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 BinaryPhoton (talk | contribs) at 22:50, 3 September 2022. 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: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]

    User:Pranav Baria


    Promotion-only account, repeatedly submitting spam articles about Indian esports and sports groups. I've warned them repeatedly about declaring paid editing or at least a COI, but have so far had no response.

    User:Pranav Baria has also made highly promotional edits to existing article Elite Pro Basketball League [1]. Storchy (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Also adding user links for User:Sanawagle, an inactive account which posted the same drafts two years ago, later abandoned. Maybe they simply forgot their password and created a new account, but Sanawagle at least declared paid editing at their user page, whereas Pranav Baria seems uninterested in declaring either way.

    Also adding user links for User:Jishan.JAM, who created Elite Pro Basketball League and Elite Sports India (currently at AFD), similar though not identical articles, and the latest Draft:Mobile Global Esports Inc, which User:Pranav Baria jumped in to edit a day later. No declaration of conflict of interest yet.

    OK this looks a bit like a sockpuppet investigation, I guess. Maybe I should re-post this there, but the immediate problem is User:Pranav Baria, who seems to realise that they're about to be blocked for undeclared paid editing, after many warnings. Storchy (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I opened a discussion at ANI about this user a minute later, so I'll move my comments here. Their edits all seem to revolve around someone named Richard Whelan — Draft:Elite Sports India (name on page), Draft:Elite University Sports Alliance of India (name on page), Draft:Mobile Global Esports (see SEC filing). – Pbrks (t • c) 14:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, @Storchy @Pbrks thanks for an update but fortunately, I don't have any external or internal relationship with the people, places or things I've written about on Wikipedia. I came across an article on internet written about Elite Pro Basketball League. I searched it on Wikipedia but found no article written on it then I created an article on Wikipedia about Elite Pro Basketball League. Later I found the user @Pranav Baria made an edit on my written article which was later got rejected. In a meanwhile I had gone through the articles written by the user @Pranav Baria then I did a research on the rejected articles written by the user and tried to write those rejected articles with the proper citations. That's all I did. At last I request you please remove my username from Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Thanks. :) Jishan.JAM (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pranav Baria is now blocked, with the right to appeal of course. Deb (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    St. Francis College

    This single-purpose editor is almost certainly employed by this college in a position that makes their editing fall under WP:PAID. WP:OUTING prevents me from saying exactly why but I trust that other editors can perform the simple search that I did that establishes a clear link with the college. I left the standard warning template on their User Talk page two days ago and they have not replied, added a paid editing disclosure, or stopped editing. ElKevbo (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabterrier appears to be related to this COIN thread. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Freelancer's page on Wikipedia

    Hello all. I was surprised to see a freelancer's page, Sudeep Acharya, on Wikipedia. Most of the references he used are the sites he advertise on, his YouTube channel, and some PR articles. Not sure how this junk stayed here for so long. 62.45.241.148 (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    ping @Atlantic306: who reviewed this. 62.45.241.148 (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbana Osmani

    Username of the editor matches the subject of the article. Liliana (UwU) 03:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    LilianaUwU, As it says at the top of the page, this page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue. Arbana Osmani7 has made one edit, which you have reverted, so the next step should be to explain COI to them, possibly by using Template:Uw-coi. If that fails you can start a discussion here. TSventon (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Liberland

    The Liberland article, concerning a putative 'micronation' claimed to exist in uninhabited territory on the border between Croatia and Serbia, has in the past been the subject of promotional editing, either unsourced or based on questionable primary sources. The object of such editing seems self-evident - to promote the 'micronation' and its founders, by giving a misleading impression as to its legal status. In May this year, a new single-purpose contributor registered, User:Michalptacnik, who's first edit was to add a series of names for individuals in the 'organizational structure' section of the infobox. [2] Given the poor sourcing, this was reverted, but User:Michalptacnik has now returned, to restore the disputed content, [3] and make other edits. It should be noted that amongst the individuals named (citing a Liberland website) is one Michal Ptáčník, the supposed 'Minister of Justice' of this zero-population 'micronation'. It should also be noted that after I came across a comment by User:Michalptacnik, 'I work for Liberland and am authorized to make changes in the Wiki to reflect the current situation', [4] I informed him of our guidelines regarding Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and in particular of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure policy. [5] Given that User:Michalptacnik has made no declaration under the disclosure policy, and seems intent on carrying on promoting both his supposed 'micronation' and himself, contrary to said guidelines and policies (amongst others: i.e. WP:NPOV, WP:RS) it seemed appropriate to bring this to the attention of other contributors here, who will no doubt have suggestions as to how best to proceed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandro Salsano

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandro Salsano

    Extensive COI history with many ip users and one user edits, that the only thing that makes Sandro Salsano Wikipedia:Notability is having been labeled a wikipedia billionaire in the first place without even one reference to a single financial transaction. Contribuine34 (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you saying Forbes is not a reliable source? As the billionaire statement is refrenced to them? Slywriter (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Forbes is a great reference. However, he has never been listed here in Forbes ever. https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ Sandro Salsano did appear in Spanish language Forbes Mexico in 2019, owned by Media Business Generators under licence from Forbes, and HE was the source that he was a billionaire based on owning 1,000 hectares in Pacora, Panama valued at $1 million an hectare. Forbes Mexico has not listed or mentioned his presumed wealth since. To be a billionaire, there would be at least one news release, transaction, portfolio, asset beside the source himself saying he is a billionaire. There is not a website to the land, or any reference in any sales records in public records, etc. Seems way too fishy to hide 1 billion dollars. .https://www.forbes.com.mx/el-hippie-que-se-convirtio-en-filantropo/ Contribuine34 (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this the website of the supposed multi billion dollar conglomerate? The Salsano Group. https://www.salsanogroup.com/ Contribuine34 (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this the website of a billionaire's philanthropy group worth of wikipedia article? http://salsanoshahani.org./ Contribuine34 (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can anyone find any office location of The Salsano Group? If so, please post here. Contribuine34 (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Salsano Group
    Tower Bank General, 50th street, 20th floor
    Panama City, Panama
    Email: contact@salsanogroup.com
    Phone: + 507 203 6342
    www.salsanogroup.com
    Panama | London | Madrid | Geneva | Zurich | Curacao | Miami | San Juan | New York | San Francisco | Shanghai
    Media Contact
    Marco Barchetti
    contact@salsanogroup.com Contribuine34 (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a furnished office with video for rent at Tower Bank General, 50th street, 20th floor. https://ne-np.facebook.com/raulnavarrocnrealestate/videos/alquiler-oficina-lujo-tower-bankpiso-20completamente-amoblada-1800-mensual-90-m2/330183165142336/ Contribuine34 (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The address is Panama City, Panama ( no address or phone number) and has one employee, none other than Sandro Salsano. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/salsano-group Contribuine34 (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted subsection opened by Myopinion2222, now blocked as a sock of Martialarts22. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Vinayak Sasikumar

    These users with almost similar usernames, which in turn similar to the article name, are contributing to the mentioned article only. I suspect these accounts belong to the person which the article is about. Sneha996 (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential UPE on Superior Air Charter and JSX (airline)

    Since April 9, a user by the username of "RedStripe06" has been editing the article of Superior Air Charter (formerly "JetSuite"), a charter airline whose callsign is "REDSTRIPE". The editor has uploaded numerous images to Wikimedia Commons relating to the airline, whose plains are adorned with a red stripe down the middle, as their own work. Given the similarity of the username to the callsign of the charter airline, as well as the uploads on Commons claiming to have created the logo of Superior Air Charter, I suspect that this editor may have a conflict-of-interest with respect to the airline itself.

    This does not appear to be the first time that an editor with a conflict-of-interest has edited the page. In December 2021, a user "Jsxmarketingteam" whose username contained the terms "marketingteam" (a phrase that also implies shared use) substantially edited the page and that of JetSuiteX, a similarly named airline that has historically been (and maybe still is?) related to JetSuite.

    In any case, neither account has disclosed a conflict of interest, though they are required to under our terms of use if they receive any benefit in exchange for editing. I'm bringing this here for extra eyes to see if I've missed anything here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yannis Yortsos

    This seems to be a situation where USC's marketing people are promoting USC faculty.

    Bananasplitzz (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I am no longer affiliate with the university, nor have I ever been apart of USC's marketing department. My contributions should not be included in the conflict of interest claim. Thank you. Adamhamden (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Darouze/Thompson Conflict of Interest

    This post is in regards to a city councillor in Ottawa named George Darouze's page being locked on wikipedia, whilst one of his challengers in an upcoming election did not have his locked. I am a constituent in his area and am curious about your comments regarding paid editing or conflicts of interest. I was looking through candidates for my local area for the upcoming election, and couldn't help but notice stark differences in 2 candidates pages. The Darouze page had A) pushed negative media articles in reference to the councillor to the top of the page B) referenced his previous support for the man who is now running against him (relevance) and C) after checking the page of both Darouze, and another candidate named Doug Thompson, I couldn't help but notice that there was an individual making a large amount of edits for the Thompson page whilst also posting the slander pieces against Darouze. Does this not constitute a conflict of interest or paid editing situation? I think it is worth looking into the person in question who has been actively editing both websites during a campaign and posting favourable/unfavourable sections based on what I perceive to be their own conflict of interest. Thanks

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Darouze&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doug_Thompson&action=history


    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. OttawaResident74 (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the OP is referring to :

    Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This does seem like a fairy blatant case of using wikipedia for campaigning purposes for one or both candidates. As a starting point, I have reverted both articles to the state they were in before the recent flurry of editing. This is no doubt not the best long term solution, but at least flags the issue. Melcous (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,
    I disagree that editing wikipedia before an election is favouring anybody. It's a democratic service so people can read up about the candidates based on their online news articles.
    In the post above, it says there are slander pieces against the candidate. But the pieces are from legitimate newspapers.
    I would like to find a way forward that makes everybody happy. How can we do that? Can we start by going over the sections that I wrote that aren't thought to be appropriate and re-write them together?
    Are there any articles critical of Thompson that should be referenced? I don't want to be perceived as omitting any of those. Thanks. Eastcoastrandom (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a fair response, however it was abundantly clear that the pages were edited far more thoroughly for one candidate, and that one page was being prioritized over another, during an active campaign. I am not upset with you for your editing specifically, but there could be conflict of interest arguments made in regards to this, specifically towards the campaign of the individual (Thompson) with a more positive and extensive listing of biography. OttawaResident74 (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For what it's worth, canvassing for or against election candidates is definitely not acceptable. My personal view is that both articles should be protected from editing by new or anonymous users, but it's difficult to know how far to go. User:Melcous's assessment is spot on. Deb (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Hey Deb, agree with you and with User:Melcous. The reason this raised concerns for me initially is that one persons had been edited thoroughly and included all past achievements, while the other was hardly touched whatsoever, with a common user making adjustments. I think that is a pretty clear example of online canvassing for one party as opposed to the other in the middle of the campaign. Both pages should require edit requests, and I agree that reverting the pages to their prior state was a good middle ground to find. OttawaResident74 (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Nirmal Dulal - COI editing?

    This talk page discussion kind of summarizes the problem in dealing with User:Nirmal Dulal. I'm bringing it here because this editor is a bureaucrat on the Nepali Wikipedia and clearly has considerable experience of editing, but little experience of English Wikipedia and it appears he does not understand, or intend to abide by, the COI guidelines. I can understand that he is keen on pushing topics relating to Nepal, such as Dhiraj Pratap Singh and Jyoti Magar, but his persistent refusal to accept or listen to advice on declaring COI is difficult to counter, because this is how he sees it. (I'm not overlooking the fact that User:DIVINE also has limited English and a history of blocks for personal attacks.) The problem relates mainly to his introduction of photographs of Nepali celebrities that he took himself, which may or may not be quite innocent. I'm not sure which way to go with this, and maybe it's premature, so I would appreciate opinions from other administrators. Deb (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    CLOSED
    Editor has not returned or appealed. No action necessary unless COI edits recur. Deb (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Tommy Ramdhan

    Ramdhan is COI-editing, I reverted one of their edits but they keep on editing. One of the edits was to fix a typo of their last name. I would advise keeping a close eye on them for the next few days. I've tagged the article with {{Connected contributor}}. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 09:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think this is a huge problem as long as he continues to make only factual additions (preferably with citations). However, I have given him a warning about COI. Deb (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed my mind. Since he's completely ignored my advice and reverted my corrections, I've blocked him from editing that particular page. He's free to edit any other articles. Deb (talk) 12:03, 25 August 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.

    TheRealShoresy

    TheRealShoresy keeps adding references to a show named "Shoresy" to Wasaga Beach. Offending revisions: [6] [7]

    Wasaga Beach has even had a media reference recently in the show Shoresy, with it being known for such things as "Underwater Squeezers" and "Aqua Dumps" being performed at it's location.

    - TheRealShoresy

    A diehard editor (talk | edits) 03:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wartburg Adult Care Community

    SPA adding unencyclopedic/promotional language, improperly referenced. EL to Facebook re-added multiple times. No response to COI notice on their TP. MB 17:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    They have since responded on their talk page, confirming that they know the owner of the business [8]. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Steven Fernandez

    User:Stevenfernandez00 created Steven Fernandez. The username and article name matches. Possible conflict of interest. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Account has not edited since 26 May 2020. Looks like the AfD discussion is heading towards delete. I don't expect this user to respond. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Scandrett Regional Park

    I'm not sure whether this is a "Conflict of Interest" issue, an "Original Research" issue, or some combination of the two. User "E James Bowman" has substantially edited this article using several sources - including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandrett_Regional_Park#cite_note-our-5 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandrett_Regional_Park#cite_note-acc-10 - that he, himself wrote. He refused to acknowledge an error in his edits by pointing to a source (containing the same error) that he had written.65.122.255.220 (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The source is a booklet published by Auckland Council, which, as stated in the booklet, was written by historian Graeme Murdoch, with stated sources and acknowledgements. My family and I contributed to later parts of the booklet. You are yet to provide evidence that the booklet spelling is incorrect. If you Google 'Ōmaha and Mahurangi block' you can see various other reliable sources using this spelling, including NZ Parliament's 'Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill — Procedure, First Readings'. E James Bowman (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IP editor (and E James Bowman), as explained in the Additional notes above, this page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue. I suggest that one of you start a discussion at Talk:Scandrett Regional Park and only come here if that does not resolve the issue. TSventon (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Asiavision News

    COI editing, and inappropriate username. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 03:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Simufilam

    Is this edit, or SighSci's recent editing overall, a COI policy violation? They have twice indicated a conflict of interest related to biotech company Cassava Sciences and Simufilam, a drug in development by the company:

    1. 16 August: they say they've read the COI policy and will "only make suggestions"
    2. 26 August: "Yes I have a COI, which is why I have spelled things out on the Talk page instead of editing, once informed."

    Direct article editing with a COI is allowed, but SighSci's reliance on Cassava Sciences press releases has made their article edits inappropriately promotional. The edit in question was their second attempt at adding press-release-only content, after their first attempt was reverted (by me) about a week ago. SighSci never discussed restoring the material at the talk page.

    They were informed of the need to avoid press releases, unless supported by secondary sources, a few times. One example is this series of comments by SandyGeorgia (more diffs available on request).

    I'm trying to keep this filing as focused as possible, but SighSci's edits outside of article space have also been troublesome. Most of it is on display at Talk:Cassava Sciences and their user talk page, but I'm happy to provide select diffs if requested.

    Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    SighSci has me at my wit's end. All three articles are still a mess, there are many changes, edits and improvments I need to make, intend to make, and want to make, but SighSci has such a bad case of WP:IDHT that I am unable to make progress. Each time I return to the talk page, intending to try again to get the articles into better shape, I find more personal opinion, more disparaging and off-topic remarks, and more failure to use reliable sources along with filling the talk pages about how the reliable sources are hit pieces and the like. I am at the point of unwatching the lot, but they really do need cleanup still, and I hate to leave articles in the shape they're in now. Sigh, sigh and sigh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with using the Cassava press releases is they tell only one side of the story, while secondary sources give the bigger picture on subsequent statements from journals re further investigation on other concerns. For consideration of the magnitude of the problem going on across all the articles:
    1. Cassava Sciences has been editing: [9] [10]
    2. 18:54, August 16, 2022 Ponyo rangeblocked IP2600
    3. 19:12, August 16, 2022 SighSci first post
    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, we have already had some discussion around this company a few months ago: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 190#Cassava Sciences. SighSci would look to me more like a paid editor than a simple COI. SmartSE (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting: I missed that, but have requested protection twice so I could try to do cleanup (I feel I've failed because I keep getting stalled by the unholy mess on talk). For an idea of how really horrible the editing has been, search this version for a paragraph beginning with "Quintessential Capital Management". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: - I also just noticed that the IP range continued editing this month and was blocked by Ponyo - I have added the IP template above, but also see Special:Contributions/2600:1700:bb80:88a0::/64. And yes, it's an unholy mess and thanks for your efforts to try and resolve it. SmartSE (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    SighSci demonstrates knowledge of the personal life of Lindsay Burns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed notice of this -- sorry. QCM was mentioned not by me but by the original creator of the page in trying to make the company (or was it the drug, I forget) look bad. I did edit to show how ridiculous and libelous their "report" was (it was posted online for all to see) -- would rather have deleted any mention of it. As for "personal life" of Burns, race results are online here: https://www.regattacentral.com/regatta/results2/eventResults.jsp?job_id=6143&event_id=27. Frankly, constantly using "wife of Barbier" is what's personal, and Stat was the first to throw this around, discrediting her for presenting data at a conference, as if she doesn't hold a PhD and have knowledge of the program. I'm not a paid editor and have already declared a COI. I apologize to SandyGeorgia for my excessive talk (I'll stop), and thank you for your work. SighSci (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Similar editing from Mnachtrab, who also first edited after the rangeblock; see thread today at RSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone with the tools (Smartse ?) please look at the deleted revisions of Draft:Nemsys and ask the relevant questions at User talk:Mnachtrab? This whole paid matter is outside of my usual range of editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nemsys is a company I own and like I said I am just learning wiki so I thought I would start up a page for my companies history. It got deleted because it said it was promotional but really I was just learning and getting it up for history purposes. Not trying to get leads from it. Mnachtrab (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit takes an identical position to the IP edits. I will notify Mnachtrab of this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am trying to make the page be more balanced and fact based. Many opinions are on the page or references to articles with opinions when it can just be summed up with facts. Mnachtrab (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: - I think you should be able to see yourself from the deletion log that that article contained "This wiki page was created by the founder of Nemsys, Matthew Nachtrab" but it is not immediately clear what link there is to Cassava. I have left them a {{uw-coi}} just in case. Has someone else bought up the Compliance Week sources before? SmartSE (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I have no idea. Are you asking what my link could be to cassava? I am not paid by them as a consultant. I am not associated with the company in any way. I just follow the story and know a lot about the company. The Compliance week article is a great neutral coverage of the story that was not lead by people that are selling the stock short. Most of the content in the other articles was really sourced through people that are clearly negative about the company. Compliace week did deep research and rose some questions about the motivations behind the people that filed the various complaints about cassava. Mnachtrab (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to out anybody (even though this is one of those cases where we all pretend google doesn't exist), but I will ask this question: @Mnachtrab:, do you hold a large investment in Cassava Sciences? Let's say anything 5 figures and up is 'large'. MrOllie (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Without the necessity to out Mnachtrab, at this point, I'm not sure if it matters if it's five figures or one; a position taken publicly on the stock value should be sufficient regardless of the magnitude. We are probably at a point where reverting to revisions before Mnachtrab's edits are the most expedient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You said you are not going to out anyone, then you did... I added the COI to my user page. New to WIKI... rookie mistake. I am just trying to get the Cassava page more fact based and less opinion article and obvious negative tone like the word "Scheme". The stat quote is confusing and jumps to the conclusion that enrollment is slowed as people were deterred because of prevailing controversies. Mnachtrab (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The word scheme and the use of the Stat website (a reliable source) are matters for editor consensus on talk. (Where COI editing has made any progress towards cleaning up the article quite difficult.) This page is about your COI; have you declared your COI in full -- that is, do you have any personal relationship to Alzheimer's disease that might affect your ability to edit neutrally ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My grandfather died 20 years ago from it. I also have a gene that makes me more likely to get it (like a large portion of the population). It does not have an impact in my ability edit neutrally. My knowledge of the disease, various treatments, and of Cassava Sciences and other companies targeting allow me to edit neutrally. Mnachtrab (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Our issue is that people who have conflicts of interest always think that they can edit neutrally, but they are usually mistaken. MrOllie (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, re your statement that MrOllie outed you, see your own editing at Draft:Nemsys. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting very time consuming, but I will put together documentation of similar edits (Compliance Week and nov Stat (website) as well). That should misspend my a.m. editing time. Thx, SmartSe; this is getting to a point where, rather than trying to bring the suite of Cassava articles into some sort of decent shape, I may move on to areas where my time is not misspent, and just leave them tagged as COI and POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Having now done my google-is-your-friend homework, I don't think it necessary to misspend more time exhibiting the COI and paid editing issues, and the editing similarity creating a POV towards the company position that is abundantly clear. Neither of the editors here should be editing this suite of articles, and it's further likely that neither should be allowed to continue to disrupt the talk page and impede efforts to bring the articles to a decent state. The COI/PE is making it extremely difficult to actually get any work done towards improving the articles, which continue to be slanted by the COI/PE. If there is any benefit to me misspending more time illustrating those edits, pls let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Now at a third "noticeboard" (the help desk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is disruptive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Polyphenols

    I have been editing polyphenol related pages since about 2016 and have regularly encountered criticism by another editor. This criticism was mainly based on the fact that polyphenols are my area of expertise and that as an academic researcher in this field (with funding from various sources) I am too biased to contributed. This has been raised here [[11]] before, but without conclusion. Zefr has now again accused me of COI/POV editing and threatened to take action, and this is currently being discussed here [[12]].

    As suggested therein by Chess, I open another discussion here, hoping that there will be a decision whether I am permitted to continue to contribute to those articles, or whether my expertise excludes me from it.Ggux (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    209.129.115.6

    This IP address is registered to California State University Network, and appears to be used almost exclusively to insert citations to ‪the work of José Castro-Sotomayor‬, and to making edits related to California academic institutions. The address was warned about COI edits previously in 2017, but similar edits continue. I have removed a bunch of the self-citations, but there are too many for me to deal with by myself. ParticipantObserver (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremy Bloom

    The user has only edited this page, over the last 14 years. They pretty consistently add puffery and other non-cited, promotional facts, and the picture on the article is a headshot of the subject, uploaded by this editor, labeled "Own work". A couple of editors have expressed concerns, including just as recently as three days ago, but they have never responded to any on their talk, and they just reinserted the previously removed promotional material again. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Follow up, because I should have made it clear: I have concerns Jbuff2006 is Jeremy Bloom, and that this is self-editing of their article. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still no response to the noticeboard, nor no response to the concerns on their talk, and they are adding the puffery again. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    ani-stohini/unami, yuchi

    Information regarding Unami (Lenape) people linked to this group with no sources. Federer20201 (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting others changes, user may have a conflict of interest. Changes include but not limited to; Yuchi people in SW Virignia labelled as "fringe theory", removing links to Yamasee, Mississippian culture, etc claiming non-existence Federer20201 (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Federer20201, with respect for your efforts, can't you find a way to talk this thru with @Yuchitown an experienced collaborator on the project, without dragging it to a notice board? Netherzone (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Randy Wayne (biologist)

    BinaryPhoton (BP) claims on his user page to be Randy Wayne, a plausible claim considering that Wayne, a notable biologist, has published some questionable theories on physics and the nature of light. BP has been warned on several occasions about WP:COI editing of his own biography (see User talk:BinaryPhoton) and has previously been the topic of discussion on this page (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 57). At that time, BP had tried to use Wikipedia to further his fringe theories of physics. Those theories have since been removed from the article, leaving an acceptable article about a biologist of some note.

    Recently, BP again edited the Randy Wayne article, adding a note about the fact that Cornell University has recently removed a bust of Abraham Lincoln from public display, and that Wayne had noticed the removal and asked a question, 'What happened to the Lincoln bust? There are citations regarding the existence of the bust, citations regarding the university's decision to remove it from display, but no citations indicating that Wayne had done anything with regard to this event. This appears to be an attempt by BP to inject himself (i.e. to inject Wayne) into an event with which he had nothing to do.

    I believe it is time to remove BP's ability to edit this article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Randy Wayne (biologist)

    The citations all discuss Wayne's role in asking a question about the Lincoln bust. BinaryPhoton (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)BinaryPhoton[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1108353801"