Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
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 does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. 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. Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
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.
  • Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline. If revealing private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can seek the advice of functionaries or the arbitration committee by email.
  • 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 What is a conflict of interest? list. 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, MiszaBot II will automatically archive the thread when it is older than seven 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 does not meet 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:Requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:


A prior COIN case was closed after several of us had a look and didn't see evidence of paid editing. Well, unfortunately, I think it's here now. Though CU was equivocal in some cases, I'm OK putting this out there. This one is interesting as it shows he was confident enough to comment on trusted agents breaching community trust, with a sock account. Here is AfD votestacking. And more votestacking at WP:Articles for deletion/Stewart Levenson (2nd nomination). ☆ Bri (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh. that is really unfortunate. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • KDS4444 also edited COI documentation without disclosure, as did other blocked conflicted editors. Their edits may still need scrutiny. Widefox; talk 12:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


This user has created a lot of articles many of which do not appear to be typical UPE, but the ones I've listed here have some classic signs. I've not gone through the list exhaustively so there are likely to be more that need attention. SmartSE (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It does look suspicious. PROD attempted for MasteringBOX. Source quality in the other articles I've scanned has varied, possibly indicating different sourcers (that was a typo but it fits). I wonder if Spaceship (company) is eligible for some kind of deletion? A 70 mil fund isn't automatically notable is it? And re Heather Wilde (author), I wonder if an edit filter for Executive Coach would be useful (just half kidding). ☆ Bri (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Glad it's not just me then. User:Heathriel used to contain a biography of Wilde that was copied from another site. That user created Travel With Interesting People (this rings a bell with me and we may have deleted if before under a different title) a company that Wilde founded. Lakoenig also edited that article and Wilde's biography within hours of creation and would appear to be TWIP's cofounder. It's nigh on impossible that Ukpong1 wasn't paid to create that biography. Note that they had acquired both AP and NPP rights which I have removed, earning myself a trip to ANI. SmartSE (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I just discovered this report after looking at the AfD for Heather Wilde. If this was created as UPE then this raises the suspicion that a couple of what look like disposable SPAs that have edited that article could be involved in this UPE or be connected in some way: User:Lakoenig and User:Pilot375. I'm not going to report them as possible sockpuppets, as neither have edited since a burst in March 2017, but I thought I should mention it here. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The three accounts editing around endeavors related to Heather Wilde are starting to give off a very WP:MEATy smell . Three additional Spaceship SPAs look like plain old socks, obvious from date of account creation and first edits. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Bri, I undeleted the history of Draft:Heather Wilde (Speaker) since the two deletion rationales were G6 and G13. It's currently a redirect, so not actively restoring spam, but I thought it'd be easier for you that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Tony, thanks; was there a 6 July 2016‎ reincarnation by by Pilot375? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. It was originally G13 in March 2016. The July 2016 edits are a new draft. I restored the entire history for you to look at. Sorry if there was any confusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I pasted the initial revision of the article into the draft to generate this diff. They don't quite match up. Most noticeably, there's the same sources but different reference formatting. Mostly-to-always the earlier uses inline ELs and the later uses a citation template. And this telling detail: the new article retains a near-identical version of the draft's infobox including the caption of a deleted image. Then about 5 hours after Ukpong1 had created the article, Pilot375 inserts a newly uploaded image (which might be the same as the deleted one, I can't tell). It's clear Ukpong1 just cleaned up the draft and reposted it, and was either meating or socking with Pilot375. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pilot375 for Pilot375/Ukpong1. Pilot375 is too stale for CU. If there's compelling evidence for any more active accounts, now would be a good time to add it. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, i am very sorry for coming in late to give a response on the opened case laid against me as i have been travelling for days now and just got access to my PC and internet connection. I have been on Wikipedia for sometime now and i must say, i've learned a lot during this period and do know what is wrong and what is right and if i were to be indulging in UPE as accused, i wouldn't be clumsy enough to get caught in the process.
I have created several articles from the day i joined Wikipedia, some were or have been deleted maybe for being TOOSOON or lacking sources , however i have never created an article with the intent to promote or be paid for it, i have seen the list of articles listed as Promotional or being paid, from HolidayMe down to Heather Wilde (author) which i believe was my first article. Some of those articles listed barely made it pass stub, everyday when i edit on Wikipedia i get a new idea of what to do next, all the pages i have created may have been someone, culture, place or company which i have come across on the internet and done little research before posting.
I can only ask at this point in time that this be carefully reviewed so that a wrong decision is not made. I've dedicated time and resources to put up a lot of things here, my only motivation is that ; at the end of the day, someone out there has been served by the information i have provided to the best accurate form. Zazzysa (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC) [user:Ukpong1]
@Ukpong1: Please tell us the truth. It's simply implausible that your "new" draft of the Wilde article was not paid for since it was based on the version previously drafted by Pilot375, who acknowledges that they have a COI. Paid editing is allowed, but it must be disclosed. You have one more chance. SmartSE (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
fwiw I agree with SmartSE; these articles have all the signs of paid editing. Ukpong1 paid editors can be present in WP but it is really important to follow the policies and guidelines rigorously. Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Smartse: I understand how this looks but it is the truth, it wasn't a paid editing and let me explain what happened there. Just like article Buffalo Souljah which was also present in AFC during that period (kindly confirm date between the publication of the two articles) before publishing Heather Wilde (author), it was picked from AFC, rewritten or revamped and posted again with no intention of being paid in whatsoever way for it. Please check history you would also see that Buffalo Souljah was also in AFC as at the time i published it. I thought it was easy just picking up articles from there and publishing at that time and clearly it was a bad idea. Zazzysa (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • As for the accounts listed, i am NOT in anyway connected to those accounts, neither have i been in communication with any of them for whatsoever reasons. I understand if some of the articles listed may have a promotional, but that wasn't my intention. Zazzysa (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ukpong1: The Wilde draft had already been deleted when you recreated it so you need to explain how you came into possession of that content. You haven't explained how pilot375 and Lakoenig both edited it within hours of you reposting it either. I've restored the Souljah draft and history merged it but am away from my desk so can't look into it in detail. We also need an explanation about HolidayMe. SmartSE (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
If I had to guess, it's because of this -- since it comes up fairly quickly in any Google search for her. Pilot375 (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
And I have multiple alerts for mentions of her name, businesses, etc. If it's posted anywhere, I'll see it. Pilot375 (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pilot375 Please don't guess for Ukpong1, it doesn't send a right message. It reeks of insensitivity to the investigation for you to provide answers for an editor you are being investigated for suspicion of meatpuppetry. @Ukpong1 If you don't mind me asking, i understand why u created articles on Akwa Ibom and Nigerian topics, but I don't get d motivation for creating articles on not-so-relevant Americanforeign companies, I will appreciate if u can expand on this. Please feel free to ignore. ps: I've read your reasons above, but wasn't satisfied. HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I do apologize for my delayed reply, i have been busy. I believe i got it from the AFC like i said before, i do not know or can't tell if it was deleted or not, but like Buffalo Souljah i know it was already written and in AFC as at the time i saw it. During my time patrolling pages, i also noticed after marking a page for deletion and adding to Watchlist for follow up it remains in my watchlist even after being deleted, so in the future if that page is recreated again it still pops up on my watchlist, i dunno if that is what happened that led to the two listed editors who edited within hours of publication. I stumbled on Musafir a couple of weeks ago, and came up with the idea of creating several pages under that category which included HolidayME, Tajawal, (which i found out existed) and Emiratesholidays among others that didn't make it pass WP:GNG which i had to drop. I don't have any hidden motives behind creating this pages.
@Pilot375 Thanks for your input but this doesn't look really good on me. I would suggest you speak for yourself when called to.
@HandsomeBoy Haha, Please don't say "American companies" they are quite a lot of other companies which i have written articles about from Poland, Italy and Germany. You see i don't know what happened but i swear felt a little bit more satisfied and fulfilled creating this articles, it first started with writing Italian related articles, then American and so on. My first article outside what i had in mind was Bali Butterfly Park (excluding the ones from AFC which i also published) and it was nice because i didn't know there was such place as a "butterfly park" in the world or Indonesia lol but as i get to also discover, i write about them too so it became more of an habit writing outside Nigerian related article. I do hope this short essay of mine answers your question but if it doesn't feel free to ask anything. Wikipedia is like home to me, because i get some sense of belonging and satisfaction for every page i create. It was probably a bad idea and i don't know what the result of this is going to be, but FYI i don't regret writing about any of them. Zazzysa (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I meant foreign, i actually reviewed the Australian one before typing, don't know why I used America, probably stress. Still doesn't invalidate my concern, however your responses are believable. You are quite dedicated here, and I want this to be all over soon so you can focus on what you do best, which is improving articles. One last question, have you had any off-wiki discussion (it doesn't have to be a 2-way communication neither does it need to involve any illegitimate request;) regarding any of the listed article here, whether or not the person is a Wikipedia editor? On a lighter note, why did u withdraw ur nomination for coordinator just after a meatpuppetry/paid-editing investigation began. if you think you are completely clean then u don't have anything to fear. Everyone here looks like good faith to me. I was really looking forward to working with you in WikiProject Nigeria. I hope this "setback" doesn't change anything regarding your commitment.HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@HandsomeBoy: Thank you and i also look forward to this being closed soon. No i haven't had any discussions with anybody or people concerning any of the listed articles. Lol, my withdrawal from the nomination was because you already won, that wouldn't stop you from choosing an assistant anyway, still look forward to working with you and also because of the pending investigation, at that point i thought it would be best to pull out. Zazzysa (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I am still unconvinced by the explanations above and the history of Lyle Howry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is also extremely suspicious. The subject is far from notable, and a version was G11d in 2016 (clearly the subject wanted an article). Since it was created by Ukpong1, 2 different groups of socks have edited it. All in all, I'm seeing way too many redflags. @JzG and Doc James: what do you think? SmartSE (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  • It is theoretically possible that someone who is not a paid editor could create that many fully-formed articles on such diverse subjects. It is rather unlikely. Now add, for example, Heather Wilde and her obvious determination to get a Wikipedia article as part of her marketing and brand building, and the unlikely becomes frankly implausible. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A bunch of article have been listed out as UPE and some of them deleted, forgive me if i say maybe all the articles should be also listed. Take for example Jeffrey Kroll that was deleted, why didn't the connecting article Tierney Darden v. City of Chicago which i got the idea of creating a page for the lead lawyers Jeffrey Kroll included deleted as well? They are a handful of articles i can add up to be investigated as UPE as well if you like?

I am a blogger and everyday i stumble on news articles concerning people or companies. Creating articles here is a big deal for me, and i would never risk for any amount of money or favor anyone has to offer the time which i have dedicated to Wikipedia and all what i have done for the past few months. However, this investigation will not hinder me in creating articles i will continue adding more articles until this is over. Zazzysa (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Sollewitt Socks[edit]

A sockfarm has been editing articles on certain commercial artists and art galleries since 2014, and has just been laundered. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sollewitt/Archive.

The following articles have been edited both by the sockfarm and by other editors.

I am listing the edited articles for possible review as to whether paid editing by the socks needs to be dealt with for bias.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Athaenara, for G11-ing some of the articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Stéphane Custot is likely notable. (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe[edit]

On their talk page, Blueruinelf has disclosed a COI with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. While I appreciate the disclosure, I'm concerned that recent extensive edits to the article in question are promotional in nature. I'm not especially experienced in dealing with situations like this, but wanted to make note of this here in the hopes that editors more well-versed in handling such issues can step in as needed. Marquardtika (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I was asked to make sure information on the page was up-to-date and provided citations for all changes. As they are all factual and concern work the firm has done I did not think they would constitute being promotional. However, if this is deemed a conflict of interest I will hold off on making any additional edits. Blueruinelf (talk), 19:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

That is one of the worst articles I have ever seen on Wikipedia. One big advertising brochure. scope_creep (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Certainly a big advertising brochure. Why do people think they have to write like ad-men for an encyclopedia? Way too long, some of the stories don't ad up, e.g. the story of the firm's founding in the 1860s. Lawyers should never engage in paid editing. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I chopped 26KB from the article-- the section that was basically an ad for their areas of practice. I would encourage others to get in there and chop. (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Ratsama aka Makhamakhi[edit]

Apparently is able to use his talkpage to dispute deletions, but has chosen not to answer Jytdog's Feb 1 query about paid editing here. With their large number of quick article creations (about 40 more since Jytdog's unanswered question) and the accompanying large number of deletions posted on their talkpage, this appears disruptive. We also have apparent cut-paste moves from Pinar Yoldas to Pınar Yoldaş (now deleted) and Draft:Nina Teicholz to Nina Teicholz (now histmerged): more disruption. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Also Draft:Susi SnyderSusi SnyderBri (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
In all fairness, it's possible that this editor was unaware of Jytdog's query. On 1 February Ratsama made a bunch of edits, and stopped for the day at 14:25 (UTC times and dates). Jytdog posted his query to Ratsama's talk page at 15:12. At 16:31, WikiDan61 created a new section on Ratsama's talk page (below Jytdog's query) with a notification of a speedy deletion nomination; that page was deleted a couple of hours later.
Ratsama's next edits to Wikipedia weren't until the following day (starting from 08:50 on 2 February). It's plausible that Ratsama saw the "you have new messages" note, saw the deletion notification at the bottom of his talk page with the now-redlinked link to his article, and missed Jytdog's post entirely. Until right now, no one has followed up with him—at least, not on his talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
There is definitely something hinky going on here if you look at the history of the Nina Teicholz and David L. Katz articles. This first came to my attention through the editing of someone who was a fan of Teicholz and a hater of Katz, and both articles have become "active" again. The stuff at Katz is now by people wanting to buff that up now. I think there ~might be~ some BLPCOI going on here with a real world dispute being fought out here in WP, now apparently using paid editors. Ugh. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The editor is now on template:uw-paid3; ignorance of the talk page system isn't an excuse either given that they have edited their user talk page in the past. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Said he's not paid, a film buff [1] / but no explanation for the involvement with Nina Teicholz, a US nutrition author. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm, can editors remove UPE tags relevant to themselves? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • They have really kicked into overdrive. I think it is time for a block - their editing is very promotional. Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I concur and endorse indefinitely blocking. Now 50 articles created since the 1 Feb query re paid editing. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Nothing new has been created since this final warning given by administrator Sergecross73. But that was issued around the end of the usual editing day for Ratsama (apparently GMT+5 or 5:30) so we'll see what happens in the next 12–24 hours. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, I've got them on a final warning purely for being disruptive with the terrible articles they are creating at a fairly fast rate, given how many were getting nominated for deletion along the way. My plan had just been a short block, but feel free to expand a potential block of mine to "indefinite" according to developments here, no opposition here. Sergecross73 msg me 22:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm the IP who noticed the Pinar Yoldas cut/paste, which I found to be totally weird. When I started looking into their contribs I noticed the Indian movies interspersed with things like this article on Karl O'Brian Williams. I still don't get the motivation, especially the duplicate Yoldas page. (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Richmond Boakye[edit]

Varies between "we" and "I" when saying they are the manager of Boakye, and want the article to reflect what they say about Boakye. No disclosure as required on user page; account name may be that of a PR or management firm in Ghana. Orange Mike | Talk 06:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

"We manage him". ☆ Bri (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Blocked as a shared account. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


User's contribution history... smells, and this especially does seem yellow and feathered. -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me | contribs 12:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you challenging the statement that "Bonds is the first thing you put on in the morning and last thing you take off at night, making it Australia's go-to for quality underwear, socks, singlets and more."? :) (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeffed. MER-C 15:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me | contribs 15:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Leticia Cáceres[edit]

Much rewriting by an eponymous account, with the usual mixed results and promotional bias. Editor has not responded to a COI warning, but has continued to add to the bio2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Shortly after the first eponymous name was blocked, the user took up editing again with User talk:DirectorLC. I took a shot at trimming the CV quality of the article and shaved off 10K of material. Among the sources I did not see in depth coverage, so I wonder about notability. (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


The only edits made by this editor have been to create these two articles on these two marginal musicians (both nominated for deletion). Editor has not answered question about whether they have a conflict of interest. Editor had the knowledge of Wikipedia and of WP:ACTRIAL to reach auto-confirmed status by editing the drafts in draft space and then moving them into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

  • the common thread in both articles is the sourcing to "Synch Audio", a Toronto-based music promotion company. SA in SA2014 seems to stand for something. Since all sourcing is through Synch Audio, and those are the only sources, I conclude that SA2014 is a commercial account that is producing wiki garbage. (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Same link given by the anon above says Synch Audio was "founded in early 2014 by CEO Farinoush Mostaghimi", hmmm, indeed SA2014 does appear to stand for something. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe it is not a conflict of interest. I do not know the two artists that I wrote about personally and I have no whatsoever relationship with them. Every single information I found was from the SynchAudio's website and blog. The reason why the username is called SA2014 is because I do not want to use my real name. I am writing about two artists that are under SynchAudio, so is it wrong to create a username that is similar to the name and when it was founded? I am new to Wikipedia, so I do not know much about how it works.SA2014 (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The editor User:SA2014 is familiar enough with Wikipedia and WP:ACTRIAL to know how to evade the intent of ACTRIAL by reaching auto-confirmed status by editing the drafts in draft space. The editor has made no other edits than to those two articles and this noticeboard. The duck test is usually applied to sockpuppetry, but this walks and swims and quacks like undisclosed paid editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


Just a general notice of a potential problem area.

I've got no idea why User:Prokaryotes requested to be blocked, but he was an apparently pro-cryptocurrency editor that was editing Cryptocurrency bubble.

The bitcoin and cryptocurrency problems seem to be heating up. Over the last few weeks the price of bitcoin has fallen by over 50%. Facebook announced that advertisements for cryptocurrencies (including bitcoin), initial coin offerings (ICOs), and binary options would not be accepted because (some of) the advertisers were not operating in good faith. So far I've had some difficulty putting in a simple sentence similar to "On January 30, 2018, Facebook banned advertisements for binary options trading as well as for cryptocurrencies and Initial coin offerings (ICOs).[1][2]"

BTW, the heads of research at Goldman Sachs and at Vanguard have both said that cryptocurrencies are likely economic bubbles. I'm not going to accuse anybody of paid editing yet, but there is certainly an issue with WP:OWN


  1. ^ Frier, Sarah; Verhage, Jules (January 30, 2018). "Facebook Bans Ads Associated With Cryptocurrencies". Bloomberg. Retrieved February 7, 2018. 
  2. ^ Cornish, Chloe (January 30, 2018). "Facebook and regulators move to halt cryptocurrency scams". Financial Times. Retrieved February 7, 2018. 

Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

What's the COI? --DHeyward (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
If the parallel with binary options suggested by the Facebook ban holds, then there would be COIs everywhere. Actually, I think that the scam take by binary options "brokers" of $5-10 billion per year will look like mere peanuts in the near future. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Smallbones: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Midlandcraft had already created BitConnect in June 2017 with a glowing The price of BitConnect was 0,17USD in January, and now it trades for more than $50 dollars increasing a 1800% value in the first 6 months. As you can read at Bitconnect it was a classic Ponzi scheme and has now collapsed. Definitely a good idea to keep an active eye on these. SmartSE (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it is getting bad. I've just had to semi-protect Cryptocurrency exchange (to add to List of bitcoin companies back in May) due to spamming. List of cryptocurrencies is now under PC1, something I think should be bumped to semi. MER-C 11:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I left a note at Smallbones' tp concerning Ponzi schemes in ICOs. Specifically OneGram but likely others as well. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Chris Cheek[edit]

Editor claims to be the subject. Despite attempts to discuss and numerous warnings, he's taking WP:OWNERSHIP, first removing a recording several times because he didn't like his playing, now adding recordings that he's appeared on but don't seem to be notable; in effect, creating his resume here. This has already required multiple reversions by several editors. (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

  • editing this information to update I consider the fact that you view the updates to this sideman discography as "...don't seem to be notable" as harassment. Essentially, all recent contributions are merely factual. If any bandleader or record company can edit this page with any 'un-notable' appearance, then let's level the field by including a more thorough, comprehensive and fair representation of the work that's being mentioned in this article, and not leave it up to anyone's individual idea, influence or subjective opinion about what is relevant or 'notable'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheekus (talkcontribs) 03:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Since you're new here, and your only intent is to edit an article about yourself, you haven't taken time to read and understand Wikipedia's policies, nor truly taken the warnings at your talk page to heart. Noting that a number of the recordings you've added are not notable isn't harassment, but an application of WP:MUSIC. If there's a consensus among experienced editors that all your recordings be included, that's fine. But this is not the place to polish your c.v. Nor do you get to determine which recordings to include in, and which to exclude from, your Wikipedia biography. (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I trimmed everything that was not sourced. Which was easy, as basically no sources exist for this person. What the article needs is an AfD, not COIN, as the person is not notable based on our criteria. (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I am the initial author of this article; I was not aware of this COIN until an anon posted to my talk page. I agree that Cheekus's edits are highly COI-suspicious, and I have no qualms about that tag; however, the COI suspicion has bled over into unsupportable additional territory (as it often does). For one thing, Cheek meets WP:MUSIC. He has an entry in The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz, a major jazz encyclopedia that forms the basis of our attempt to comprehensively cover music encyclopedia topics. Furthermore, he has released several albums on noteworthy jazz labels (such as Fresh Sound), which is a specific bullet of WP:MUSIC. The editors here have removed the discographical information that substantiates this claim to notability, saying that it is not notable, but notability does not apply to content, only to articles, and it is standard practice, especially in jazz, to include robust discographical information (which is basic catalog/publishing data not requiring extensive sourcing). To that effect, I have restored the discography, though promotional addition of content to the biography is justifiably policed here (and I will of course continue to do so myself as well). Chubbles (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Chubbles, for your attention and your explanation. My main interest here was in making sure that a COI account didn't take over the article. (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how WP:MUSIC makes him notable. Basically no one is writing about him in any press sources. WP:MUSIC mentions multiple reliable sources. There is an absence of reliable sources here. Re published on major labels, that is essentially an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:MUSIC has 12 criteria that can establish notability; multiple reliable sources is only one of them. Having two releases on a noteworthy label has long been an accepted indicator that the musical artist in question has risen to a level of noteworthiness in the world commensurate with inclusion here. Beyond that, he is in a major music encyclopedia - really, the definitive jazz encyclopedia out there. If he's already an encyclopedic topic in music, why would we exclude him from this general encyclopedia? Chubbles (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It has twelve indications of what is likely to be notable, but there is only one test for inclusion on Wikipedia: reliable independent sources. Without those, we cannot ensure WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTDIR, which are foundational. Agreement between fans of something that they can have articles with zero reliable sources because they meet their own criteria for things they like, are not in any way binding or persuasive. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
There's a noticeable and troubling creep toward treating GNG as policy, when it is not, and should not, be so, but that's a discussion for a different place, I guess. In any case, none of the three policies cited militate in favor of deleting Cheek's article. Chubbles (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

User removing large numbers of COI templates[edit]

Discussion is here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Provide some way to easily spot when a Controversies or Criticisms section is removed or reduced[edit]

Hi all

I keep finding very obvious COI edits removing completely or vastly reducing criticism or controversy sections of articles (mainly people and companies) with innocuous edit summaries that get missed by other editors. I've started a discussion about if there could be any technical solutions to mitigating this on the Village pump here. This is just a notification, I'd really appreciate it if you go comment there so we can centralise the discussion.

John Cummings (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Renée C. Byer and The Sacramento Bee.[edit]

Those articles are being edited by an IP whose only edits are to them, The two articles are connected and the IP geolocates to Sacramento.Kevin Dewitt Always ping 16:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Pembe Candaner[edit]

SPA account created today, added a whole load of business info about Candaner. scope_creep (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Keen[edit]

User:Mrs.write adds a deal of highly promotional text here with the edit summary "Updating info on Andrew Keen, on behalf of the subject, including new books, correct info, new reviews" clearly identifying COI. I posted a COI advice template to the user talk page but except for one small edit, the message is ignored. About 1 hour later User:Digitalmaven adds the same promotional text with no COI declaration on the user page here. However, User:Digitalmaven's user page redirects to User:Maven001. The history here shows that Digitalmaven was renamed Maven001 on 7 July 2016. It would therefore appear that Digitalmaven has signed back in to an abandoned and renamed account to undertake promotional (paid for?) work and is probably the same individual as Mrs.write. The additions have been reverted.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

(Maven001 posting here) This is the first time I've heard of Andrew Keen, let alone seen his Wikipedia page. I have not made any edits to that page, and I don't know who did. How would I log into an old username that should just be redirecting to my new name? Did someone else create an account with that name? Maybe that suggests you have some technical issues if that's possible to do.
I changed my nickname because another editor accused me of being associated with a marketing company that uses the name "Digital Maven." I have no connection to this company and was simply using an old nickname. This other editor was harassing me, so I just changed the nickname to move on and be done with it. I only use Maven001 and you can see that my last contribution was made on Feb 6. I have never made any edits for money and would not do so. And I certainly don't know who Mrs.write is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maven001 (talkcontribs) 16:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Maven001: Thank you for posting here. It is a poor piece of design that old usernames can be taken over as this demonstrates. I have blocked Digitalmaven as a promotional user name. I concur with Velella that they are probably also a sock of Ms.write, but there is probably no need for an SPI since the sock is now blocked. SmartSE (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

RNN Group[edit]

SPA has declared that they are a paid editor but have continued to edit promotionally in relation to their employer and other articles related to their employer. They have created eight drafts where they have a clear COI. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've left a message for this user on their talk page. thanks for bringing this here! Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Nuked the spam article and some of the drafts - there is zero chance that a student training salon at a tertiary college will ever be notable. Pro tip, though: the are a great place to get cheap haircuts I used to work at a college in Henley-on-Thames. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Great War Flying Museum[edit]

User Gwfm left a message on my talk page stating that he felt he is qualify to edit the article(I reverted an edit by him, as it was not consecutive) because he is the vice president of the museum. . Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 15:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

it was basically copied from their website. I nominated it for speedy per advert and copyvio and it was deleted. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The mess that is COI tagging[edit]

Recent disputes have highlighted what seem to me to be a number of systemic issues which need to be addressed, probably in a holistic fashion. In no particular order:

COI maintenance tag[edit]

There's an ongoing dispute about what constitutes justification for adding and removing {{COI}} tags. We probably need to clarify this in template documentation and the COI guidelines. COI is important because it identifies the potential for subtle bias which may well not be apparent in a superficial review. My view, which I think is close to representative but I could be wrong, is this:

Phase 1 - Addition of COI tags on articles
  1. When adding a COI tag, the onus is on the tagging editor to justify inclusion
  2. There is an expectation that tagging will be accompanied either by identifying the COI editor using a template (but see below) or by opening a talk page thread
  3. Where the tagging is challenged, the expectation becomes a requirement
  4. If a COI is credibly identified, the default is that a COI tag on the article itself is justified and we move to phase 2.
Phase 2 - Article lifecycle
  1. When removing a COI tag, the onus is on the removing editor to show that it is no longer justified
  2. Routes to removal include:
    1. Removing all text added by conflicted editors Undoing changes by conflicted editors
    2. Substantial rewrite such that the overall tone is significantly changed
    3. Credible evidence that the COI identified is incorrect
    4. Consensus on Talk
  3. If removal is disputed in good faith by an editor in good standing, and the evidence requirements in phase 1 are met, the default is to include the tag

Underlying this we have:

General principles
  1. Maintenance tags are not a badge of shame and should not be interpreted as such. A COI tag does not inherently raise a BLP issue, though false or tenuous identification of a purported COI editor, might. A maintenance tag is there to encourage people to check sources and not take the article at face value, and to look for issues on the Talk page - actually a good idea always.
  2. COI implies some significant level of involvement. An account that is obviously the article subject, which turns up to fix something like a date of birth or home town, is not a COI. Conflicted edits must be more than de minimis in order to justify mainspace tagging, but an article subject's account can legitimately be identified on the Talk page (but see below).
  3. There are special cases and grey areas. See sponsored engagements below.

Discussion of COI tagging[edit]

My view is that we should add the above guidance, with wordsmithing here, to WP:COI and the documentaiton for {{COI}}. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Like it - maybe we should use the standard term of art and call it revert, but not too bothered. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • In the list of means of removing the tag, what is missing is that an editor checks the text and determines that it does not have a problem. The template states that the article "may require cleanup" - not that changes necessarily have to be undone, or that it has to be rewritten, or even that it has to be shown that the editors did not have a COI. If someone reads the article and independently verifies that it does not require cleanup, I'm not sure why they need to prove a negative to remove the tag - it seems that it would make more sense to keep the emphasis on the tagger having to show that it is still necessary.In regards to saying that it should not be seen as a badge of shame, you can say that it shouldn't, but the reality is that it will be. When we tag an article with COI we are making a statement about the contributors, and we might see it internally as just a flag, but that's denying the reality of how it will be seen by most readers. I don't think that it is the best idea to pretend otherwise. - Bilby (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
That's because the problem is COI and potential subtle bias, and we have no way of telling if the editor who "checks the text" is either similarly conflicted, or taking a superficial view that misses subtle bias. COI is COI. If conflicted edits remain in the article, good or bad, they are still conflicted edits. They may be perfectly factual but give undue weight to something the subject wants promoting, for example. Or it may be a case where the PR people chip away at negative text until it's completely removed. The article may still look fine, but be missing significant facts the subject would rather we not include. Hence the route out is either to remove all conflicted text or rewrite. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The solution isn't to remove "all conflicted text or rewrite". The solution has always been to look at the text, check the sources, and determine if there is a problem. Otherwise what you're asking for is that editors with a COI can have nothing to do with an article, because we can't evaluate their edits (including, presumably, suggested edits on talk). Evaluating content sometimes means removal, sometimes means rewriting, and sometimes means determining that it is ok and leaving it be. - Bilby (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
In your view. In mine, the solution is exactly that. COI is COI. Take it out of the article to talk and let independent editors discuss, review, change, and accept or reject it. Otherwise you leave the door wide open to the good hand / bad hand sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry of MisterWiki and the like. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
If the problem is subtle bias, shouldn't we do that with all cases of subtle bias? Shouldn't we remove the edits of polarised editors as well? What of articles for creation? Are we saying that a COI editor can't create an article, unless it is then rewritten, or approved only by a consensus on talk (as opposed to the current method of evaluation)? If the content is determined to be good, then we've always accepted that the tag can be removed, and we have never banned COI editors from article space. We might strongly discourage them, but the community has never supported a ban - which is what this wording effectively creates.
At any rate, this seems to be a discussion that is well underway at Template Talk:COI. Rather than starting a new discussion here, perhaps we should let that one run its course. - Bilby (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Sounds reasonable to me and would support this. I however do not support mass removal of the templates without looking for concerns first. Most of the time it is obvious. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


"A COI tag does not inherently raise a BLP issue" A COI tag lacking a (valid) explanation, on a BLP, does. That is one reason why the documentation of {{COI}} states (formatting per original):

Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning.

I have asked those who nonetheless think it acceptable to tag for COI without stating a justification to state under what circumstances such a justification is not possible, but had no sensible reply. Several times recently, my removal of {{COI}} tags, citing that clause, has been reverted, with still no such discussion started on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Identifying a named COI editor with a tag is actually better than just starting a thread that will be ignored (as they usually are). Guy (Help!) 23:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I find the "General principles" awkwardly worded, and would not support in the current version. More importantly, the complete lack of a suggestion to come to this noticeboard (WP:COIN) to sort out an issue of whether or not the tag should be present is a serious impediment to make these instructions at all workable. Instead of trying to suggest improvement to something that may be difficult to salvage, I propose a counterproposal in the #WP:COI and WP:PAID related tags in article namespace (variant proposal) section below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:COI and WP:PAID related tags in article namespace (variant proposal)[edit]

Guidance relating to mainspace banner tags such as {{COI}} and {{Undisclosed paid}}.

Adding a mainspace tag
Make sure that the visible content of the template checks out. For instance, someone who apparently never edited the article before, changes the url of the {{official website}} or adds an Amazon link to one of the books mentioned in the article: whether or not correct, whether or not the editor has a COI, such isolated edit fails the "major contributor" description in the {{COI}} tag.
These tags introduce WP:self-references in mainspace, which are avoided unless for a solid and explainable reason:
  • if entirely sure that tagging is justified, go to the article talk page and edit it accordingly, adding there a {{Connected contributor}} or {{Connected contributor (paid)}} tag as appropriate and/or explaining the COI/PAID issue in a separate section.
  • if not entirely sure whether the tagging is justified, bring the issue up on the talk page or at WP:COIN to find consensus before proceeding (or not) with mainspace tagging. For instance when several IP editors, from different IP ranges, seem to engage in whitewashing without it being very clear whether they are connected or not should usually be brought to WP:COIN before anything else (that is, after reverting any blatant whitewashing that deviates from reliable sources).
Addressing the issues indicated by the tag
Talk page and COIN discussion; disclosure:
  • Explain on the article talk page, the user's talk page and/or COIN why, when and how connections to the article subject need to be disclosed: in many cases, providing a link to WP:COIN and/or WP:PAID may clarify a lot without needing much more explanation.
  • Try to make explicit which rewrites and/or reverts would be needed to make the article content COI-free
Rewriting, reverting and other measures
  • Depending on whether or not partial rewrites, deletes or non-COI additions have taken place since the last COI changes to the article, it is best to revert to a situation before COI changes.
  • Other impediments to simply reverting COI changes include articles that were initiated by a COI editor (measures may include speedy deletion or taking to AfD), or articles with copyvio content e.g. copied from a company website (see WP:COPYVIO on how to handle, without excluding speedy deletion of the entire article as a possible optimal measure)
Removing the tag
See also Help:Maintenance template removal, which has some specific provisions regarding COI related tags.
Notwithstanding a general tendency to remove self-references from mainspace when they are no longer necessary, erring on the safe side regarding COI and PAID issues is to keep a warning up for the readers as long as the situation described in the content of the template is not conclusively and comprehensively addressed.
Article subjects may be inexperienced Wiki-editors (e.g. they more often than not would never have heard about an edit war nor about its in-Wikipedia implications), so be prepared to explain why they can't just remove the tag or whatever else needs explaining (avoid WP:BITE); the same can usually not be said about WP:PAID editors, who may feign inexperience but need to be shown the exit ASAP if not fully complying to applicable COI/PAID-related guidance. Either way, dealing with real and feigned inexperience, and distinguishing the two, is usually best handled at WP:COIN (where it is often possible to speak more openly about certain topics), so rather than edit-warring, which would at least add a behavioural layer to what essentially should centre around solving a content issue, bring the issue up on that noticeboard better sooner than later.

Discussion of COI/PAID mainspace tagging variant proposal[edit]

  • Proposed: please discuss. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Requirement to identify the editor and start discussion is needlessly bureaucratic. make sure it checks out is less clear than explaining that COI edits should be non-trivial. Those are just the first two things that leap out at me. Overall I find your version really quite hard to parse. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Connected contributor template[edit]

This template has evolved over time. We used to have {{notable Wikipedian}} but not any more. The same template is used to cover:

  1. Notable people with a significant history of Wikipedia contributions (e.g. Elonka Dunin, James Heilman)
  2. Notable people who have contributed a little, but mainly around their own article and work, sometimes only with one or two edits (e.g. Renato M. E. Sabbatini, John Zogby)
  3. Notable people who appear, in the judgement of patrolling editors, to have abused Wikipedia (e.g. Mark Geier)
  4. Disclosed paid editors
  5. Spammers

I strongly believe that we need to fork this template into at least three:

  1. Notable Wikipedian (i.e. non-trivial contributor who also has an article) - the original use;
  2. Engaged subject, for accounts which are playing it straight but have minimal engagement outside the article itself - this is mainly to help independent editors identify the subject or their representative, and contact them directly about the article
  3. Conflicted editor, which arguably could be further split into admitted ({{Connected contributor (paid)}}) versus covert, perhaps through an argument.
  4. Addendum: {{Connected contributor (WiR)}} recently created for sponsored editors.

In the end there should be a sort of traffic-light system. Doc James and Elonka are green: long-term Wikipedians for whom their article is a matter of only accidental interest. Sabbatini and Zogby, int he above examples, are amber: they may edit the article, in which case they's need advice to the contrary, but they may also pop up to flag issues with the article, and we should be on the lookout for cries for help. Red would be the legion of disclosed and undisclosed paid or COI editors: the PR drudges sent to buff up the article, the Mechanical Turks and the like.

Discussion of connected template[edit]

My view is that we should for the template as outlined above and add the appropriate guidance to WP:COI and the relevant template documentation. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I do understand the historical use, to link an article about a person to their WP account. I have not seen the tag used this way in years, and I agree that it should be formally done away with.
Yes the tag should only be placed if there is a problem. Somebody making one or two edits is not a problem, content or behavior wise.
In my view #2 and #3 are the same, functionally. The template:Connected contributor tag says that X "may be connected", and I generally use the U1-otherlinks parameter to add a link to a disclosure the person has made: I write "disclosed here" with a link to a diff at "here". I also use this tag if the user is a promotional SPA (not just a SPA editing neutrally), in which case I put in the U1-otherlinks field "SPA per contribs" to provide the basis for making the claim that the person "may have a connection". When I use this tag I want it to be informative, for other people (and me later) to understand the basis for placing it.
fwiw when I place this tag in mainspace, I always put underneath it the template:COI editnotice. I don't put that notice if the page is in draft space, because it is fine for conflicted editors to directly there. That is where we want them to edit. But the "connected contributor" tag should be there when the draft is reviewed.
Finally, you didn't mention the template:Connected contributor (paid), which in my view should only be used if we have a disclosure from the person. That disclosure may include their username (in combination with their behavior).
We also have a new cc tag, template:Connected contributor (WiR) which I think is a good idea. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Edited accordingly. So: are you agreeing that the historical {{notable Wikipedian}} should be resurrected for people who have non-trivial Wikipedia contributions, and who are, incidentally, notable? Guy (Help!) 23:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
if an editor is active at the article about them, that should get the cc tag.
if an editor wants to link to a WP article about themselves at their userpage, they can of course do that.
If an editor is not active at the article about them, there is no need to link to the editor at the article talk page at all - I have never understood why people would do that.
so I don't advocate resurrecting the "notable wikipedian" tag nor do i advocate use of the cc tag for this purpose. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
You don't think that people who read the article on Nobel laureate Brian Josephson would be interested in looking at his edits to Wikipedia articles on physics? Or even sundials? I think they really would. Just as they might be interested in looking at Elonka's edits on cryptography or James' on medicine. It draws people in. And a de minimis edit to thir own article definitely should not trigger tagging as COI. That would be silly and bureaucratic. Guy (Help!) 00:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
To me it either gossip or navel gazing, not about building an encyclopedia.... i understand other people may view it differently. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
We should ask the readers. They are the ones for whom it is intended. Guy (Help!) 08:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
That is just odd thing to hear from you.
a) as far as I know, readers rarely look at talk pages
b) in any case, Talk pages exist, are intended to be used, for the editing community to do its collaborative work; they aren't for gossip or navel-gazing.
c) If the tag were on the article page I could see more of what you are saying about serving readers, but I doubt the community would ever agree to put this kind of thing there. And I think you would also oppose putting it there, right? Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion at Template talk:Connected contributor (WiR). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Clean hands[edit]

Editors adding or removing maintenance tags and the like should have clean hands. Guidance on adding and removing tags should counsel editors to default to talk page discussion if there could be any appearance of undue influence. You can be the most honest Wikipedian in the world, but if you have a long history of friendly engagement with a PR person, and they ask you directly to remove a COI tag, and you do so, you risk your reputation and that of the project.

Discussion of clean hands[edit]

My view is that we should add the above guidance, with wordsmithing here, to WP:COI and the documentation for {{COI}}. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This bit is important, on its own.
But there is a "clean hands" notion that is more broadly important. If two people get involved in a content dispute, and one of them starts to be concerned that the other's edits and behavior might be driven by a conflict of interest, the way the concerned person conducts themselves is very important. Trying to resolve the content dispute and turn and deal with the behavior issue, is a bad, bad idea. Even pivoting from one to the other, without clearly stopping and "resetting" the discussion, is a bad idea. Trying to do both at once, or turning from one to other gracelessly, can make the person doing it appear to be using COI as a bludgeon to "win" the content dispute. The person on the other end of it, is definitely going to feel that way, which is going to exacerbate the whole thing. I still make this mistake sometimes in the process of my day to day to work, even though I know what can happen.
But the whole point of addressing COI at all, is to get everyone to reset and then move forward on a more appropriate basis -- with disclosure made and the person understanding what we expect of conflicted editors (or, if the person turns out to be an unconflicted advocate, with that person having had a decent chance to understand the problem and adjust their approach) -- so that we can all focus on building an encyclopedia.
This section should also make it clear that if things start to get messy (unclean), then the person raising the concern should bring the matter to COIN and get out of it. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It's often impossible to disentangle content and contributor in this way, hence the need for clear statements of principles that can be readily understood by all parties. As usual, if in doubt, get more eyes. RfC is your friend. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Good grief. If we're gong to consider "friendly engagement" to be a COI, we may as well all go home. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The issue is that it's friendly paid engagement. There is a need to protect WiR contributors from subtle coercion, and also demonstrate that there is a difference in character between WiR and paid PR editing, because any ambiguity absolutely is exploited by spammers. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
No, it isn't "friendly paid engagement". You wrote "if you have a long history of friendly engagement with a PR person" not "if you have a long history of friendly paid engagement with a PR person". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
So it's fine to make edits if your friend the PR guy asks you to? Guy (Help!) 23:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, that very much depends on the edits, and whether they improve the encyclopedia. I can't speak for everyone, obviously, but that's why I'm here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


There are a number of programmes such as Wikipedia-in-residence, GLAM and so on, which can potentially place editors in a grey area for COI. These programmes are blessed at lest semi-officially and are an important part of Wikipedia's outreach. Guidance in this area appears immature and there is no systematic process for handling disputes between good faith editors with differing views on the issue. This has gone well in the past, but has also gone badly (e.g. Gibraltarpedia). Sponsored engagements are likely to fall under the marketing budget for sponsor organisations, and it is very apparent that marketing people can struggle to understand Wikipedia's views on what constitutes neutrality, independence of sources and the threshold of significance for inclusion. Their goals and ours are orthogonal, which puts sponsored engagement editors in a potentially difficult place requiring robust protections and .

Concerns I have seen include:

  1. Protection of engaged editors, sponsoring organisations and Wikipedia from reputational damage due to the appearance of COI (justified or not) when an editor is being paid or given support in kind
  2. Apparent lack of formal oversight (e.g. an Ombudsman) or independent dispute resolution around sponsored engagements
  3. Bright lines versus grey areas - who should be editing the article on the sponsoring organisation? Its long-deceased founder? Its still-living benefactor? Its current president? What disclosure is needed in such cases? What oversight or review? Is there a difference between a charity and a commercial sponsor organisation?
  4. Risk that an individual editor in a sponsored engagement could end up blocked or otherwise sanctioned due to disputes relating to interpretation of policy - where would that leave the engagement?

Discussion of sponsored engagements[edit]

My view is that we should initiate a centralised discussion on managing sponsored engagements such as WIR, GLAM etc., potentially including class assignments, specifically around the grey areas and potential oversight and dispute resolution, to provide better clarity and protection for the reputation of all concerned. We could also potentially request support from the Foundation in the form of an independent ombudsman. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

yep. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The {{Template:Connected contributor (WiR)}} tag is a really bad idea, and we're seeing why in the discussion that is emerging about it. I'm not convinced that WiR places editors in grey areas - the WiR program combines the interests of a GLAM organisation (to educate the public) with the interests of WP (to educate the public). This is not a conflict. The so-called grey areas (specifically editing an article about your employer) are not grey - they are clearly outlined in regard to any editor (WiR, GLAM or otherwise) editing about their employer, or using WP for promotion (aka Gibraltarpedia). There needs to be a solid case as to why this needs to be done, and why potential problems can't be handled by existing processes, well before we start talking about hiring an ombudsman. - Bilby (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It very obviously does, per some of the examples I provided above. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
No, what you did was some generic concerns, but they don't amount to a solid case. Handwaving in the general direction of possible issues is cool and all, but does it really seem sufficient to warrant a potentially huge, unwieldy and messy discussion, and a call to appoint an ombudsman? - Bilby (talk)
The problem here is a very specific one: WiR/GLAM/whatever type engagements inherently pace an editor in a potentially conflicted position re some edits, and as we can see fomr the fact that this discussion exisst and has been rumbling for weeks, there is no clear path to resolving it. I don't care what the process is - ombudsman is jjust a suggestion - but we need something because right now all we get is "oh yes it is!" versus "oh no it isn't!". That works for panto but doesn't really help Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
What is the inherent conflict? - Bilby (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The interests of say Brigham Young University and Wikipedia are not the same. They are aligned in some ways sure. When a WiR at BYU creates an article about a BYU faculty member, that is very solid COI territory; there is no distinction between Denise Stephens as it was created and say Peter K. Gregersen which was created by Jtalan who also appears to have edited under Jamietalan and Jlynntalan and J LTalan and probably Sciwri and did nothing but promote Feinstein Institute for Medical Research and its faculty, and based on their on-WP behavior is very likely to have been a PR person for them, and disclosed something along those lines here, and indeed somebody named Jamie Talan is listed in this newsletter as a Science Writer for Feinstein. The person who wrote Denise Stephens was new in the BYU library's WiR program; they are supposed to be using the resources of the BYU library to improve WP. This mistake of a newbie very much displays the natural tendency to promote your employer. This is something people who train GLAM/WiR editors are very aware of, and train such editors not to do. And in my day-to-day work some of the most difficult editors with an apparent COI with whom I open discussions are apparently working on or on behalf of nonprofits who think nothing of abusing WP to promote the institution (or its faculty/emoplyees) with which they turn out to be affiliated under the misguided notion that "we are a nonprofit!" or "we are a university!"
And indeed, one of the few paid editors that the community has banned, even though they disclosed and even stopped editing directly, but who battered the talk page with IDHT promotional requests, worked in PR for a nonprofit. See this AN. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I am not saying that GLAM/WiR editors do this regularly. As i understand it most GLAM/WiR editors generally do use the resources of their host to improve WP. But the inherent COI is obvious and the training to self-manage that inherent COI is essential, and it is essential that GLAM/WiR editors be very mindful of the inherent COI and their training.
The transparency of the WiR tag is good for everybody, and its more widespread use would allow people within GLAM and outside of GLAM to track impact as well as audit from time to time. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
What you are describing is writing about colleagues and writing about employers. But those aren't problems inherent to being in WiR - those are problems inherent in being employed by anyone while also editing WP. WiR, if anything, reduces those problems as we generally know who editors are working with. Understanding the difference between editing in an area of expertise, and editing where we have a COI is a problem we all face.
The issue here is that I have yet to see anything showing that WiR is the problem - editing as a WiR, doing what you are supposed to do, does not create a conflict of interest, and I can't see an inherent problem. Editing as anyone and writing about colleagues and employers is a problem, but if that is inherent in anything it is inherent in being an editor with a career. - Bilby (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I hear you, with regard to things you cannot see. I will not be responding further. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Again? I disagree with you so you declare you won't talk about it anymore? Not the best way of making progress. - Bilby (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I am sure we will both continue discussing with others. Consensus doesn't mean unanimity and you and i don't have to agree. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I am puzzled by your apparent refusal to even accept the potential for conflict. Wikipedia has a mission, a significant part of which is NPOV. I have yet to see the promotion of neutral information about itself listed as a goal of any organisation, other than in the Orwellian sense. If I am a director of a charity and I am supporting a Wikipedian in residence, I am going to be feeding them at least some material specifically designed to make the charity and its people, past and present, look as good as possible. It would be naïve to expect anything else. Even if there is no pressure brought to bear at all, it's still selection bias. I think you have encountered enough articles on anti-vaccination nutjobs by now to realise that selection bias is potentially a very profound sort of bias even if you are not the one doing the selecting. Do you not see how an organisation, in perfectly good faith, could nonetheless spoon-feed a non-neutral set of information, and in fact is highly likely to do so? Guy (Help!) 18:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I certainly accept that there is always a potential for a COI with any editing. The question is whether or not the role of a WiR is to provide information about the organisation which is (in some cases) paying them. But the WiR role isn't to write about the organisation, but to use the organisation's resources (including staff and premises for training and editathons) to expand Wikipedia's coverage of subjects related to Wikipedia and the organisation's mission. If you are at a museum, you are finding ways to use the museum's collections to expand WP articles about items in the collection (typically by makeing resources availabe to editors), or use the site to conduct editathons, train the staff, and perform tasks where there is no conflict between the museum's goals and WP's. There is no inherent COI in that. Writing about the institution would fall under the usual COI restrictions, but being a WiR does not inherently make this part of the WiR role.
What I was looking for was something that a WiR is supposed to do that inherently risks a COI. But from the descriptions and rules I've found, their role doesn't create a COI in itself, and if they act outside of that then it isn't the WiR role that is the problem, but instead is the same problem that anyone who edits Wikipedia faces. It would be different if their role was to write about the institution, rather than find ways to use the institution's resources, - Bilby (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • WiR with like minded organizations have generally been positive and are something I promote. Clear guidelines around disclose IMO will make everyone more comfortable and prevent possible negative events or misunderstandings. Disclosure is standard in medical academics and if we do a good job at this it will raise our reputation within academia. Those I have worked with have understood why disclosure is important and have been happy to disclose but that maybe just reflects the groups I am working with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that you can compare two very different situations - whether or not you need to disclose relationships when publishing in academia isn't necessarily relevant to WiR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilby (talkcontribs) 09:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I consider working on Wikipedia to be academic work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
You can do that, but it still doesn't make the two comparable. We can make a case for a need for disclosure for WiR if that's the direction that we want to go, but we can't make the case by pointing at a different and unrelated field and saying that they disclose there. The case needs to be made in terms of WiR and Wikipedia, not in terms of the medical profession. - Bilby (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I find this whole discussion very dispiriting. It seems that this discussion is conflating controversies that have happened associated with people using the term "Wikipedian in Residence" [WiR] - all of which are circumstances where policies and warning templates already exist - with an inherent need to be wary of/warm against WiR projects in general.
The fact that the term WiR is not “accredited” by anyone - and therefore has been used in association with a wide variety of projects have taken many different forms (long/short term, paid/unpaid, professionals/students, article-writing/event-organising, fulltime/partime, oureach-focused/in-house training-focused...) - means that some activities by some people can end up being controversial - for COI or other reasons. But what’s important to remember is that calling yourself a WiR doesn’t bring any special rights or privileges on-wiki. It’s just a way of expressing a proactive, mutually-beneficial, relationship that the editor (and wikimedia) has with an institution (which is often but not always a publicly-funded GLAM). Any and all normal policies about paid editing, NPOV, and CoI all still apply regardless. There’s nothing inherently required to be warned about with WiR projects because the term can be used in many ways.
Some would see that flexibility/looseness as a flaw in the system: I see it as a strength. Rather than needing “permission” from a accreditation body, a Wikipedian can build a relationship with a GLAM that is contextually appropriate to their circumstances, and within all the normal norms of editing behaviour. It’s just a convenient term - both for the institution and for us - to explain that a relationship exists!
And by the way, I find the idea that WiR should be referred to as a "Sponsored engagement" to be very sad - If a museum wishes to build a proactive relationship with us, and there's an editor who wishes to take on that responsibility of being the bridge, this should be celebrated not warned-against. YES all of the usual rules about disclosure of payment, avoiding writing in mainspace about your employer, etc. still stand regardless
And finally: can we please stop with the assumption that all WiR are paid [they aren't, and I certainly wasn't]; and that "being paid" is the most likely/common criteria for whether one has a Conflict of Interest; and furthermore that "being paid" in general equates to being paid to make a specific edit/article on WP. Wittylama 13:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Witty. "Sponsored" can certainly mean paid with money, but having access to an organization's resources is a (very valuable) form of consideration as well. And perhaps creates even deeper bonds with that organization if it a volunteer relationship.
That said I appreciate what you wrote about "all normal policies and guidelines apply". That makes sense to me.
Additionally, two questions for you -- are you aware of any data on the percentage of GLAM/WiR gigs that are volunteer vs paid? That would be interesting to know.
Also, is there some way that people who organize GLAM/WiR activities track or gather data on such activities? If so, what is the means for that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
To answer the specific question - there's is no formal/consistent documentation of how many WiR there are (or have been), nor the criteria associated with their project (such as if they're paid in money, or class-credit, or are existing employees, or are 'pure' volunteers...). This IS a List of Wikipedians in Residence on the Outreach wiki - which has fields for Institution, project homepage, unsername, time period, and location. However, it is by no means 'mandatory' for every person to list themselves there. Furthermore, and this speaks to my point above about the 'weakness/strength' of the term WiR "because the term can be used in many ways", the way some people have applied the term to their own project might not be appropriate in another country, language-wiki, Chapter etc. It is, ultimately, just a "label" that people can apply to their own projects if that helps improve the collaboration for the betterment of our movement. I, personally, have strong opinions about what a 'proper' WiR should be like - but that's just my opinions and doesn't mean that other people's approaches are "wrong".
All that said, it is my belief through anecdotal-evidence that there is a 'supply and demand' correlation in the proportion of "paid" WiR in any given country. Generally speaking, in countries that have lots of wikimedians interested in GLAM outreach but few museums (or those museums are poorly-funded) then the WiR will be, generally, volunteers. In countries where there are many museums that want an in-house Wikimedian to help them - but few wikimedians available with the time/skill/inclination - then they're more frequently paid. This is all, also, contextualised by the fact that sometimes it is the wikimedian who approaches the institution with the proposal (as was the case with me) and sometimes the institution 'goes looking' for a Wikimedia - this dynamic also affectects whether there's a budget allocated to the project: budget not just for the Wikimedian, but also to fund things like sandwiches/coffee for editathons, insurance overheads for 'official volunteers in the building', meal-vouchers, prizes, security-staff for after-hours editathons... Also - in some cases where the WiR is paid [with money] it has been 50/50 split between their local Chapter and the institution, sometimes 100% the Chapter in the first year/month/period and up to the institution thereafter, sometimes with a grant from a likeminded org... So: all in all, the very diverse nature of the projects undertaken, their diverse contexts, and diverse funding methods in those cases when they are paid - make it very difficult to try and "track". My guess is that more than half of the WiR in the USA and UK are paid in some form, a lower proportion in other well developed glamwiki countries like Netherlands, and low-to-negligible proportion in other countries. But that's my 'off the top of my head' guess. As you can probably tell by now - I don't consider 'paid' to be a useful metric to categorise a WiR project, and even less as a measure of whether there's a likely CoI. But that's just me... Wittylama
Thank you, that is useful additional information and perspective. I agree actually - the matter of payment (or some kind of in-kind benefit) is largely a red herring, but it's one that leds to drama, and that is why I would very much like to improve clarity on this. I do believe that WiR is usually if not always positive (I don't have stats to show otherwise and your comment indicates such stats are unlikely to exist anyway). My concern is primarily protecting good people (and the project of course) from any possible reputational taint. I didn't realise there was any depth to the Outreach content, is there a policy page or guidance there we could point to? A framework that a WiR would use for their own protection if subjected to subtle coercion, for example? Guy (Help!) 18:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
fwiw guy, the relevant section of the COI guideline points to Core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence which I think it pretty good at laying out what WiRs should do. I wish it were more clear that they should not edit about the host organization or add gratuitous links or references (there is "rather than directly editing articles as a core goal" in the 4th bullet there...) Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks to Witty for that extensive reply, as well. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


This is an awful lot to parse on a noticeboard not typically used for this. Is there a better approach than trying to discuss it here? - Bilby (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Not that I have found. This is the pace where COI is habitually discussed, and this is where editors familiar with COI can be found. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I suggest moving the whole thing to a subpage (say Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Tagging (2018)) and leaving a simple pointer to that, here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Though, on reflection, why discuss WiRs and GLAM in the COI namespace, not the GLAM namespace, or somewhere neutral..? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I would agree that the most involved projects may not be aware of this discussion and that its implications are significant for WIRs and GLAM institutions in particular. Montanabw(talk) 03:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • related ANI has been filed, here. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • With respect to Template talk:Connected contributor (WiR) there was a desire by a number of folks to develop a different template for articles worked on by WiR. As such I was fine with deleting this one. IMO some template is useful as it 1) raises awareness about WIRs 2) would help other Wikipedians know who they can turn to if they could use further details from an intitution 3) provides disclosure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Undeclared paid editing of Eddie Newquist and related[edit]

I suggest to check the editing of Harvey Newquist II article by Wafflesandpancakes who recently removed COI tag added by me to this article. I noticed that the same author also edited Eddie Newquist article. Harvey Newquist II article, in turn, has images uploaded to Commons by this user as own work of Eddie Newquist. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There won't be time for me to pursue this right now but I noticed a WikiEd nexus ... see userpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
There is no discussion on the article's talk page; much less one explaining why you tagged the article. Nor s there anything on Wafflesandpancakes's talk page; not even a notification that they are being discussed here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I advised Bbarmadillo to notify any party that they name on a noticeboard ☆ Bri (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, sorry, my bad. I usually work "on the other side", so to say :) Look like this issue has been handled well by Bri -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This article: Harry Potter: The Exhibition is linked, written by User:Carlydow, who links from her user page to the article, weirdly. I have never see that before. She worked on the Eddie Newquist article. Harvey Newquist II was created 4 days ago. scope_creep (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Missed this: And links prominetly to Eddie Newquist's company on the Harry Potter article. scope_creep (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
This is new to me "I have edited both pages with their permission but don't personally know either of them." Wafflesandpancakes, please explain how this is possible? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Got the following response on my own talkpage (Bri)
Just in response to your comment, I did some work for Eddie through a freelancing website and he asked if I could look through his wiki page and make some edits so I did and then he asked if I could do the same for his father. We don't have any sort of personal connection, and have only had contact because of a previous freelancing opportunity. Does this still count as a conflict of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wafflesandpancakes (talkcontribs) 02:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Wafflesandpancakes: Were you compensated only for your edits to Eddie Newquist or where you also compensated for edits to Harvey Newquist II? SamHolt6 (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@SamHolt6: Hi, just for the Harvey Newquist II page, which I have disclosed on my page now. I apologise for not doing this earlier, I was unfamiliar with Wikipedia's COI guidelines, but I will make sure to be more careful in the future. Wafflesandpancakes (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I note that Eddie is named in the template added in this edit. But we only have Wafflesandpancakes' word for that, and even then they may have been dealing with an imposter. Is it right to name a third party in this manner? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I share your concern. We should require the clients to go through OTRS before any edits can be made on their behalf. Rentier (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Nina Teicholz, again[edit]

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.

Nina Teicholz just had a big revision. For background, a sockfarm was recently active here; see COIN archive 117 and #Ratsama on this page. I was tempted to just revert to the prior, but it was tagged as needing more evidence of notability so instead I'm going to ask here if the new rev is an improvement, or just more advocacy editing. The editor, Leslieaun, is a declared paid editor (on their userpage). ☆ Bri (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that jytdog has just reverted, so I guess my instinct was correct ☆ Bri (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I endorse the reversion. It read as a dustjacket biography. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yep. Leslieaun is with a PR firm and we really need to bring her firm into the "Statement" ethos. I have left a message on her talk page and also emailed her... Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Update: Nina Teicholz hired Leslieaun's firm to write an article, and in the meantime somebody else published the article and Teicholz fired Leslieaun's firm. I have moved the draft page to leslieaun's userspace, and have posted an edit request at Talk:Nina Teicholz to see about implementing it. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

Small Industries Development Bank of India[edit]

User seems to represent or work for this development bank as their username has this bank's acronym in it("sidbi"). Has added an uncited description of this organzation's services to the article, it reads as if it came off their website(I searched and don't think it actually does). Has not responded to messages and simply reverted my removals(which I stopped doing)331dot (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

University of Buraimi[edit]

Hi, this is a new probable coi editor insisting on adding very promotional content probably copyvio despite warnings and advice, have used up my 3 reverts, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Uoboman put in a link in the lede: <ref></ref>, now removed.scope_creep (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I received a message from the user by e-mail stating that he is employee at the university, and asking me for help since I was in The Welcome Committeemy in ar.Wiki and my signature was in the Newusermessage that he received when he register. he wrote "معك ممثل وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي عن جامعة البريمي، سلطنة عُمان. هل بالإمكان المساعدة في تعديل المحتوى في الرابط التالي" which translate to "I am representative from Al Buraimi University, Sultanate of Oman. I need your help to edit the content in the following link". --Mojackjutaily (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

When I read the lead of Uoboman's version of the draft, I automatically interpret it as "University of Buraimi is committed to vacuous bullshit ... A committed International team of unqualified frauds ...". Do people not realise that a good informative article is actually preferable to advertising copy? Maproom (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Kevin Lapsley[edit]

KSKM is the name of Lapsley's production company. The editor who uses that name varies between "I" and "we" while discussing the fact that they just want to tell the world about what "we" are doing ("we" in this context seems to mean Lapsley and his company). There is much whining about how Wikipedia shouldn't only be for famous people, but I don't know for certain whether that is (in their mind) a tacit admission of non-notability, or merely the usual assertion that 'all famous people write their own articles, so why can't I?'. Orange Mike | Talk 21:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

it has had a trim of unreliable sources and invented narratives. (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
And when you trimmed it, we are left with three crummy sources to testify to the subject in each case "working with" somebody so obscure we don't have an article about them, on a video, a movie and a "project" (jeeze, I'm coming to hate that meaninglessly pretentious abuse of a perfectly good word as much as I do "solutions"). I've deleted it as A7, no credible assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Alliance Party of Ontario[edit]

An IP editor made an edit to this article about a new regional political party. The edit summary was "From APO Comms". All of the IP's edits seem to be directly or indirectly related to this political party. There is a neutrality issue with some of the edits. I had previously left a notice for User:Humberland about possible COI issues but I do not know if they are related to this IP. Ironically, I'm only watching this article because of potential COI issues with a different user (who seems to be staying away from this article although they did edit an earlier draft). World's Lamest Critic (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)