Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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 {{Request edit}} template:

Lenwood S. Sharpe[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.




Lenwood S. Sharpe is the director of Lumberwoods, a virtual museum on North American folklore.

The Thrilllander account (originally Thrillland) is Thrill Land, founded by Lenwood S. Sharpe. It simply uploads content by him or related entities to Wikimedia Commons. It doesn't edit Wikipedia.

The various IP editors mentioned above began editing Wikipedia in 2018, particularly on North American folklore but also Bumpass, Virginia. Since the Lenwood S. Sharpe and Lumberwoods article was created in early 2021, these IPs have edited both. According to an edit from this range, Bumpass, Virginia is Sharpe's hometown. Edits have been made from this range inserting one of Sharpe's films into the articles on Experimental film, List of vampire films, and Z movie, usually with edit summaries that suggest some other wording change. In particular, the change to Z movie came after Gumberoo had already added it but it was removed as self-promotion.

Tripodero's old user page said his name is Lenwood S. Sharpe, but that has been removed since 2011. When Thrilllander uploads content to the Commons, Tripodero is the one who adds it to Wikipedia shortly after (e.g.: [1][2] [3][4]). Based on the timing of these edits to User:Tripodero/Campfire story [5][6], Tripodero is also the anonymous IPs and accidentally edited the page while logged out. Despite having claimed to be Lenwood S. Sharpe, Tripodero did not disclose his identity or affiliation when commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumberwoods or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenwood S. Sharpe.

Gumberoo has created two articles related to Sharpe—Lenwood S. Sharpe and Lumberwoods. Similar to the anonymous IPs, Gumberoo has made edits adding Sharpe's film to Z movie and B movie. As the creator of the Lumberwoods article, they also participated in its deletion discussion. This may or may not be another sockpuppet, but CheckUser would probably be needed to establish that and I'd like to take a step back to let someone impartial figure out if that's warranted. hinnk (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So per another discussion, I again have no problem disclosing my identity. I am Lenwood. I have two user IDs on Wikipedia: User:Tripodero and User:Thrilllander. The prior is for personal use, the latter for uploading media I release into the public domain for free use. Since this media is released into the public domain under, "Thrill Land," I created this handle so the copyright waiver is verifiable. The latter's user page even reads: "This page has been created for the purposes of transparency." I have now linked to it from the Tripodero user page, as suggested recently by another user.
I do regularly share Wiki articles I'm currently working on and user space drafts with others for feedback. It's entirely possible that the user Gumberoo and the IP are the same user and may be someone I communicate with. Perhaps, they are someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies. I do not know. I can remind others I know not to make edits related to me or my works, but there really isn’t much more I can do beyond that.
I participated in the discussion for the deletion of the Lumberwoods and Lenwood S. Sharpe articles, as I thought I was allowed to do so. I commented after noticing two articles adjacent to my area of study nominated for deletion by a user, hinnk, who has no previous engagement in this area. I discovered from hinnk's contributions that he had searched for articles and information related to myself with the purposes of removing any references to such from Wikipedia. Hinnk began with the removal of information regarding a film I made. I take it he did not like this film.
At any rate, this raised concerns of personal bias and vandalism which run contrary to Wikipedia's views on neutrality. I raise the concern on the discussion page. Now, I feel this is a one-off matter. I wish Hinnk well and encourage his/her future contributions to Wikipedia.
I, myself, do not think it a conflict-of-interest to participate in an article's discussion, so long as I am not editing the article. Likewise, simply because a user does not readily identify themselves by their legal name does not mean they are concealing this information. Honestly, I didn't think it was a huge secret, because, as hinnk pointed out, I did previously disclose this on my user page. I removed it awhile back simply for increased privacy. I do not believe one is required to reveal their legal name on Wikipedia, but I am doing so here for transparency.
Much extraneous work can be avoided by simply reaching out to users to ask for clarification. Accordingly, if anyone has any questions just ask me. I will be glad to furnish such information.
I am here on Wikipedia to promote fearsome critters and related folklore. As for Lumberwoods, it contains no advertisements and produces no revenue. Rather it serves to promote folklore, provide public access to rare texts, and renew interest in storytelling and a cultural heritage. It is already on the first page of Google on relevant searches to include "fearsome critters” and my personal homepage is linked there. Consequently, there has never been any financial nor promotional incentive to me with aforementioned articles inclusion on Wikipedia. Tripodero (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that the AfDs have been closed, I think the remaining potential COI issues would require a sockpuppet investigation. Is the appropriate next step to open a request at WP:SPI? I want to be mindful of forum shoppping, would appreciate some feedback from someone more familiar with these processes. hinnk (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you already are certain of the accounts being one person, you've already got some strong evidence of illegitimate socking. There are votes from two of those accounts on the lumberwoods AfD First Second FrederalBacon (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I opened a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tripodero, which will hopefully resolve any issues. hinnk (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good call, sock blocked by User:Tamzin after that SPI. FrederalBacon (talk) 06:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.

User:Ovedc[edit]

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[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[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[reply]

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

Some advice from Entrepreneur (magazine)[edit]

Need a Business Wiki? Here are 5 Ways to Get Your Brand on Wikipedia

"Once your account is created, you don't want to dive into building your business's page immediately — odds are it will be rejected immediately, as your user doesn't have any associated credibility. Instead, spend some time contributing to various articles on Wikipedia under your username so that the platform knows you can be trusted. An excellent way to do this is to look for pages related to your industry and add brief, citable additions that relate to your company. For instance, if you're in the lumber industry, link to a newspaper article or press release about your business on pages that make sense."

They went pretty "dark arts" this time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: While the Wikipedia community may detest articles like this, what's the point of bringing it here? There's nothing anyone here can do about external journal articles, and there is no evidence that the author of the article is a Wikipedia editor. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just saw this. My thinking is that articles like these can be of general interest to Wikipedians who edit in the COI-area. A "know your opponent" kind of thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Karen Miga[edit]

Username matches the page name. I've sent a COI template already, with no response. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 05:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • LilianaUwU, you left the COI template eleven minutes before you reported to this noticeboard. Perhaps give a little more time for a response? I also note that the editor has only edited the article within the previous two hours - see the note at the top of this noticeboard (emphasis added) which says "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." Thanks Melcous (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Also, please see the note in red at the top of this noticeboard which says you must notify any editor who is the subject of discussion here. Melcous (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Disregard, then. I may be a bit unfamiliar with the whole COIN thing still. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 06:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • No worries LilianaUwU, hopefully she will respond on the talk page or stop editing. If not and the issue persists, please do bring it back here. Melcous (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Centre for Heritage, Arts and Textile[edit]

User:LittleNirvana was blocked by @GeneralNotability: on 8 Sept. Apparently, they are back with another sock User:WikiwikiTIKA and have moved the page, Centre for Heritage, Arts and Textile, back to mainspace without disclosing their status. 70.55.10.116 (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've moved back to draft so that an independent reviewer can see if its any good. The editor here was trying to blank the page for some reason, even after it was moved out of draft. There is something odd going on. scope_creepTalk 08:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simufilam 2[edit]

See previous discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_192#Simufilam

I'm done with this suite of articles (simufilam, Cassava Sciences, Lindsay Burns). With all my efforts to help, and try to decipher reams of confusing talk page posts, SighSci, a declared COI editor, has now leveled accusations at me on Talk:Simufilam. Someone else can take over trying to understand their requests and keep the articles accurate and neutral. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ponyo: There has still been no COI disclosure from SighSci and now they are spuriously accusing Sandy of having a COI. If I wasn't involved I'd be indeffing right now, so please take a look. SmartSE (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've modified the block to site wide. I appreciate the patience of everyone who attempted to work with Sighsci while the partial block was in place.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately appropriate at this juncture. At one point, I felt SighSci's input could be helpful in trying to understand what was what, and get the (very confusing) situation with all the different journal articles sorted, and I was willing to work with them, and even tried to help;[7] in return, SighSci was ever so gracious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another autopatrolled UPE[edit]

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

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

Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines)[edit]

Hi folks, this user has declared their role as a Catechist of the Apostolic Catholic Church in the Philippines, and they have persistently edited in that self-same topic area, adding massive amounts of unsourced information and ignoring all warnings. More eyes and comments, including admins considering sanctions, would be welcomed. Elizium23 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This might not be a COI per se, in the Catholic church, a Catechist is a lay person, essentially a volunteer Sunday school teacher. I was one when I was 18. They hold no rank, position, or power in the church, and are not paid for their services. If the editor is disruptive, it’s probably their own views, rather than one the church is telling them to push. ANI maybe? FrederalBacon (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just noting that both volunteers and teachers have COI with regards to the institution they volunteer or teach for, although we generally leave it up to the individual to moderate that COI (not all COI mean you can't edit a subject after all). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely, I understand it doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t a COI, but I was more suggesting that if there is disruptive editing, being a volunteer doesn’t necessarily mean there ‘’is’’ one either, it might be better to take it to ANI. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, the contributions are iffy regardless of any COI... The most recent set is basically spam. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Catechists are some of the top contributors to Catholic topics, why would being a catechist in a niche Catholic church disqualifies someone but being the same in the mainstream Catholic church doesn't? Either all catechists regardless of sect have a COI or none do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elizium23 Oh come on now, I thought we already had a consensus regarding that. That issue was already ages ago, and has already been solved by Mr.@Veverve. Why are you bringing it back now? Is it because my talk in Talk:Catholic Church? Come on, I already stopped editing in the article ages ages ago, and now you're just randomly reporting me to the admins with false accusations. Geez, atleast give some proofs about those 'massive amounts of unsourced information' and those 'ignoring "all" warnings'. Hath those existed and done by me, I would've long been restricted from editing. And please, stop with the disruptive labeling. @FrederalBacon @Horse Eye's Back Ploreky (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elizium23: You got diffs of the edits?
@Ploreky: I know that sometimes, even if we aren't intending to be, it's possible to be disruptive to articles we are passionate about, due to that passion. If other editors are finding you disruptive in Catholic topic articles, it might actually be at that point. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ploreky, I came here because you made over 50 additions to saints' articles without benefit of reliable sources. You have no proof that those saints are venerated in your church but you added them anyway. You can't do that here. I reverted all of those edits but you've been warned plenty about your behavior. Time for sanctions to be considered at this point. Elizium23 (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of those edits were made before this section was opened and that time has only weakened any case for sanctions as there is no ongoing disruption. Yes they made unsourced additions, but they were making additions to infobox sections which didn't have sources for *any* of the given sects... So why are we picking out this unsourced sect and not the others? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, none of that looks much worse than what was already in the article. It's unsourced, but the others were, and I'm sure it could all be sourced if someone wanted to put the effort into going through it. Should the editor adding it do so? Yes. But I really don't think adding additional sects of catholicism that revere a certain saint indicates a COI. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elizium23 Is that really you're only problem???? Geez, you shouldn't have deleted those 50 edits for goodness sake. I've spent 2 hours just adding those for someone just to destroy it.
For goodness sake, if you want it https://religion.fandom.com/wiki/Apostolic_Catholic_Church here it is. Ploreky (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A Fandom wiki is not a reliable source, per WP:USERGEN. I don't see any support for your claims of saints venerated in that religion. Elizium23 (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh come on, do i really need to cite it? Like what user Horse Eye's Back said, Citations are irrelevant.
Why?
  1. Since Apostolic Catholic Church in an "Independent Catholic" Denomination, that it is automatic that we venerate saints.
  2. If other sects like Anglicanism, Lutheranism, IFI, and any other sects didn't even gave any refs to add the name of their church, then why would we need to?
  3. Members of the church are named after saints, added to the apo title. Example: Apo Timoteo, which means "Timothy", is derived from a saint, St. Timothy, and like Apo Antonio, derived from "Anthony" refering to St. Anthony. These are what the church refers to the "New Name" that is stated in the book of revelations. Either way, I know which saints does the church venerate and which is not venerated. Even though the Apostolic Catholic Church venerate to all saints.
Ploreky (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not say that citations were irrelevant... Just that Elizium23 appeared to be applying a double standard. That doesn't mean that you should be going around adding unsourced information to wikipedia, please do not do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course Mr@Horse Eye's Back, I know that. I've been a wikipedia editor for a long time, and almost have 400 edits. With at least that much of experience, I already know wikipedia's basic rules Ploreky (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what is worth I'm closing in on 40k edits and I'm still learning new things. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sh*t. Sorry for the word.@Elizium23 actually rollbacked my every edit. Now, I can't edit.
Was a sanction really needed for that???? In the first place, those edits were reasonable and not a vandalism. Why?????
@Horse Eye's Back @FrederalBacon, Brothers, can you please help me with this? In the first place there is nothing wrong with the edits I added. Was a sanction really needed without any warnings? Isn't that unfair?
@Favonian @Gyrofrog @JimRenge @Hog Farm Ploreky (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just go to the saint section. Ploreky (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Administrator note I have blocked Ploreky 72 hours for repeated addition of unsourced content. I don't think there's much to do on the COI front, though. We've historically been pretty lenient with rank-and-file members of churches, schools, large non-profits, political movements, etc. Even with what I blocked them for, to me that's more a case of someone adding a lot of unsourced mentions of some topic they're interested in, than someone promoting something they have a COI with. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the lack of a concrete COI is pretty accurate, but disruptive editing is still disruptive editing, so temp block seems like the best way to deal with it to me. Given the lack of apparent COI, we can probably close this report, and any further issues can be dealt with on ANI, should the disruption continue. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Imply Data[edit]

At Imply Data I reverted a large edit containing copyvios on 8 February this year. Briskmad soon added back an edited version of the content. I've removed that twice, repeatedly suggesting to Briskmad that she/he obtain consensus on the talk-page before re-adding it. Now it's back in the page. To my inexpert eye this seems to be ill-sourced and promotional, the kind of stuff we regularly see from paid or COI editors. Brinksmad has denied any paid connection to the company. Anyone care to take a look? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While trying to avoid WP:OUTING here, there is an easily discoverable connection between this username and this company. - DoubleCross () 19:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's either a direct connection to the company, or someone impersonating a direct connection to the company. It looks like in February, they very carefully worded their response to the COI claim to only specify they were not receiving any money for their editing. Based off the connection you reference, I don't believe that they do not have a COI when it comes to the article. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I did not have a connection to Imply when I first edited the article, I am now an employee there, so I do have a current connection. I'd reiterate that my job duties do not include contributions to Wikipedia. Meanwhile, I'd urge people to look at the current state of the article, with alterations and contributions by FinlayArms, Largoplazo, and Scope creep that have improved the article and, hopefully, removed any taint I have caused with my own contributions.Briskmad (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one is saying you can't contribute to the article in a productive way if you want. Just disclose the COI, per the guidelines, and use the talk page to suggest the changes you would like to make instead of making them yourself. You can be employed by a company and still contribute to their article, the COI just means it should be reviewed before being inserted into the article. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The editor needs to use the edit request mechanism, as they can't be trusted to write articles that are not promotional and abusive. The editor writes advertisement copy. He should be indef blocked. scope_creepTalk 07:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, surprise, surprise, a paid editor after all! So, Briskmad, were you already working for the company on 18 September (eight days ago), when you wrote "To be clear, as noted in WP:PAID, I do not receive, or expect to receive, compensation for my contributions to Wikipedia, on this nor any other article ...". Undisclosed paid editing is a violation of the Terms of Use of the Wikimedia Foundation. It's understandable that a new editor might still do it as a result of ignorance, but doing it knowingly and lying about it (citing the specific page where it is defined) most definitely is not. If I hadn't already interacted with you at that page I'd indefinitely block your account for that. I invite any other admin reading this to consider doing so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've blocked. Bishonen | tålk 10:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Thank you, Bishonen. It seems pretty much a mathematical certainty that this denial on 9 February was also far from the truth.
At this point I'd normally revert the page to its previous state. Largoplazo, Scope creep, you've done a lot of clean-up there (thank you!). Are you satisfied that that isn't necessary in this case? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good work Bishonen, Justlettersandnumbers. scope_creepTalk 14:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just removed a few more buzzwords, and now I think the article is in a reasonable state. I appreciated Bishonen short-circuiting a typical, lengthy back-and-forth to explain that a COI is a COI, and a paid one is a paid one. Largoplazo (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would agree the Feb 9th denial was far from the truth. From what I can see, it appears as thought the COI pre-dated that claim. There is a difference between a general COI and a UPE, as they pointed out, but specifically pointing out that distinction by denying UPE while ignoring the general COI seems misleading at best. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to be pedantic, but there is a difference between having a COI or even even being employee of a subject, and being an undisclosed paid editor. WP:PAID concerns If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia and WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia... (emphasis added in both cases). Someone with a COI can write an overly promotional article on their employer entirely on their own time, without any instruction or payment from the employer. If we're gonna punish someone for not following WP:PAID to the letter of the law, we need to make sure said law was actually violated. COI editing is not equivalent to UPE. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I agree with you, and in fact was trying to deal with that exact distinction and templating with the editor before they were blocked, is there really much of a difference when the editor is in a leadership position within the company whose article they are editing? I'd argue there's a big difference between an assembly line worker editing the General Motors article, and a GM executive editing the article. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It depends an awful lot on the nature of one's employment and one's job responsibilities. In the case of an hourly office cafeteria worker, writing about the company is not their responsibility, and there is a clear division between company time and their time. In that case, writing about the company while they're at home in the evening is, one can easily argue, not paid work and is unlikely to get them a raise for their service on the food line. In the case of a network technician responsible for hooking a company's servers together who goes home and, completely on their own steam, contributes to an article on the company, and doesn't even mention it at the office, whether or not in expectation of financial reward for the deed, it's certainly a COI but arguably not a paid one. In the case of a salaried company PR or sales person or evangelist, especially the leaders who aren't just writing what they're told but are the people who are expected to find things to write about and places to write them, anything they do, 24/7, that falls under their job responsibilities, including writing about their company anywhere in any medium, is specifically the work they're paid to do. In that case, it's paid editing. Largoplazo (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:William Bishop, AfC abuse[edit]

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

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

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

Undisclosed paid editing?[edit]

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

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

Wedderkop[edit]

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