work by Ggux, an employer or funding agent (Mars, Inc.) of the professional research by Ggux; and 2) the user is also pushing an unconventional concept not in mainstream science that phytochemicals, whose properties are poorly known and not recommended in diets by any regulatory authority, are nutrients. This appears to be a POV supported by the user's research and/or colleagues, emphasizing the issue of COI. The Ggux editing history also shows potential conflict with the article Jeremy P. E. Spencer (a nutrition scientist, created in 2018) and Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University of Reading {failed article, Nov 2019) whose members (possiby including Ggux) publish in the disputed article topic, flavan-3-ol, and so may be an employer of Ggux. The user appears to be a WP:SPA to push for unaccepted concepts in diet and nutrition. We should know more about the COI background. I have encouraged Ggux to widen their interests, let the dust settle on flavan-3-ol, and enjoy editing elsewhere in the project. Zefr (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not push for the COSMOS study, I believe that within the context of flavan-3-ols, it is a study of significant size and importance to merit a mention as outlined in WP:MEDPRI. Zefr has objected to this based on assumptions that are factually wrong (sample size) or are not relevant according to WP:MEDASSESS (i.e. funding).
    • I am involved in flavan-3-ol research (as I have mentioned more than once) and thus intended to contribute my knowledge. I do not think I have sufficient expertise to contribute to other articles. University of Reading had one of the leading Departments in this field in the UK
    • I fail to understand what unconventional concept I am accused of pushing. Polyphenols as bioactives (non-nutrient compounds in foods) is not new and has been discussed for more than a decade. The physiological effect of some of these compounds has been established (resulting e.g. in health claims, but also shown in Cochrane reviews - see e.g. Flavan-3-ols - and numerous discussion paper, including by members of the US DRI committee (cited in the relevant sections), state this.
    I have suggested that it would be appropriate to have a RfC or 3rd opinion, but Zefr has ignored this in the past and reverted edits ([[4]]) on a different topic and has ignored that other editors in the flavan-3-ol RfC did not share their opinion.
    If the contents of flavan-3-ol would be scientifically accurate, I would not mind - but unfortunately they are wrong and partly outdated. Ggux (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Jim Ward (game designer)

    I'm not sure if this is an actual family member of Gary Gygax or just someone invoking the name, but they were warned of a possible COI last year, so given that I'm not sure if this edit is acceptable? BOZ (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone? BOZ (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not acceptable. Jim is an ex-boss, so I'd prefer not to edit his page directly. I can't imagine Ernie or Luke ever calling themselves GaryJr. To my eyes this looks like either someone possibly associated with the new museum in LG or some random fanboy. It's not a username violation, but is a bit iffy. Appreciate the eyes, BOZ. BusterD (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd start by making another post on Garygygaxjr's talk page, providing links to WP:CoI, WP:PAID, and WP:USERNAME, and explaining exactly what the issues are. We can't expect newcomers to comply with policies they've very likely never heard of. If Garygygaxjr then continues to edit, further action will probably be needed, but we need to give them a chance to respond first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Seattle Gay News

    Persistent addition of non-neutral content, by an account with the same name as the paper's editor. Hasn't responded to notices regarding conflict of interest, except to deny promotional intent. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:4FAD (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    They have now stated that they are the publication's current editor. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The unearthing of massive UPE operation

    Note: moved from WP:ANI. Levivich 16:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Agency Name: RankHawn HQ Location: Bangalore, India Official Website: https://rankhawn.com/

    Claims to be Wikipedia Page Creator at their Website - https://rankhawn.com/wikipedia-page-creation-service/

    Claims to be Wikipedia Page Creator at third-party sites such as directories - [Zoompo https://www.zoompo.com/rankhawn/], [SartUs https://www.startus.cc/company/rankhawn], [ExportersIndia https://www.exportersindia.com/rankhawn/].


    Now, let's focus on their client list (as mentioned on their Website - https://rankhawn.com/our-clients/);

    Current Status: The page is LIVE!!
    User:Lapablo is a sockpuppet of User:Ukpong1
    The page moved back to draft multiple times; these two IDs moved it back to the main article namespace; User:DrJNU and User:Sonofstar.
    Current status: The page is LIVE!!
    • Tata 1mg - Page created by another blocked ID User:Myconcern. The page was nominated for an AfD on May 24, 2021, but it attracted a bunch of meatpuppets (as User:MER-C has rightly identified it), out of which only one survived User:Sonofstar and did pretty well to influence the outcome.
    Current status: The page is LIVE!!
    Current status: The page is finally in a draft, thanks to Praxidicae
    Current status: The page is finally in a draft, thanks to Praxidicae
    Also, note, that it is because of this draftification, I was dragged to ANI for the third time by this gang of UPEs.
    • smallcase - Created by an SPA. But page was pushed back to draft by an another UPE, User:Germankitty (who happens to be blocked) and again moved it back to mainspace by User:Alookaparatha (also blocked) and edited further by User:GA99(also blocked) and User:User:Behind the moors.
    Current status: The page is currently going through AfD, thanks to HighKing
    • Tejas Networks - Page created by a low-level ID - User:Diamondchandelier. Genuinely passed AfC, maybe because of WP:LISTED. But, it was further edited by User:Alookaparatha
    Current status: The page is LIVE!
    Current status: The page is LIVE!
    Current status: The page is LIVE!

    I started this investigation on my end after facing the third ANI case , which was launched against me by the same group of UPEs. The way they tried to influence the ANI discussion by seeding doubts (against me) in the minds of other participants made me more determined to seek them outside Wikipedia. That determination led me to gather more information about paid Wikipedia services providers (in India and South Asia), and gradually I started updating the WP:PAIDLIST. However, I was not so hopeful in the beginning. But, giving up is not an option when your reputation is attacked. Kindly note that I intentionally added the screenshots of RankHawn's webpages to Wikimedia Commons. We should have some proof if they try to modify/update their website to hide the trail. So let's end this once and for all. -Hatchens (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Two issues with this report 1) Why is this here instead of WP:COIN? This seems more suited to that noticeboard. 2) Your diffs don't show any conflicts of interest. For example, your proof for your first bullet is just the dif where the draft was moved to the main space. How do I know, only by looking at that dif, that there is a problem? Same for many of the others. You've made a lot of serious accusations here, but you're light on evidence and on possible solution. And, as I said, this is the wrong venue. --Jayron32 15:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Jayron32, I too feel this is the wrong venue. But, have you considered looking at the external links like this which mentions the names of companies that are clients of RankHawn. Ofcourse, this indicates that the Wikipedia articles of any of these are UPE cases, imho ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This should be moved to WP:COIN for further comments. I hope some admin takes care of it. @MER-C:, your opinions on this, please? ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If that's the case, then the paid editing is hardly undeclared, n'est ce pas? I mean, if they are literally publicly declaring this, it's not UPE, is it? This hardly merits the sort of moral panic-type post above, and yes WP:COIN is the correct venue. --Jayron32 15:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Jayron32, declaration on some other website is not sufficient under either the Foundation's terms of use or enwiki's local policy implementing the terms. Cabayi (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough. This is still not WP:COIN. --Jayron32 15:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please take this to WP:COIN. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    Nothing to add except that I have no affiliations with this rankhawn or whatever it is called. This is exactly why I gave up my AFC rights. You do a ton of AFC and then get dragged in stuff like this. Hatchens don't have a lot of ground honestly after the deletion of Koenig Institute and Prasun Chatterjee that they accepted/NPP, and defended. Their affiliations with Nikhil Kamath are still unanswered. I also see them requesting Smallcase to be redirected to Zerodha (Nikhil Kamath's company).

    Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Manyavar was created, quarantined, and patrolled all by blocked spammers (Juggyevil, MickyShy and Aloolkaparatha). OkCredit is also suspicious, having been patrolled by the same spammer as Manyavar. MER-C 17:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      there is a need of policy or guideline that covers this underground UPE. There are plethora of such websites [rings] operating on the Wikipedia, and if I'm not wrong a plenty of editors associated would be those in good-standing over here. This "underground ring" has understood how Wikipedia works and that's how they do their business. This needs more than a block or a sanction. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, we have two completely different issues here. The first is how do we deal with UPE accounts, and the second, mostly unrelated matter, is how do we deal with the articles that have been created this way. The first seems easy. Blocking the accounts seems perfectly reasonable, we have plenty of policy backing to do so, WP:NOTHERE is sufficient. The second is dealing with the articles. That's also easy. We read the article and pretend it wasn't created inappropriately. We just erase that idea from our minds. Then we assess it against the same standards we would any article, take the ones that don't belong at Wikipedia to AFD, edit the other ones to clean up any tone/NPOV issues, and then go back to the rest of our lives. UPE is a problem, but it's a problem dealt with using the mechanisms we use for dealing with any problems. We block/ban any users who violate standards, and we use normal editing processes to deal with their mess, being sure not to cut off our own nose just to spite our faces. --Jayron32 18:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am grateful to Jayron32 for their very cear distinction between the UPE editor (block them to hell and back - I paraphrase) and the article (treat it like any other article), and agree wholeheartedly with the element regarding the UPE editors
    I have sympathy with their view on articles. However I also do not wish to reward UPE. I believe we should take the approach that clear UPE created articles without edits by other parties (substantive edits, not cosmetic edits) should be treated in the same way as we treat articles created by blocked users evading their block. Delete and consider salting if saltig be justified. Those that have received substantive edits by non UPE editors should be held up against our policies WP:N and WP:V, and face deletion or retention on that basis, by an appropriate deletion mechanism, inclising speedy deletion for egregious cases.
    I am also grateful to Hatchens for brigning their thoughts first to ANI and then, more properly (albeit by consensus at ANI), to here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not entirely clear on what actions are being requested here and how our existing policies and practices are inadequate. I do think that it would be really helpful if the foundation could offer more active, direct support in combatting UPE, especially in cases where there are many people or a large organization(s) involved that exceeds the capabilities of a volunteer editor. This does seem like an area where some paid staff could really help us volunteers. ElKevbo (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again thanks to Hatchens for bringing this to the community's attention. This practice is likely more widespread that we acknowledge and should be dealt with swiftly whenever discovered. I also agree 100% that UPE editors should not be rewarded in any way, shape or form. Any articles in which they have been substantially involved should be deleted because to leave those articles in place means that the UPE delivered a "satisfied" customer. It might sound overly-harsh, but if their "customers" end up denied the coverage promised by the UPE editors it will discourage future participants. HighKing++ 20:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What if we were to, say, append a COI template that also applies NOINDEX? We keep the page so that it can be worked on (if it's otherwise acceptable) and they're denied the Google rankings they're looking for. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it though? A "customer" would still be able to see *their* paid-for space on Wikipedia, UPE would still get paid. COI template might even encourage some UPE's (see, we can break the rules and *still* get your page live). Not seeing a workable disincentive here. HighKing++ 20:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire reason they want the article is to exploit most search engines' favouring of Wikipedia, and thru that drive traffic to their web pages from the links in article. This is not an instance where NOFOLLOW would help since the goal is to have a publicly-searchable Wikipedia article that tops search engine rankings. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By default, yes, those templates should apply NOINDEX. But not as a solution to UPE. HighKing++ 20:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I second HK. This is not any solution to the UPE problems. No-indexing ≠ not having a Wikipedia article. All those people or companies want a Wikipedia article, and don't care about its Google indexing, perhaps for some reasons; who cares with the "within Wikipedia known stuff"? This needs a stricter stick. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The only other thing they would want a Wikipedia article for is social media verification, from experience. Most such websites accept a Wikipedia article, as long as it's properly referenced and written, for verification. The issue is that most of these people either assume the Wikipedia article is the easiest option (ignoring the "properly referenced and written" part) or ignore far easier requirements that would make a Wikipedia article for the purpose redundant (for example, Twitter also allows one to submit multiple news articles for verification, a requirement which at best dovetails with and at worst makes unnecessary a Wikipedia article).
    People aren't seeking a Wikipedia article just to have a Wikipedia article. All the WP:BLPREQDEL we get proves that much. They have a goal in mind that the Wikipedia article is a means toward. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can comfortably presume that people who are paying to have their company added to Wikipedia don't have a company that would end up in Wikipedia through the course of normal volunteer editing. At the very least, they should automatically be moved to draft to be vetted, and not at the top of the pile of drafts, either. BD2412 T 21:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. Draftifying all of them gets them off main namespace and removes them from robots indexing while also putting them in the AfC queue so an un-involved editor can examine it. The concern is how many UPE'ers are already inside AfC. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Both AfC and NPR are filled with the UPE'ers. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that, in a recent RFC (on Village Pump I guess), WP:DRAFTIFY has a new 2d clause not allowing articles older than 90 days (and recent creation by inexperienced editor) for draftification - except thru AFD. That also has the 5a and 5b that deal with WP:COIEDIT — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems like the fact that this was initially posted to ANI has muddied the waters a bit, but I don't see why we shouldn't deal with this like we always deal with UPE: block the accounts and tag the articles with {{UPE}} until someone can check whether they need to be cleaned up or deleted. Moving to draft is just kicking the can down the road. – Joe (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Since this is multi-accounts UPE operation, can the accounts in question be checked for potential socks and sleeper accounts? – robertsky (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding one more client of RankHawn;

    Created by; User:Boyofjawad (blocked)
    Included in RankHawn Client List: YES
    ID's involved; User:GA99 (blocked) and User:Sonofstar
    Current Status: The page is LIVE! -Hatchens (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    robertsky; Aren't we taking this too much easy? How would one justify the usage of a CU because all the accounts may not necessarily be used by a single person, and there would necessarily be no behavioural similarities. The big UPE rings are aware of the "within Wikipedia" intricacies. An SPI clerk won't approve for a CU until they get on-wiki diffs that indicate any sort of similarities, and perhaps same sort of behaviour is needed under DUCK. This is much beyond. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence the phrasing as a question. Thanks for the response, it is what I wanted to know. My thought was that these people may slip up despite knowing the intricacies of the norms on Wikipedia, and they may have accounts in good standing just waiting to be activated for their UPE operation. But agree on the current usage/limits on CU. May have to do some behavioral analysis to check for potential relations then. – robertsky (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel behaviour-check is difficult given the fact how these types of UPE rings work. They've their boys in the AfC and NPP. I was reading somewhere on the website that Hatchens reported above, that, they are all over the Wikipedia, and in fact good-standing in a nice way. Can't AfC/NPP reviewers of any of the articles that come from such rings be held accountable? This is something that has nothing to do with SPI's. What about those who hugely influence the AfD discussions? So much to do. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheAafi: Don't believe everything you read... we know that UPE outfits frequently lie about their standing on-wiki to dupe people into giving them money. There have been cases of UPErs/sockpuppets getting new page patrol rights (the criteria aren't particularly high), but I don't think it's a widespread problem. Most are not particularly savvy and get themselves blocked long before they even reach extended confirmed. But if you have specific accounts you are concerned about that aren't already blocked, by all means let's look at them. – Joe (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    UPE is in itself a good reason to suspect sockpoppetry and run a check. Many (most?) of the accounts above are already checkuser blocked. If there are any with more recent edits I can check for more socks but most seem to be stale by now. – Joe (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed yes. UPE and socking go together very well, if combined. There is a financial incentive, and their incomes, after all! Remember Orangemoody? We even have a mainspace on it - Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding one more suspected client of RankHawn

    Created by User:KNivedat (the same low-level ID has created Draft:PharmEasy, a client of RankHawn)
    Included in RankHawn Client List: NO
    ID's involved in editing further; User:Behind_the_mooor (blocked)
    Today, there was an attempt to create a page for its founder via AfC route - Draft:Kunal Shah. An SPA was used; User:Pogochamp.
    Current Status: The page is LIVE! -Hatchens (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Umakant Bhalerao's possible socks

    @Joe Roe: I found some for a review. For the background, I wrote this report and my suspicions were right. This UPE ring operates a large number of accounts. My quest to discover more lead to another NPR right holder, Umakant Bhalerao (talk · contribs). Their pattern is pretty much similar to DMySon (mostly reviews politician's articles, Uttar Pardesh geography, in between they review their own client's articles) and I won't be surprised if a usercheck confirms that. In any case, following accounts are most likely operated by them:

    I think this is enough to file a SPI against these accounts (perhaps on GermanKity) and we need some sort of sysop action against Umakant Bhalerao (they've done enough damage already). Courtesy ping to @MER-C:. I am notifying Umakant Bhalerao to join this discussion. Thanks. 117.215.247.207 (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree Wikibablu, Michael goms, Anthony Masc, Aaliyahshaikh01, and Pjjkn are all suspicious. MER-C 18:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MER-C: the IDs are so smart that none of them have any inter-linking history popping at Editor Interaction Tool. If all these IDs turns out to be linked with GermanKity (I don't know how), then it will establish indirect link with MickyShy; which will eventually leads us back to RankHawn. Kindly note, there is also no inter-linking history between Germankity and MickyShy but, still the latter got blocked because being former's sockpuppet. As AafiOnMobile quoted above - "This is much beyond". - Hatchens (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear IP, you are mistaken. I do not have a connection with any of the accounts you've mentioned above. Nor do I know GermanKity. You're more than welcome to file an SPI request. And secondly, this list is very short, I've marked many more articles as reviewed within minutes of their creation that doesn't mean those accounts belong to me.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Hatchens: What is your take on Razorpay (logs, draft logs) in which Umakant Bhalerao was involved (they draftified stating UPE and PROMO concerns). I don't see Razorpay on RankHawn website. Is there a connection or is this completely independent of this report? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @DaxServer First of all, I was surprised to hear Umakant Bhalerao's name come up in this discussion thread and equally surprised to find him performing controversial reviews of some articles (as mentioned above by the IP). However, I have worked with them, interacted with them, and discovered their reasoning to be explicit and exemplary. In fact, they are one of my go-to editors when I need a second opinion or recommend somebody for a review. And, when it comes to Razorpay, based on the logs, draft logs, they have shown us the exact level of knowledge and integrity as our community demands. Therefore, I hope they should come clean about their act. It's about trust. That's the only thing we can share with our fellow editors.
      Now, coming to the second question (and the important one), if you ask me how to connect with Razorpay with RankHawn; without the former getting mentioned on the latter's website? It's simple... by studying the edit history of the recently created Draft:Razorpay, which was created by Aviationhub on May 22, 2022 (i.e., today) and it's the same ID did two mid-size edits on Draft:Bigbasket (RankHawn client) on May 16, 2022. They are also involved in editing other RankHawn client pages such as; Cred (company), and Tata 1mg (in the past two months). So it does establish a connection. And, we should not be surprised that Razorpay is RankHawn's new client because, in the past, their pages have been draftified n-number of times, and one of their reviewers DarjeelingTea and page movers JohnHGood41 are also blocked. But, I wonder about the audacity of this UPE gang to attempt a new page (Razorpay) with an ID that can be duly linked back to this ongoing COIN investigation. It seems to be unprecedented and weird! - Hatchens (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1089190791"