Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 207

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Saishna96

Based on off-wiki evidence, it is confirmed that user Saishna96 is affiliated with a PR agency that provides digital marketing services, and the aforementioned subjects are some of their clients. Despite my request for disclosure of conflicts of interest, they denied receiving payment, although evidence suggests otherwise. Therefore, out of respect for their privacy, I'm willing to share the rest of the details privately. Additionally, there is a possibility that Saishna96 is linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tha D.f4c3r/Archive. GSS 💬 04:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

some more details suggest that user Shiva20202020, whose draft was submitted submitted for a review by user Saishna96, also works for the same company, raising suspicions of meatpuppetry. User Shiva was previously blocked for disruptive edits by user Deb. GSS 💬 05:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Saishna96 continues to disregard COI policies and proceeded to remove the upe tag placed on UV Creations, a company they are associated with. GSS 💬 16:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I didnt disregard, I told to place the tag when the case is closed! Saishna96 (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
The tag was placed based on off-wiki evidence of your conflict of interest, and as someone with COI, you can't simply remove the tag without addressing the concerns. Additionally, you need to disclose your connection with user Shiva20202020, who also works for the same PR agency. GSS 💬 17:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I dont have any connections with user Shiva20202020, If you suspect any connection between me and user Shiva20202020, please initiate an investigation into the matter. Saishna96 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
As mentioned earlier, user Shiva20202020 has also created/edited articles related to the same PR company as you and appears to be their staff. There is indeed a connection, and I'm willing to share details with an admin privately. GSS 💬 18:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Sure, please do that! Saishna96 (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

From the top of the page: "Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to [email protected] for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice." User:GSS, that's the way forward with private evidence. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies:, what about when COI found long after edits have been made but nonetheless affects the current neutrality of article? In another issue, which you can see down below in another section. I submitted information to that email address with regard to that but haven't got any response and there's really no guidance on what to do or how long to wait after that. Graywalls (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Graywalls, the key phrase here is "Based on off-wiki evidence". What you are indicating is a very different kind of investigating. One doesn't need to figure out someone's identity or affiliation or whatever in order to "neutralize" an article--it's a matter of editing, and it's precisely a disinterested editor who'd be best at that. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Drmies: I'm sorry, but I didn't disclose anything that could violate WP:OUTING and shared details privately in respect of their privacy. But if you think I posted something that I shouldn't have, I apologize for that, as it was not my intention, and I do respect other users' privacy. GSS 💬 18:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
User:GSS, you misunderstand. I know you are well aware of the guidelines for private information. What I'm saying is that you probably have strong evidence, but you can't show it here, and so Arbcom etc. is simply the best way, for a case like this. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I got you. Thank you for the clarification. Had a busy day celebrating Holi, so am slightly offbeat at the moment 😆 GSS 💬 19:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Matthew Modine

WorkhouseNYC (talk · contribs) added unsourced information to Matthew Modine without providing a source.[1][2] After I left them a note about sourcing requirements, they claimed to be a representative for Modine.[3] After I pointed out that they should review WP:COI, and quite possibly WP:PAID,[4], they claimed they had no conflict even while acknowledging Modine is their client.[5]. Shortly afterward, Doniagohole (talk · contribs) (but I'm sure the name is coincidental) edited the same article in exactly the same manner.[6] DonIago (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

While the sock account that Workhouse created has since been blocked, 69.141.241.120 (talk · contribs) has now thrice edited the article in exactly the same manner. I have requested page protection. DonIago (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
These accounts are now blocked. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance! DonIago (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Harton Academy

I think that Jonmckenziex may have a conflict of interest regarding Harton Academy. Almost all this user's edits have been to that article. He has several times added text which does not conform to the manual of style - bolding, people's titles, capitalisation - and added the school's inspection judgement to the lead. See this set of changes, again here, and here. He has also removed referenced information about the school's history. I posted on his Talk page about a possible CoI here and here. The editor then posted on my Talk page I am available to answer any questions or queries that you have. Encouraged by this, I asked him again about conflict of interest. He hasn't replied to this, but has posted on the article's Talk page: It is very important that parents at Harton Academy can gain vital access to appropriate information about the organisation. ... Key points surrounding Headteacher appointments should also remain visible to visitors of the Harton Academy wiki page. Members of the community should be able to gain access into who was appointed and when. ... The main body page of the Harton wiki has always contained relevant, accurate and informative information. This w always be the case. The tone of this, and the concern for information for parents and the community, read to me as if this editor may have a CoI. Tacyarg (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The editor has now stated on their talkpage that they have no conflict of interest - but it's not so long ago that we had a chair of governors at another school make a similar statement. Maybe worth asking them to disclose the nature of their relationship to the school?
Not sure that I understand the apparent importance placed on the timing of headmaster appointments. Or why Wikipedia would be seen as playing a key role in making sure the local community could access info on who the headmaster was?
Maybe this isn't someone operating from within the school. Axad12 (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I have asked a follow-up question on the editor's Talk page. Tacyarg (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Presumably there's some link to user Timlockwood1, who seemed to fulfil the same WP:SPA purpose from Oct-Dec 23 (including this [7] headmaster appointment related edit, occurring on the same day as the announcement on the school's own website).
Then the jonmckenziex account seems to have taken on those (rotating?) duties from Jan-Mar 24.
I see that the user has again said they have no COI on their talk page. The SPA nature of the editing (and apparent community concern) suggests otherwise, however. Given the various relationships they have confirmed do not exist, what does that leave? Axad12 (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the editor has firmly and comprehensively said they have no CoI. I think we have to WP:AGF and take up the manual of style issues and content on the article's Talk page. At the moment the style issues have been reverted by another editor. I'd like to put some of the history info back, but will discuss on Talk page. It's a school with a long and complicated history- should be possible to do a decent article on it, if we can find sources. Tacyarg (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I remain concerned about a possible COI here.
The user's sole preoccupation is repeatedly adding a block of text about a disputed low Ofsted grade from 2022.
He's attempted to insert some version of that text 9 times since March 15th and has been reverted each time (by 3 different editors).
Yesterday it was pointed out by Black Kite here [8] that the text the user has been trying to introduce is inaccurate because (according to Ofsted) the reason for the low grade was a safeguarding issue which the user's text presents as a record keeping issue.
It doesn't seem clear why a non-COI editor would be trying to do that. Axad12 (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Big Sur, California area touristy contents

Resolved
 – At best very premature. CoI not demonstrated with substantive evidence, nor has there been an effort on the talk page; cultivating pet articles is not only normal behavior, but even encouraged by special awards. Our CoI policy exists to stop paid or self-related abuse, not to suppress editors' personal interests. Discussion looks pretty stale, so dismiss without prejudice.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The user Btphelps created the article Ventana Wilderness Alliance. After I checked insource:https://www.ventanawild.org/, there are 22 articles sourced to it. I have not checked all 22, but they mostly appear to have been linked to by Btphelps. I've removed tourism guide like contents added by same user fom numerous Big Sur, California adjacent articles that were sourced to traveling resource sites. They've also used https:///plaskett.family source in numerous articles. I've since removed them, but no other users have added that link. I am seeing possible COI of promoting tourism activity in the area. Graywalls (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

At the top of this page is "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue...." Where did that happen? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
While you have a valid point, I posted this here as "This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI)" is one of the things editors can consult here for. Graywalls (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Graywalls, you have not raised a COI issue on my talk page, merely disputed a source I used. You've invented a red herring when you suggest my contributions about Big Sur are a conflict of interest. That would assume I would somehow benefit from the articles I've written about the region, perhaps because I own a business there or as a member of an organization that would somehow benefit from mention on WP. Do you have ANY such evidence? Or are you just stirring up unnecessary trouble for me and admins? Please provide immediate concrete evidence of a COI. Otherwise this discussion should be immediately closed.
As far as the source you are referring to, the content was written by a member of a pioneer family who settled the Big Sur region in the late 1800s. These stories were written by Mabel Plaskett in a series of articles published in the King City Rustler in November of 1962 titled "History of Coast Schools" and reproduced on the website. If you weren't in such a rush to be the hero in removing content sourced from what you regard as a "blog", you might find some merit in the content. Her first person accounts of life there are analogous to a WWII soldier's stories about combat. Only the subject is much less studied. Her recollections are considered a reliable history of that area by California scholars.
FYI, her death notice describes Mabel as a "well-known county journalist." Mrs plaskett, Journalist, Poet, Dies in King City
I am meanwhile attempting to locate the newspaper and other sources. Please refrain from further preemptive, rogue edits and cease your attempts to smear my character, my many years of reliable contributions to WO, and attacks on my reputation. This unnecessary report of a COI and unfounded attack on me along with your rash deletion of content without discussion are in part why so many good editors leave WP. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 07:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
@Btphelps:, I acknowledge. I should have engaged you on your talk page first. Graywalls (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
While I accept that I didn't communicate to you as I should have, I would like to add that in addition to Plaskett.family link you added, the various resort and business links you've added and tourism advocacy type contents you've placed is a reasonable cause of concern for promotional or COI editing. Graywalls (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@RadioactiveBoulevardier:, could you reopen it? Addition concerns were just found, involving UPE. Please see White Stag Leadership Development Program Graywalls (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  • I've worked with @Btphelps: for a while now. I'm looking at the accusation being made here, and those at Béla H. Bánáthy. This is baffling. Unless I see actual evidence, I feel that a good, and long-time user, is being smeared. --evrik (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    @Evrik:, There is actual evidence. Because of privacy policies on Wikipedia, that is not something I am allowed to post. See WP:OUTING. I've started a new discussion, because this discussion is already marked as resolved. Please continue in the new discussion. Graywalls (talk) 06:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Graywalls, There is NO evidence of a COI on my part regarding any of the Big Sur related articles. You are engaged in a vendetta against me and my contributions, as witnessed by your invention that I have engaged in NPE. Instead of engaging in a civil discourse, you have gone on a rampage, typical of your activity on WP, deleting swaths of content without discussion.
While this COI has been ruled as resolved, you on one hand apologize and in the same sentence maintain your insistence that a COI exists. Your apology is insincere and not believable.
The edit summary and personal attack by Graywalls which states' "His research was supported by Bela Banathy, the originator of the program and Joe St. Clair, one of White Stag's founders", whatever it's source, is not proof that either Bela Banathy nor Joe St Clair provided renumeration (NPE) to me of any kind. In fact, both were deceased at the time I wrote the article about Banathy. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 23:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
"whatever it's source" is the introduction paragraph of the source I removed to convey why I've removed it. You've declared you are/were a co-director of White Stag, so you inserting that source would be a COI, although that was with regard to White Stag which is discussed in another section below. Regarding Big Sur, there is a reason to believe potential COI, because you created the Ventana Wilderness Alliance, and you've added citations to it into various articles. When I've reviewed articles that cites that organization, you were the one who inserted most of them. This is a common pattern in COI edits. Aside from this, you've referenced various resorts and hotel websites which do not qualify as reliable nuetral seconedary source to add tour guide like contents. Graywalls (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't consider what you're talking about personal attack, because I am calling out the relationship between the author of the source and the editor. Speaking of personal attack, I believe this edit of yours is clearly a personal attack attacking the editor, not the edit:
1 I wish I got paid for writing on WP. It might make up for having to deal with nincompoops like you. Graywalls (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

WCPE

Clear conflicts of interest here with an IP registered to the radio station and a newly-registered editor who likely previously edited from the IP.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Harry L. Williams

Undisclosed, but admits to being a paid editor at the Help Desk. Orange Mike | Talk 12:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Orangemike this feels a little WP:BITE-y. The editor made a paid editing disclosure on their user page 15 hours before this report was made, after a single edit to the article. No warning was given or discussion attempted on their talk page. Melcous (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

For the interested

"The Wiki Studio is a leading provider of Wikipedia page creation services, dedicated to empowering brands by crafting compelling and informative pages that resonate with audiences worldwide. ... The Wiki Studio ... ensure its compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines."

That must mean they do their PAID-disclosures, that's good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that they are only claiming that their content complies with Wikipedia’s guidelines. They appear to be banned as WP:ABTACH, so they if they are still editing they are not following Wikipedia guidelines. TSventon (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I am SHOCKED, I tell you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

WHOIS shows the domain was launched in January 2024. It has a classic ABTACH feel to it so wouldn't be surprised if its another throwaway website they use to cover their tracks. Also note that Vents Magazine has been discussed at RSN as a publication that does paid placements without disclosure so the article is likely paid-for spam. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Most recent discussion about Vents although there are at least two more.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I give you my word that I had no intention of using it as a ref in an article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Haha. I wasn't even implying. Cheers!--CNMall41 (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Forrest Galante - repeated promotion & removal of criticisms

The Forrest Galante article has a history of promotionalism and white-washing by Galante's publicity team who contacted me recently.

The article had a Conflict of Interest template that was removed by one of many accounts that only edit Wikipedia to add Galante's work and remove criticism from scientists. Well-established editors like User:Sawitontwitter, User:MarkH21, and User:Dmoore5556 have worked to restore neutrality and remove promotionalism.

Another account has come back to remove criticism of Galante from Wikipedia with impassioned claims that criticism of Galante from Undark Magazine, Salon.com, and scientist writings is "fanatically opinionated". Please take a look at the new removals and conflicts of interest. Thanks. 221.240.76.114 (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

As the user whose repairs to the Galante article you're disputing, I can unequivocally say I am not associated with Forrest Galante or his team in any way, shape, or form. The edits I've made are in accordance with Wikipedia's own policies on the biographies of living persons, redressing some edits by others which are, yes, fanatically opinionated.
If Galante's team is reaching out to Wikipedia editors, their feedback should be disregarded entirely unless they're able to provide absolute airtight proof of misinformation within the article. And even then, the edit should be made by an independent editor and not them, to avoid conflicts of interest. If they're interfering with this article, that is a major problem. Please provide documentation of their outreach to you, because as it stands now your accusations should be taken very seriously. I am just as opposed to unfairly positive depictions of Galante as I am to unfairly negative ones, doubly so if his own team is behind them.
All that being said...the sources you just listed are self-professed opinion sites. The pieces they wrote on Galante which have been cited are self-professed opinion pieces. The conclusions made in them are opinion, with the authors making no attempt to conceal it (read the opening lines to Salon.com's article and tell my again you don't think it's opinionated). Therefore, they are definitively and wholly inappropriate citations for Wikipedia biographies. The best example being previous edits claiming Galante IS a parachute scientist, when this is an informal moniker based only out of criticism. It's appropriate to say he's been accused of being one, that's factual. It is not factual to say he IS one. The Criticism section should be populated by critiques made by those at least as credentialed as Galante himself as well as any direct response by Galante, though since you've falsely stripped him of virtually all his credentials already I can see how you may believe these sources already meet that standard.
Let's examine a quote from the edit you cited here: "Though a self proclaimed wildlife biologist, and despite asserting a degree in "high-risk wildlife biology" (a made up major which does not exist), Galante is not a professional wildlife biologist since he does not work as one, nor has he put forth any academic research papers for peer review."
To be entirely frank, can you really read that and say with sincerity that it's suited for Wikipedia? It's outwardly hostile ("a made up major" is entirely inconsistent even with passages on dishonest persons), it asserts a definition of wildlife biology which is not cited and appears to be based only on your interpretation ("Galante is not a professional wildlife biologist since he does not work as one, nor has he put forth any academic research papers for peer review"), and it at one point outright lies ("primarily for taking credit for the work of local researchers within their respective fields"), given Galante has credited the aforementioned local researcher as described in the current iteration of the Criticism section.
Furthermore, saying that the users have "worked to restore neutrality and remove promotionalism" is entirely dishonest, and a transparent attempt to justify libelous opinion-based vandalism by yourself and the users you've mentioned. If you're frustrated that the edits of yourself and of these users are continuously being reverted back, your frustration is with Wikipedia's own policies against biographies which attempt to insert personal disdain as the definitive accounting of an individual's career. Whether you and the 'well-established editors' you invoked continue to vandalize the Forrest Galante page (yes, it is vandalism), is between you and those who may eventually ban your IP. These edits will be reverted consistently and perennially in accordance with Wikipedia's standards as they have been by myself and other good-faith editors.
Thank you. Ravenandadove (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
@Ravenandadove: Can I give you advice. Don't post huge comments like that. It unlikely folk are going to read them. If you make a comment in admin board like this, make it succint and detailed. scope_creepTalk 23:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Your advice is duly noted, and I apologize if my prose was taxing for you. Ravenandadove (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@Ravenandadove: Are you Forrest Galante? The reason I ask is because you made an edit to support a potential vanity label on Galante, for a person that potentially you shouldn't know as an average editor wouldn't know the person from adam. The fact you have made that statement and left an edit summary in support of it, stating it clearly, indicates some kind of relationship between you and Galante. So what is? scope_creepTalk 00:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I’m perplexed by the basis of this question, as removing vandalism with justification isn’t an indicator of personal investment. If it were a ‘vanity title’ your concerns may be founded; however it is a factual job title backed up by multiple sources in the edit.
To answer your question…I am not Forrest Galante, nor do I have any personal connections with him nor have I interacted with him. I’m aware I’m answering a troll comment but it may be beneficial to get that on the record. You’re not Forrest either, are you? Ravenandadove (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@Ravenandadove: another word of advice: comment on content rather than editors. Content disputes are not vandalism no matter what you say, and calling a highly experienced editor asking a valid question a "troll" is not going to get you anywhere here (For some perspective, you have 54 edits on wikipedia, scope creep has 133,960). Melcous (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Accusing an editor of being a celebrity editing their own article is in no way a valid question. It’s obtuse, accusatory, and a rather rude way of insinuating that one’s edits are so biased they resemble what the person might say of themselves.
Beyond that, repeatedly adding opinion pieces as sources and masquerading it as fact is abominable editing practice…if it’s not vandalism by definition, it’s no better. Ravenandadove (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
It may be worth your while to take a look at WP:VANDAL, WP:EDITWAR, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:GOODFAITH. However, the short version is that content disputes should be resolved by seeking consensus at the talk page of the subject article (which should have been attempted before the IP user brought the matter here).
Alleging that anyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith is the exact opposite of trying to build consensus (and is unlikely to attract anyone to your side of the discussion).
This noticeboard exists purely to investigate allegations of COI (not to resolve content disputes). Your account was raised, rightly or wrongly, at the start of the thread as possibly having a COI. Blunt questions on whether you're the subject of the article (or close to the subject) are therefore par for the course and entirely valid. Axad12 (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
What it certainly does not exist for is arguing over personal squabbles. I was invoked in a discussion about alleged improper edits; I explained my position at great length. This included absolutely accurate descriptions about damaging edits made to an article. To elevate the discourse to 'blunt questions' about whether I'm the article's subject served to address none of the points in my comment. It brought a conversation about the merits of edits into the realm of personal slights. I'm not offended, but I won't treat it as valid discourse just because a user took the steps to formally allege it.
Nonetheless, the question was answered: no. Further discussion unrelated to the protection of the Forrest Galante article from opinion-driven edits is pointless. Ravenandadove (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Re-read my previous comment. The reason that the 'blunt questions [...] served to address none of the points in [your] comment' is that blunt questions about COI are the whole point of the COI noticeboard, whereas lengthy discussions on content disputes do not belong here.
Having previously made groundless accusations of vandalism and trolling, you are now making an entirely false allegation of a personal attack. Such false allegations are considered to be quite problematic, as is continually failing to assume good faith. I'd seriously suggest that you stop now before you dig yourself into a hole. Axad12 (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Sadly, rather than trying to resolve these issues via seeking consensus on the Forrest Galante talk page, the user has instead taken the issue here [9]. Axad12 (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
When the matter involves NPOV or COI, sometimes taking the discussion outside of a talk page rarely monitored by others beyond the regular participants is a good way to break groupthink and I don't see it as a bad thing. Graywalls (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Not sure I follow you here. This was a content dispute where there had been no discussion about the disputed text on the article talk page. The attempt to get improved article protection to prevent one side of the argument from being reverted was surely doomed to failure from outset? (And indeed so it proved, when the request was swiftly declined...) Axad12 (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
It was a general comment about why it's sometimes reasonable to take matters to noticeboards to get perspectives of those not involved directly with article in question. Graywalls (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
OP here. You must be confusing me with other editors when you say "the edits of yourself", because I have never edited the article about Forrest Galante. If you claim to have no relation to Galante, then so be it (even if almost all of your activity here are attempts to clear his name and cite his own personal pages). 210.170.118.130 (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I found a page on the website of a paid editing agency, which lists the following articles as created by them:

The pages should be checked for policy violations. It should also be checked whether authors have declared being paid. Janhrach (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Vishen Lakhiani: Created by Taniasafuan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a single purpose account, unsuccessfully nominated for AfD, suspected sock: Princesstowarrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Janhrach (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
They are already a known and globally banned entity, see Wikipedia:List_of_paid_editing_companies#Wikibusiness. It's not unusual for such agencies to list articles they did not actually have a hand in creating, none-the-less it is a good idea to check them. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I will check them one-by-one. Even if they aren't created by Wikibusines, the circumstances of the creation of this one are very suspicious. I have nominated it for deletion. Janhrach (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Andreas Umland: created by Stonepillar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), large edits by Миша историк (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Inkitrinky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), COI edits by Andreumland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This article is ambiguous, I am leaving this to other editors. Janhrach (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I Sent Qonto (neobank) and Adjarabet to Afd. scope_creepTalk 13:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Qonto (neobank) was created by Pcheetpcheet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a single-purpose account, clearly gamed the system to get the article out of userspace. Janhrach (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The user has edits to other Wikimedia wikis, I will review this later. Janhrach (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I have notified other wikis of this user. Janhrach (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Adjarabet was created by Hubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – a single-purpose account, gaming the system. Notable edits by Lemonisto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Janhrach (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The latter is unlikely to be paid. The former has edits to Wikidata and kawiki (over 2000!). kawiki should be notified of this. Janhrach (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
kawiki notified of Hubble. Wikidata edits look good-faith, though most are related to interwiki links to kawiki or labels in Georgian, so I am not sure. Janhrach (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Coi Editor user:Andreumland who is clearly Andreas Umland is editing at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Umland Afd. scope_creepTalk 13:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
    I have reported the IP who commented on several of the AfDs to ANI – they had no other contribs, though they demonstrated too much knowledge for a newcomer. It looks like we indeed found several articles that were paid for. Janhrach (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Radmila Lolly was created by Darthvader2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), notable contributions by Octopuspresents (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is possible that the former one is paid. They have nearly 40,000 contributions to eswiki, but were banned on Commons for sockpuppetry. Needs more investigation. We should, however, AGF of the editor until it is proven otherwise. Janhrach (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
So far, I don't see any other evidence of Darthvader2 being paid, which means they probably aren't. The article itself is okay and shouldn't be deleted. Janhrach (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
There was a previous, deleted version of Radmila Lolly, which was substantially different from the current one. This means that the current one was probably not created by Wikibusines. Janhrach (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Lege Kale – probable COI edits by Malikkeith96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Legekale1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Edits by User858985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be noted. Janhrach (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Maineywhiles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also appears to have a COI. Janhrach (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Udokan Copper: created by several IPs. Nominating for PROD based on logs. Janhrach (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Depositphotos: notable edits by Миша историк (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created by Mallboro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). From the edits of the latter, it is evident that they wanted to promote the company. The article itself is okay. Janhrach (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Candy Crush Saga: history full of vandalism, investigating paid edits is not worth it. Janhrach (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Luxair – I didn't find anything suspicious, except minor edits by a user named Gregori-luxair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Janhrach (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I forgot, there were many anonymous edits. Of course, I didn't check them all. Janhrach (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Derrick Rossi – important edits by Josephine1915 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Magnovvig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 109.255.90.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). From the first look, none of these seem to be from Wikibusines. Who I am more concerned about is the creator of the article, Granolalover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose edits should be checked. Janhrach (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
information Note: Two links were added to the Wikibusines website: Nuvei and Cabify. Janhrach (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Nuvei was created by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is extremely unlikely to be a paid editor. Notable contributions by LinesAlongACoast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a single-purpose account. Unusually high number of editors blocked for sockpuppetry have made edits to the article. Janhrach (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Cabify was created by a single purpose account S5J57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Fonsify (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited this article and disclosed COI. The former has been active cross-wiki and followed the same pattern as many accounts listed above. Janhrach (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked Миша историк (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as a Bodiadub sock. Confirmed Wikibusines articles: Depositphotos and Oleksandra Masiuk (deleted G5). MER-C 18:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@MER-C: This is very surprising, considering the age of the account and its edit count. Is there further evidence? How did you come to know about the latter article being created by Wikibusines? Why isn't the account globally locked? Janhrach (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
There was a specific historical behavioral indication on both of those articles I linked. MER-C 17:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@MER-C: Thanks. I was also suspicious when I saw this user, who has just over 1000 edits, two times in the history of the above articles, but I let that be, because the creators (or substatial contributors) of the other articles listed above disappeared after creating their first article, unlike this user. I tried to assume good faith and (falsely) convinced myself they aren't paid.
Sorry for asking again, but my question still hasn't been answered. Should a global lock be requested, as the user has many contributions to other Wikipedias? Or was a global lock declined? Janhrach (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I've found it's harder to get an account locked blocking without an SPI. You're free to request one. MER-C 19:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
and wikibusiness are known for the attempts to buy accounts. so Миша историк account could be not theirs from the start but we prob never know for sure Anntinomy (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The list of clients differs for the site version in Ukrainian. Adding English versions of those articles for closer look

--Anntinomy (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Anntinomy: Thanks! I will check them later, I didn't have much time recently and I won't have in the close future. Have you notified ukwiki? Janhrach (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
If to speak about this list, topics are notable, with contributions from many editors, promotional edits in ukwiki were mostly reverted. Generally, Ukrainian community is aware about WB. It seems they've been oriented to work more in non-Ukrainian wikis in recent years. Anntinomy (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Alina Pash – nothing suspicious. Janhrach (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Chernobyl (miniseries) has a large number of revisions (over 1500), I am not going to check this unless the other articles show a high level of paid editing. Janhrach (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Glovo – like an ad, almost certainly created in COI, edited by multiple single-purpose accounts, e.g. Mapevi21cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Lesterpremnoronha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Janhrach (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Silpo – nothing suspicious. Janhrach (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – too many edits to be checked, and too visible for paid edits to survive, in my opinion. I am skipping this article. Janhrach (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Bolt (company) – highly likely edited for pay, edited by a known WB sock. Other unbanned editors I suspect include anons and Dariastaverska, Ijustwanttoeditwiki and Whatwherehow. Janhrach (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Nova Poshta – edits by known WB socks: PatokaT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and (W)rid(t)ing High (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Recent spamming by 109.86.177.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Janhrach (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Gulliver (building) – nothing suspicious. Janhrach (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Zhan Beleniuk – nothing particularly suspicious. Minor edits by two blocked editors engaged in sockpuppetry: Miha2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), AyodeleA1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The former is known to be paid. Janhrach (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Nick Bilogorskiy – nothing particularly suspicious; work of a single editor. Janhrach (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Nova Ukraine and Ostap Korkuna share some editors (several of which also edited Nick Bilogorskiy). The former was also edited by User:IgorTurzh. Janhrach (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Admin help needed

Logs indicate that Radmila Lolly was deleted previously. Please check if the current article isn't a re-creation of the deleted one. Thank you. Janhrach (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted revisions. The old version and the new version look pretty different to me. PhilKnight (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Janhrach (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Janhrach: I checked the Radmila Lolly article about 6-8 weeks ago when the notice was first posted. I was planning to send it to Afd, but it seems well written and notable. scope_creepTalk 15:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Burning River Buckets/ABA

User with history of vandalizing both the Burning River Buckets and American Basketball Association (2000–present) pages has admitted that they are the owner of the ABA's Burning River Buckets basketball team on their talk page. TheNewMinistry (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheNewMinistry: Their behaviour is unacceptable, but please read WP:NOTVANDAL. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I have blocked them from editing that article for three years. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Américas Award

I previously served as a co-coordinator of this book award, but I am no longer affiliated. Is it OK for me to make updates to this page? Thanks! Travels&Treks (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! When in doubt, best bet is to put an edit request on the article talk page. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Spamming for paid editing

Above user has posted on their user page an email they recently received. This email is from someone advertising their editing services and they are using an email domain that suggests they are an admin. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a known scam. Unfortunately there's little we can do, but if you/they forward the email to [email protected] (meta:Wikimedia Foundation Legal department) they might at least be able to do something about the use of the Wikipedia trademark in the domain name. – Joe (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

For the interested 2

"Yet in the world of Wikipedia, quality and authenticity often leave much to be desired, accompanied by dubious pricing schemes and questionable promises. ... Established in 2017 as a Wikipedia agency, Augusta Atlantic has carved out a niche in providing unparalleled Wikipedia services to a global clientele. The firm, originally established as ‘Weltraumagentur’, has since become one of the largest collectives of Wikipedia writers and consultants in the German-speaking area."

Questionable promises. Right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that their activities are primarily occurring in DeWiki, and not here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Very possible. If so, they don't seem to oppose expanding. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Leontia Flynn

Maeveflynn ‎appears to be the subject's daughter, or some other close relative, and claims to be editing the article in accordance to what "the subject wishes it to be." Request for clarification on the user's talk page has not been answered, nor has the request to propose edits at Talk:Leontia Flynn.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I've left a final warning at User talk:Maeveflynn. EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Faizanalivarya

Faizanalivarya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is autopatrolled, but it seems like they have a WP:COI with some subjects (uploaded corporate-style photos of Ovais Mangalwala and Faysal Aziz Khan and is likely in contact with them; quite angry with the noms: here and here). It is worth it to have a look at some of their creations because they are not being scrutinized by WP:NPP. 163.47.119.21 (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The image on Faysal Aziz Khan has no exif and may be a copyright violation. The image on Ovais Mangalwala appears to have been taken at a public event. Nether of the objections to deletion proposals displays anger or other untoward behaviour. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

BeiGene

This article has receieved no edits that aren't maintenance/copyediting or COI edit requests for many months, and then suddenly on 27 March through the 29th, an absolute flurry of purely-positive, financially-boastful content was added by editors who have only edited this and related articles, two of whom has since admitted to being paid for their contributions. Many accounts were created minutes before their first edit and have only edited this article. Kimen8 (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kimen8: New FDA approval for their new cancer drug. I'm assuming its something to do with that. So all likelyhood agency work, doing a spit and polish before folks start looking it when the drug is prescribed. I would put a paid editing notice informing them they need to disclose on all these accounts. They are all WP:UPE. scope_creepTalk 15:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
There seems to be more to it than that. A previous, properly declared COI editor had been making reasonable talk page requests. This new bunch seem to be downplaying the company's Chinese origins. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Yip, whitewashing it. Its common. It was Chinese compny on the 24th March its HQ is now Cambridge, Massachusetts instead of Beijing, with a new lede as "global company". New cancer drug is confirmed with change from biotechnology company to oncology company. scope_creepTalk 17:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
At what point do we just roll back the whole thing to (IIRC) the 24 March version? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, see this edit for example.
They have all (well, all but a couple later ones) been informed they should declare COI/UPE, because I posted a talk page post tagging them all and mentioning it.
Kimen8 (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
UofMMedia, AFMRwesternsection, Orthonews have all edited A. Hari Reddi, Anand Reddi, BeiGene, and little or nothing else. Anand Reddi is a BeiGene VP, and I would hazard a guess has some familial relation to A. Hari Reddi. Jfire (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Of note, I would hazard a guess that "UofMMedia" is "Univeristy of Michigan Media", considering all of the edits to Anand Reddi, who "is a graduate of the University of Michigan". Kimen8 (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
At the very least, if Anand Reddi and A. Hari Reddit aren't related, they do publish together. Kimen8 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
How about a month of EC protection for BeiGene? That would prevent direct article editing by brand new accounts and help direct them to the talk page. The profusion of accounts appears devious. None of the red-linked accounts has ever posted to a talk page. An alternative to EC protection might be the opening of an WP:SPI but that would be more trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Not hearing any objection I've put WP:ECP protection on the BeiGene article for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I've nominated the Anand Reddi article for deletion. Jfire (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

User:KERALAMAN


User:KERALAMAN is creating draft articles which are very poorly sourced - sources appear to the first few Google searches about the subject and have included significant copy vios.

Of the Drafts created so far, the first two are business people and the last an advertising agency. My concerns are the disparate nature of the subjects, the liklihood that these subjects would be wanting a Wikipedia article and the casual way all three Drafts have been thrown together. These all are strong indicators of paid for editing and they are all very unlikely targets for new articles for a newly arrived editor.  Velella  Velella Talk   16:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

billy mitchell

2001:558:6017:18C:145:9CCC:4D40:C01E This person is almost assuredly either the subject of the article trying to whitewash their article or someone related to the subject of the article. Their only edits are on this one article and they have been regularly arguing against the truth, as the subject of the article seems to like to do. Often taking people to court for defamation for trying to out his cheating. I'm actually not sure how they are even able to edit as they don't seem to meet the requirements to edit semi-protected pages. Perhaps their edit history is from before the page being locked. Just seems fishy as the only people that believe the things he is asserting is the person himself and his legal team. I attempted to notify this person via the templated COIN notice but as they are an IP user, they do not have a user page. If there is another way to notify, please just let me know and I will do so. Thank you. Ditchdigger456 — Preceding undated comment added 12:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

IP has only edited the talk page not the article. "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period." Where did that discussion take place; and what is the "problematic material"? IP's contributions were all made over a two-day period in January. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Potential future article issue

I doubt anything significant will come of this, but I might as well post it just in case. I came across this listing on Craigslist: Long-time Wikipedia contributor needed. The post avoids including any specific information, so perhaps this is only useful as a warning, but there may be a reason to look out for possible issues in new articles on nonprofit founders (as if there weren't enough reasons already). —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 23:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

An article like that described in the ad ("the story is only documented in court records") won't get very far. Schazjmd (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Resurgence of banned paid editing business

FYI the company WikiExperts which was banned in 2013 has a new website and is offering services to academics. They claim to follow Wiki policies and I can't show any specific edits from them but if there was a previous ban maybe it's worth investigating. Disclosure: I work as the Wikipedian in residence for NIHR, editing with a separate account. Adam Harangozó (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Haven't you heard? it's okay now! (or at least that's the message seeming to come from numerous admins and arbs of late). The new mantra is "it's only a matter of concern if the quality of edits is poor". Bon courage (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
It is difficult to act from our end if there is no real way of identifying which articles they have worked on. This should be a problem for WMF Legal, but they won't act, and they certainly won't tell us if they ever do so, thus as far as we know they will never act on paid editing. If we can identify an article WikiExperts have worked on I'm happy to block and delete. - Bilby (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
As far as I know WMF Legal have actually been quite proactive in chasing down paid editing outfits. Obviously they're limited in what they can do, and lawyers don't usually make a habit of speaking openly, but I'd say it's always worth giving them the heads up... – Joe (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Lawyers will also start with things like sending a formal letter that people not on the legal teams and not managers of the relevant company will be unaware of. If that results in the firm ceasing the relevant activities (stopping editing completely or editing in compliance with the rules) then that's a complete win for us but there will be no fanfare or anything we're likely to be aware of. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

CapitaLand

Undeclared COI (possibly paid) editing in the subject article, and then post-declaration, continues to make clearly contentious and clearly promotional/advertorial edits in contravention of COI policy.
Also, copyright infingement from: https://www.capitaland.com/en/about-capitaland/who-we-are.html. Melmann 09:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

User is already blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

An IP range which Wikipedia links to the European Parliament

I’ve raised an issue relating to possible conflict-of-interest regarding the IP range which Wikipedia links to the European Parliament off-wiki. I’m a bit confused by it, as the IP has disruptively edited articles regarding scandals about the parliament and its members. The talk page says the IP’s edits are monitored, but I can’t seem to find anything in the archives about any action that’s ever been taken. The IP address is 136.173.162.129 It can be found here: https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474

Do I need to put the COI notice on the IP’s talk page, even though Wikipedia is already aware of this as they link the IP to the parliament on its talk page?

I will not notify the forum of this notice as per WP:STEALTH. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I’ll also just add that I wanted to be clear transparent to notify Wikipedia about the off-wiki thread, as some other relevant points were raised such as this being the whole IP range, and not just the singular IP I initially thought it was. And also why the IP doesn’t just create an account to hide the possible COI edits. It’s all very confusing, with some relevant points raised in the thread, which I can’t take ownership of. (and, again, I won’t notify the off-wiki thread of this notice). TheSpacebook (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@TheSpacebook: Yes; as noted at the top of this page you are required to notify someone that you are raising a report about them here; and to attempt to resolve issues with them before doing so, Historic material on an IP page is irrelevant in that regard, because the IP may be used by different people. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Parth1221

User was previous blocked for promotional edits and has never declared COI. Later admitted "work[ing] with the PR team of Badshah". Northern Moonlight 01:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Added a paid contribution declaration template to the article talk page. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Becket Law

Adding their information and external links to the article. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 01:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Shruti Reddy

Partial listing of involved pages and users. More can be identified by following Serious Modi's page move activity.

I first became aware of Serious Modi when they moved [[Draft::Shruti Reddy]] from draftspace to mainspace and removed a COI template I had placed without addressing any COI in the article Special:Permalink/1218665391. The article had been written by ShamiBeldee, who had placed a paid editor notice on their page, so the coi notice on the article was appropriate, as no one else had edited it.

I then looked at Serious Modi's edit history some more, and found some odd issues. This user is very new (10 days old), and has been engaged in some very sophisticated Wikipedia actions. Also, the user has a pattern of taking a draft article written by another user and, as the first interaction with the article, moving it to mainspace. There's a partial listing above. It appears as if the user is supervising a group of paid editors, including the properly declared paid editor ShamiBeldee.

I placed a level 1 unpaid editor warning on the user's talk page April 12, with no response but continued editing. I placed a level 2 warning on April 15, also with no response. Steve Quinn has also expressed concern about this user.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Also have some unconfirmed concern that Serious Modi is an alias for a more experienced editor: whether there is a sock puppet issue or not is unclear. I am only filing here, not at SPI, to avoid duplicate investigative work. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, this account is part of the organization which takes care of the digital image management of South Indian Actress Shruti Reddy and this annotation is to declare that the article or cites are not part of any extended promotional activity. The notice flagged COI for unpaid edits, however, that has been declared in the wiki contributors talk page.{ Ref: User:ShamiBeldee }
Kindly discuss and set resolution. Looking at seamless contributions and collaboration. Thank you. ShamiBeldee (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Rsjaffe: Other issues notwithstanding, please read the documentation for {{COI}}; in particular the highlighted "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, will do in future. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I became aware of Serious Modi after they moved an article (Draft: Pappu Can't Dance) from Draft space to the main space [10]. I originally placed this article in the Draft space under the auspices of NPP [11]. Prior to this I had tagged the article for lacking sources that discuss the topic in depth and so on [12]. I also noted the issues with this article on the talk page [13] and I previously communicated at least some of these to the article author [14], [15].
So, to make a long story short I left two messages on Serious Modi's talk page. One concerning moving this Draft article to the main space when it wasn't ready while also asking if they moved the page into main space for compensation [16]. The second message is about his sophisticated editing abilities as a brand new editor [17]. One of the "interesting" features of this particular article is that it appears to be a COATRACK. Most all of the sources cover the related movie from which the song is derived.
And, there is only meagre coverage of the song in a couple of sources. So, I agree that they could be a sock puppet. Within nine or ten days this new account has racked up a number of issues. And they have not responded on their talk page at all. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
On another note, user:1 too 10 created the above draft article that was part of my discussion. Well, that is one article that tried to pass through our system as a COATRACK replete with a REFBOMB. And on the face of it, the article looks like a well made article. If I hadn't bothered to analyze the sources I would not have caught it. Or if I hadn't analyzed enough sources to realize what was happening it would have got through. Well, this new editor (January 2024) is still cranking out similar articles every day since April 4th [18].
They are also working on similar articles [19]. So, I am wondering about this editor and the other editors. The references for these article probably should to be scrutinized. Also, is this part of a campaign to publicize movies, movie soundtracks, and songs? I am noticing at least some of these other articles have a significant number of references that would need to be verified. Anybody have any ideas, here? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
So, here is an example. User: 1 to 10 created Hum Tum (soundtrack) on April 6th [20], to which they recently contributed [21]. It has 36 references. Who wants to go through 36 references? I know I don't. Anyway, I can tell you the first four references do not in any way qualify as reliable sources [22], [23], [24], [25].
Next we have Hum Tum (song) also created by User: 1 to 10 [26]. This article has 24 references. The first reference is not RS but it also does not cover the topic [27]. In fact, this was one of the four references used in the previous article (above). And the second reference was likewise used in the first four of the previous article (above) [28], This third one, I don't know [29]. This next one is about a kissing shot and not about the song [30]. So, basically I have provided some samples. So, I am wondering if editors like this are gaming the system by providing an overwhelming amount of references. Or am I barking up the wrong tree? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Another related editor Harin212 seems to declare a COI on their user page User:Harin212 and again Serious Modi moved the article to mainspace. Draft:Wooden Street Special:Permalink/1218341779. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Sir. Before creating these pages. I went through a lot of soundtrack and songs pages. And I realised that along with references used related to the song, there where references related to soundtrack and film, to make it look more reliable. Also sir of all the pages I have created, beside few sources, each of them justify my edits. Also sir, I request if there is any thing wrong help me correct it, but please do not delete the articles. I have tried giving source related to awards won, any adaptation and everything else. I have made them after much research and hardwork. Please let me know, I will make all the required changes. I am new to this, so please hope you understand. Thank you. 1 too 10 (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Also sir, I will like to clarify I am not part of any film or music promotion campaign. I have created all the pages on my own will. 1 too 10 (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Rsjaffe I created the Draft:Himani Savarkar but saw it was moved by Modi, I don't know the user and i don't have any WP:COI with the article i just created it under Women In Red. Regards. TheChronikler7 (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
You all are thinking wrong about me. I moved those articles which I thought were worth publishing. Serious Modi (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I have nothing to do with paid articles and unpaid articles. If I found those articles worthy of mainspace, I moved them. Serious Modi (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Serious Modi: It has taken close to 8 days, multiple warnings and a COIN thread to get a reply from you. Would you mind explaining how you are familiar with the content policies and how you arrived at the judgment of moving articles that you thought were worth publishing? If you were an IP editor previously, please disclose the areas you have edited to avoid any unwarranted accusations against you. Considering that editors with only 4 days of experience will not be familiar with moving articles, I hope you'll respond here before making your next move. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I saw that this article has the full information so I moved that article. That's it. Serious Modi (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Serious Modi: Ignoring my second concern only means that you have used multiple accounts or you are not competent enough to understand what I have written. Either way, you shouldn't edit further unless you plan to resolve the concerns placed here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
As you think, as you wish, i dont know whats going on here. Serious Modi (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
and what you want Serious Modi (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Serious Modi: Have you had any previous experience editing Wikipedia? If not, how did you become familiar with WP:RMUM and WP:Draftify within just 5 days of starting to edit? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey brother, there is a lot hidden in Wikipedia's settings. Talking about draft, there are many options in Wikipedia's three dot setting. Serious Modi (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Good wali Night & Have sweet wale Dreams. Serious Modi (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Please note that, as per off-wiki evidence, there is a case of block evasion for user ShamiBeldee, which I am willing to provide details about privately. GSS 💬 14:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
    I believe this COI report can be closed as a sockpuppet investigation identified and blocked the involved accounts — Special:Permalink/1219505755. User:TheChronikler7 was not involved. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Hkc345

Hkc345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hkc345 (a disclosed paid editor) created the Jorge Suárez (pianist) page, which I accepted at Articles for Creation. Soon after, a Spanish translation, at es:Jorge Suárez (pianista) was created by Belarti, who has also edited the page in enwiki. The problem is that Hkc345 also edited the Spanish page without disclosing his paid editor status, which is prohibited by the ToU (and seemingly eswiki's CoI guideline, though I have to rely on Google translate for that). Since there may be intacracies to eswiki's rules I've missed, and also because I suspect Hkc is a native Spanish speaker who has English as a second language, I wonder if any bilingual editors could help me out? Keep in mind Hanlon's razor.

Cheers, Mach61 13:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mach61: I have only basic Spanish fluency, but their rules are just like ours. Paid edits must be disclosed on either the user page, the talk page of any article linked to their paid relationship, or in the edit summary of said article. The appropriate notice for them on eswiki would be es:Plantilla:Aviso conflicto de interés. I would put it there myself, but when I try, I trip a filter that stops me. I may not have enough edits there to be autoconfirmed. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Murphy spam

Seems like Paul B. Murphy was on a shopping spree and paid multiple UPEs to recreate a biography about him when it was deleted in September 2023 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul B. Murphy Jr.). Another case of how big pockets are spamming Wikipedia (and now they have two genuine pages from two different users without any COI disclosure, i.e. Paul B Murphy Jr. and Paul B. Murphy). Maybe deal these two pages under a new WP:AFD? 2A02:1210:5067:B100:49C5:B23F:AD36:AB87 (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I've redirected Paul B Murphy to Paul B Murphy Jr., for now. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul B. Murphy Jr. was closed as "uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. 'soft deletion'). Editors can request the article's undeletion.". Where is the prior discussion with the editors you have named? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Academy of the Holy Cross

Account and IP are likely the same user. Repeatedly turning the article into an advertisement [31] [32] with poorly paraphrased copy-and-pastes from the subject's website and adding alumni with no Wikipedia article. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:79FB:BC74:BEDF:FF0C (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Dropping by to point out that alumni lists can include people with no Wikipedia article. WP:LSC says that "one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles" (emphasis mine), also see WP:ALUMNI. Readingpro256 talk to me contribs 14:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Mi-Young Park

UPE Judokitty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added a lot of crap on Mi-Young Park. Please help cleanup this biography. UPE has been commissioned for this task Talk:Craig Kielburger as well. 61.254.242.80 (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You left {{uw-paid1}} on Judokitty's talk page just five minutes before posting here (and they have not edited at all since 8 April). You have not notified them of this discussion. Please read the guidance at the top if this page and be sure to follow it in future. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Hamza Essalih

removed referenced info from Hamza Essalih and turned it into something of a hagiography 92.17.14.64 (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

information Administrator note: I've blocked the account as is standard when one is using the name of a well-known person to edit content related to that person. They won't be able to particpate in this thread unless they prove their identity to WP:VRT or choose a new username. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Register of non-notable BLPs/Corps to enhance UPE asymmetry

I edit mostly in WP Climbing. A badly written BLP for non-notable climbers Iulia and Delia was turned down at AfC (i saw it when the WikiProj Climbing tag was added). It then reappeared as a more professional article (photo, editing standard etc.) but still non-notable per WP:CLIMBER. The creator of this new-and-improved version User:CharlesBNB was blocked including linked accounts and articles.

It struck me that there is real asymmetry here. Once we know a non-notable BLP/Company has been declined, its reappearance in a very professionalised form (with photo, logo etc,) is likely a UPE, which then links to their wider portfolio of other articles. In fact, a UPE takes a big risk taking on a client who was previously turned down/deleted on Wikipedia, as they could lose all their work?

My question is whether we keep a register/filter of non-notable BLPs/Corps who we know are trying to get on Wikipedia and who may engage the services of a UPE provider, so that we can expose the whole provider? Aszx5000 (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that there is an easy answer, editors often have to decide on notability without access to all the potential sources and some non-notable subjects become notable later. We do have Creation protection (salting). TSventon (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Titleblacklist exists for extreme cases. We also track serial cross-wiki UPE spammers at m:Wikiproject:Antispam. We admins also can search for deleted pages. MER-C 18:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

User:MrsHoldridge

This user is variously using Wikipedia to promote her own work and relying on her own original research. She edited the articles for Arcadia Publishing and Castleberry, Alabama to add external links to her book. She also names herself as the author of two of the eight sources she cited in the article she created, Graefenberg Medical Institute. I don't know if the COI noticeboard is the appropriate place for this conversation but I didn't know where else to bring it. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

She is not the author of one of the sources, and seems to have made a naive error in entering her own name when completing the citation template. The author of [33] is Bernard Henderson (whom she names as the |publisher=). It is not "original research" in the Wikipedia sense to include something here that one has previously had published elsewhere; we should welcome subject experts who write here neutrally (as indeed I have occasionally done). At the top of this page is "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue"; where did you do that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
While OR may not be an issue, WP:SELFCITE could be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Susan Holmes

Turned the article into a puff-piece, and continued to do so after being asked to declare a COI. One edit summary reads "We added fourteen new cited link clicks (from sources verifying Susan's credibility from Vogue to People Magazine and many more). Please make sure and update on your end, that her Wikipedia page is providing the articles and citations you requested. Please remove the 'multiple issues' that were marked back in 2011. Thanks in advance." (note the "We"). Shortly afterwards, the maintenance templates were removed by the same editor. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:79FB:BC74:BEDF:FF0C (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Sepulveda024's additions on 17 & 18 April were reverted, and later, by a different editor, unreferenced content was deleted. David notMD (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Nick Jordan (artist)

This IP is currently blocked for a day and a half. They are clearly the subject or their representative, and have turned Nick Jordan (artist) and, to a lesser extent, Jacob Cartwright and Nick Jordan into resumé/advert/lots and lots of extraneous trivial detail pieces. Yesterday they started repeatedly replacing the article with a copyvio sales pitch, which is what got them the 31 hour block. Given they started turning the article in January 2021, I'm pretty sure they will return to it when the block expires, so extra eyes would be useful. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:79FB:BC74:BEDF:FF0C (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

IMGT

Sock- or meatpuppets, adding copyvio or inadequately paraphrased material from the IMGT website. Turned the article from a perfectly serviceable page on the organisation to a sales presentation. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:79FB:BC74:BEDF:FF0C (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I deleted large sections of the IMGT article for hyperlinks to IMGT website and lack of references. That content available at View history. The edits by those four accounts all made on 18 April. David notMD (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Two of the four editors reverted my deletions. On 24 April I reverted their restorations, with Edit summaries that the content was without references and contained hyperlinks to the company website. David notMD (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
MallikarjunDasarla has been indef blocked. An IP has added content to IMGT that may be construed as promotional - its refs are to the IMGT website. David notMD (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
@Drmies: Thanks for blocking these two. Excellent work. scope_creepTalk 06:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
User:scope_creep, I'm not convinced there isn't more going on here, but I'm checking into that. Drmies (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs

User Guidingtheway99 recently changed their username from The National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs this account has tried to edit the article National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs I believe this violates conflict of interest guidelines.1keyhole (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I left them a {{uw-paid1}} notice, so hopefully that motivates them to disclose properly. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ibru family

Edit history for Jay Kenechukwu is self-evident, though this is what caught my attention [34]. Ibru family article especially could use a going-over from non-affiliated editors, what with its scrapbook-like photos of non-notable family and their business holdings. Many peripheral edits have been to add Ibru family members to other articles--the impression is that of an account here primarily on the family's behalf. Not so sure about removal of cite tags at Egbert Udo Udoma, or mass deletion of cats here [35], either. There may be an affiliation between the two accounts. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

If I choose to study a certain people and make edits to their pages to reflect recent events or exploits, I don't see how that amounts to a conflict of interest. I have a right to make edits to pages I choose to as long as those edits are backed by verifiable citations from reputable sources and not my personal opinion and bias.
So you really do need to prove the conflict of interest here. Absolutely nothing is self evident. Jay Kenechukwu (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
"scrapbook-like photos of non-notable family members" you say? SMH
I just studied the Ibru family page again, and every photo of members on that page is publicly available on the Internet and is backed by atleast one verifiable citation. Or is Wikipedia no longer about independent and verifiable citations from reputable sources?
So what are you on about? Jay Kenechukwu (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Photos being publicly available on the Internet does not necessarily mean that you can upload them- in fact, it usually means the opposite.
From what I can see, you have danced around the question; do you have an association with this topic, yes or no? 331dot (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

BoomCase

Since September 2019 MistaKoko's Wikipedia editing has been almost entirely dedicated to getting a promotional article on this company into mainspace. It was declined at AfC five times before striking gold on the sixth occasion and winning acceptance from a now-blocked reviewer. Naturally it wasn't long before it was put up for deletion, where Mrironmonkey came out of a five-year hiatus to defend the article with an obviously LLM-generated argument. The situation could use a few more independent eyes. – Teratix ₵ 02:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I wrote this on my user talk page but putting it here as well -
I started the article way back in 2019 with no experience on Wikipedia really. Of course, my first submission wasn't very good and I just modeled it after other speaker companies I liked and knew about on Wiki. Discouraged I completely forgot about it for a bit then came back to it a few years later. I got some feedback on removing certain sources over the years and just kept at it.
I have now cited 32, I think, reputable sources. Being that I have got the hang of wiki and the little project I started in 2019 has Become a page, I have started to branch out working on other things that interest me such as Boxing.
Im sorry I dont and didnt have a lot of free time to start more than one article over the years but no I don't have any conflict of interest other than I like speakers and I like BoomCase. I think its perfectly fine to write about something you have an interest in.
Thank you.
MistaKoko (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment This editor should be blocked as a UPE for hosting an advert in contravention of the Terms of Use on a WP:AFC article that was mainspaced by an editor who was later checkuser blocked by Blablubbs. The other editor is WP:SPA who came into to !vote in Afd. Its a straight up advertisement. It should have been G11'd. scope_creepTalk 06:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for not taking any time to look at my 32 sources that I spent 4 years working on and just automatically calling it an advertisement. Sure it can be better written and structured but its not an AD nor have I been paid for working on this.
    It would be nice if this was treated fairly instead of just blatant attacks with no evidence and no regard to the work I put into this.
    This "other editor" has never edited the BoomCase article. I dont what that has to do with COI. MistaKoko (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    Eh, to be fair to MistaKoko I haven't seen any evidence they were outright paid for the article. – Teratix ₵ 08:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    And having had further discussion with them on their user talk I'm reasonably convinced they are in fact editing in good faith. Mrironmonkey's conduct still bears explaining, though. – Teratix ₵ 08:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not. scope_creepTalk 16:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, put up some specific evidence or this is just casting aspersions. – Teratix ₵ 15:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

This is so contrary to what I'm expecting from a paid editor, it's a little spooky

Talk:Jack_Antonoff#Requested_Changes

Wow. Do you think she's expensive? IMO, she should be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Definitely a rare breed. If only all paid editors were as professional as her! --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I thought the COI edit requests on Talk:Italian_beef#5_COI_Tweaks were well done too. Mokadoshi (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that's good. Perhaps we should make a project page with examples of good COI-editing. Or perhaps we already have that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I was going to suggest the exact same thing. ElKevbo (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
"Project Bigfoot"! I know, not that rare. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
There are a couple of "historical", or at least noted, examples. The Newt Gingrich guy [36][37] and User:Arturo at BP [38]. I haven't looked deeply into their editing, but I think Wikipedians at the time to some extent approved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
More paid editors (admittedly, not all) would be like that if we gently and kindly steered them towards it, rather than berating them and hounding them off Wikipedia. And if we didn't keep people with requests in Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests waiting for a quarter of a year or more. But this is off-topic on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Important points Andy. What we need most is disclosure. North8000 (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Maybe we should introduce Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest premium edit requests – responses guaranteed within the week for just a $99.99 monthly subscription. Of course, those responding would have to submit an edit request of their own. – Joe (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

HCL Commerce

User has received three warnings about COI editing. I've reminded them again and blocked them from editing the effected pages directly. – Joe (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

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

The below user works for HCL as shown by their edit summary here

— Preceding unsigned comment added by REDACTED403 (talk • contribs) 13:00:41 (UTC)

Added page links for Security AppScan -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sleepy Hollow, Illinois

Newly registered editor continually tries to add original research despite User Talk instructions to not do so. So far, all they've done has been to leave out one sentence; namely, "Source: Resident since 1987, former Village trustee, former Village finance committee member, retired accounting and business consulting professional."   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The section as it currently exists has multiple problems and likely needs a complete overwrite. Here are just a few:
  • The article written by McDaniel-Hale is an opinion and should not be used to support any factual claims.
  • All the money in reserves and contingency funds had been used up. Street lights were not being replaced, mowing of parks had stopped, and outside contracting had been limited as much as possible. Not supported by the reference
  • By allowing sheds and fences, the village would be able to generate revenue through permit costs. Same OR
  • As of late 2016, Sleepy Hollow had created a plan, allowing them to maintain financial control without choosing any of the options from March. Street lights were replaced with new energy-efficient models. Same OR
  • A car dealership and gaming cafe were set to open in 2017 on Route 72. Why is this included in the section about financial troubles? Is it because the town's reserves will grow due to issuing permits? The reference cited here doesn't support that, so it is currently WP:SYNTH
  • References to primary sources (meeting minutes) should be removed and replaced with independent reliable sources.
  • According to WP:DUE, content should be given the same weight as can be found in reliable sources. The reliable sources used in this section say that the town was running into financial troubles, and that they proposed raising taxes, and that this proposal passed a vote. I'm not seeing any indication that this needs to be an entire section, a sentence or two would suffice.
Mokadoshi (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Mokadoshi's analysis of the content issues looks about right, but I'm not seeing any evidence 1) that "ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue", or 2) that MJTSleepy (who only ever made three edits, all in the space of two hours) "has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period." This should be dealt with on the article talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Without commenting on the content issue, I think seeing a conflict of interest with a town is a stretch. Most of our articles on places that aren't stubs were probably written by people from the area, that's only natural. – Joe (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Even though the user self-identified as former Village trustee, former Village finance committee member while writing about village finances? -- Pemilligan (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Wikimahan

Wikimahan seems to be solely focused on promoting "Rahul R. Sarma" and their film "Village Cricket Boy". I draftified both articles due to their lack of sources and hoped to see improvements in that regard. Additionally, they were delivered three notices to disclose their paid editing status, but instead of responding to those requests, they resorted to edit warring by repeatedly resubmitting the draft for review without any improvements.

The account was created last December, but their editing activity only began a few days ago. Initially, they made some edits at Parappukkavu Bhagavathy Temple, Kechery, possibly to reach autoconfirmed status, and then proceeded to create both articles mentioned above. Given their editing experience, they do not appear to be brand new and seem to have knowledge of Wikipedia policies. However, they purposefully ignored notices issued on their talk page and engaged in edit wars.

Moreover, Wikimahan uploaded File:Rahul R. Sarma.jpg as their own work, but the image isn't available anywhere online, indicating a conflict of interest. Therefore, in my opinion, they should be blocked so they can start using their talk page to discuss the nature of their edits. GSS 💬 13:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I have given one more COI warning, let us wait for one more day and see if they respond. I would have to back Wikimahan's partial block of this article from mainspace if they don't respond appropriately. The AP (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Taimi

No action needed at this time. As a reminder, "this page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue". – Joe (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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

I asked on IRC and was told to crosspost here. Oleksii added some Core Beliefs and Key Features today. I figured it was probably just copy-pasted from somewhere else but couldn't find any hits and the helper didn't either.

When I looked at the history, I spotted that a year ago very similar beliefs and feature descriptions claiming to be written by the Taimi PR Team were added, so Oleksii is probably also doing undisclosed paid editing. Nyakase 12:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

That seems likely. But OleksiiKhimich was first advised of our COI guidelines today (twenty minutes before you notified them of this discussion), and hasn't edited since, so I don't think there's any need for further action at this point. – Joe (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. I had overlooked it since it started off as a regular welcome message. Nyakase 14:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wildlife Conservation Film Festival

No action needed at this time. As a reminder, "this page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Not sure if you still report an account that hasn't been active in a couple of years, but I felt it should be brought to attention to someone. The account listed above made only two edits to this article in 2019 whose username is an anagram matching with the name of the article. I had undone their edits, in particular the lead and the first section of the article. This was the first edit and second edit. The latter's adding of nonexistent categories was later undone.

The article still has the COI tag on it, but it was tagged before the edits of this account with some concerns about the article creator who was reported to this very noticeboard in 2019 about other edits. While this article wasn't mentioned in that discussion, however, this account, WCFF, started editing over a month later after it was tagged. Pinging Duffbeerforme who was the editor who tagged this article for insight. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It's too stale to action as a username issue. If someone had reported at the time it would have bene blocked for promo. Secretlondon (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
WikiCleanerMan You could nominate for deletion if the article doesn't meet GNG. I don't think there is much more to say about the authors. The article creator was a suspected paid editor and the second username was named after the festival. TSventon (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Arabian Post

I came across this edit and took a closer look. This account seems to be used entirely to post citations to content farms owned by a marketing company. Also posted about this in the RS noticeboard to confirm my conclusion that this is not a reliable source. Avgeekamfot (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  • I've blocked them. It probably would be a good idea to search for references to those sites and remove them. – Joe (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

International Churches of Christ

International Churches of Christ is again the subject of COI editing. JamieBrown2011's COI has previously been discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 203#International Churches of Christ. Meta Voyager is part of "a congregation that operates independently, but has a relationship with the International Churches of Christ", as described here. JamieBrown2011 has today removed material critical of the church from the article and added mention of the testimony of a witness saying that church isn't a cult, the inclusion of which was previously discussed at Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC on Singapore court case and lacked consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

"cult" is a really useless term, it just provides condemnation. Secretlondon (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
There are reliable sources describing it as such, but ultimately that's an article content debate, whereas the issue here is editors associated with the church editing the article to portray it in a more positive light. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with SecretLondon. A simple google search of the word “cult” provides hundreds if not thousands of references describing multiple different church groups as “cults”. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I also disagree with CordlessLarry, there has been lots of discussion, over a period of multiple days, if not weeks, on the Talk page and consensus was clear over the changes that that needed to be made.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
@JamieBrown2011, you've advised that you have a conflist of interest. Per WP:COIEDIT, you should not be editing the article and you need to disclose your conflict of interest when involved with the article. Your only interactions with the article should be through the talk page and where you wish to request any changes to the article you ought to utilise the {{edit COI}} template in talk to make your requests. TarnishedPathtalk 12:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with google. Academic writing in religion would/should never use the word cult. However, for Wikipedia. if a reliable source called it a cult we could use that, but some newspapers are not great on these issues. Secretlondon (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd certainly encourage Wikipedia to avoid using the word "cult" as much as possible (which is in pretty much all cases). The word is unencyclopedic and uneducational. "Cult" is clickbait (or its equivalent for pre-Internet uses) that businesses deploy to grab attention and sell copy and that cultural mainstreams use to marginalize socially constructed "others" (link to Megan Goodwin, "Making the American Religious Monster", presentation at 2022 Fairfield University American Studies Conference). A similar argument is made more formally in Judith Wisenfield's New World A-Coming (New York University Press, 2017), esp. pp. 12–13. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes cult is appropriate; there a few (see Category:Cults) and it's difficult to imagine an article on e.g. the Kidwelly sex cult that doesn't use the word 'cult'! More frequently, it's appropriate to discuss how/whether something has been classified as a cult in RS (e.g. for Sahaja Yoga). In general it's movement members who object most to the term. In fact for Sahaja Yoga proponents were very keen to use the word cult to say the movement was not a cult when they thought a Belgian court had ruled that way. When it was discovered the court in fact ruled the other way, their enthusiasm for any mention of cults waned. Bon courage (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I continue to think it most appropriate to heed the most reliable sources, which for this topic would be publications by academics in religious studies. As far as how to write about such topics, by way of example, Goodwin wrote an entire academically book about sex abuse in religions without using the word "cult" (as she mentions in her paper "Making the American Religious Monster"; the book being Abusing Religion [Rutgers University Press, 2020]). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
In this case, we do have scholarly publications that use the word cult in relation to the subject. However, this is more a matter for the article talk page than here, where the issue under scrutiny is COI editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Indeed books which aren't about cults won't use the word "cult" (and religions which have sex abuse scandals aren't necessarily cults just because of that). Scholars like Lorne L. Dawson are interested in cults and write about them naming them as such. Bon courage (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Cordless Larry, a Wikipedia administrator, has mischaracterized my involvement in a minor edit as a Conflict of Interest. In support of my request that his actions be reversed, I offer the following additional information. I simply repositioned for readability purposes a reliably sourced single sentence about an expert witness that had already been written and published by another editor in a paragraph authored by a third editor, Nowa. Prior to any editing of the subject paragraph, Nowa consented to edits being proposed to that effect. That’s it – I made a minor edit to improve the article by cutting and pasting an already published sentence. Cordless Larry references my response to a welcome letter I received from another administrator that included a suggestion that I disclose any conflicts of interest. In relevant part, here's a more complete description of my disclosure: (1) I disclosed my membership in a congregation that has a relationship with the International Churches of Christ, (2) I stated that I have never been compensated as an employee or consultant to the church, (3) I shared that I have a general interest in Restoration Churches in the USA, (4) I informed that I have legal training and experience and am familiar with conflicts of interest, (5) I expressed my view that advocacy on a topic that you care about does not constitute a conflict of interest and (6) I have confined my comments to the Talk page of the International Churches of Christ article until a consensus for change has been reached. I’m confident that a review of my comments on the Talk page will show that I have researched and reported only on Wikipedia policies with an intent to improve the article. I respectfully request that Cordless Larry remove his posting about conflicts of interest as they pertain to me. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Having received no response to my request to remove the posting about me from this COI Noticeboard, I have reached out on this topic directly to Cordless Larry on his Talk page in accordance with WP:ADMIN. Meta Voyager (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Meta Voyager, you appear to believe that because you don't have a financial relationship with the ICOC, you don't have a conflict of interest. However, an editor doesn't have to have a financial relationship to have a COI, as explained at WP:COI: "Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest". Cordless Larry (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your message and further explanation on COI. I've already stated that I don't believe I have an actual conflict of interest and, if I did, most conflicts are resolved by voluntary disclosure. However, I intend to honor the spirit of the COI guidance and comment only on the Talk page until a consensus is reached on any issues that might concern me. Meta Voyager (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I've added Psmidi, an SPA with a COI who showed up on the article talk page today, several years after their last edit. It wouldn't surprise me if off-Wikipedia co-ordination between ICOC members was going on here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding XZealous, another new editor who's very keen to dismiss any concerns about use of non-third party sources, removing a template highlighting that problem despite having its relevance explained to them on the talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
See seemingly related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#COI label vs Good Faith editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This is actually a great illustration. An editor with an apparent COI claimed they are stone-cold neutral trying to change Wikipedia's guidelines on COIs to make COI editing okay (for, you know, self-assessed stone-cold neutral editors with COIs). Unfortunately among the Wikipedia corps there is a poor understanding of COIs and in particular a common misconception that it's all about the "end result" of content. Bon courage (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. Meta Voyager illustrates this line of thinking with their comment about being a member of the church here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Further inappropriate behaviour by Meta Voyager (shutting down an RfC they started while discussion is still ongoing) is noted here and here. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Nino Segarra

Editor appears to be a relative of the subject, trying to add non-netural original research.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

User:RRichie and FairVote, instant runoff voting, et cetera

FairVote is a political advocacy organization that supports instant runoff voting. For the record, I happen to believe IRV is a neat idea. At any rate, we list this group's founder as Robert Richie. A buddy of mine tipped me off about something rather curious in the edit history of a few IRV-related articles:

The FairVote article's history has quite a few edits from RRichie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose other edits are predominantly to articles like Instant-runoff voting, Ranked-choice voting in the United States, FairVote, et cetera. Edits to other pages often involve events related to IRV.

It seems to be the case that this person's COI editing has been done under their real name since 2008, making this a somewhat strange case; nevertheless, I think something should be done about it, so I am opening a thread here. jp×g🗯️ 14:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think technically we're supposed to ask them to identify to info-en per WP:IMPERSONATE. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
His personal Wikipedia article over at Rob Richie seems... off. It's a resumé, includes at least one edit from User:RRichie, and was created from scratch by an anonymous Wiki user.
Several edits appear to be clear conflicts of interest, all relating to a campaign that User:RRichie was paid to work on:
  1. Attempting to downplay a ballot initiative that caused a substantial electoral defeat.
  2. Attempting to paint said ballot initiative as being motivated by a single sole loser.
  3. ...Attempting to delete information about controversy surrounding IRV.
  4. Deleting information about the Maine Supreme Court finding IRV unconstitutional.
This also raises questions about whether this is just one person, or something FairVote has been doing more broadly. How do we know other editors to articles like instant-runoff voting aren't also being paid? It definitely seems unusually light on criticism, given the poor reputation IRV has with social choice theorists... –Maximum Limelihood Estimator 20:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
This edit suggests a clear COI with FairVote.
"...check out FairVote's link on universities and colleges. We now know of at least 41 colleges and universities where student governments use instant runoff voting, as documented on our site..."
- Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on their replies to my simple and straight forward question asking if they are connected with Johnson University, it's clear that Etittle1978 is indeed closely connected with the institution. Indeed, they directly said that they are "higjly [sic] involved both financially and work with the University [sic]." It now appears that they have logged out to continue editing the article in ways that are blatantly promotional. One of their edit summaries even says that they are "a person authorized to make these changes on behalf of Johnson University."

I strongly recommend that they be blocked until they (a) stop editing this article with which they have a close, financial connection, (b) stop edit-warring to add promotional, POV material to the article, (c) stop using multiple accounts, and (d) acknowledge our COI policies and practices. ElKevbo (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Predatory marketing practice detected

I have come across an Indian company called Le Jolly Healthcare engaging in unethical behavior by forcefully inserting its drug's trade name, IsoJol at Inosine pranobex. I have encountered and removed this insertion in the past and most recently today (also discovered the name of the company). Upon further investigation, I discovered that the drug is actually contract manufactured by another company, Themis, for this brand. This practice is clearly predatory marketing by Le Jolly Healthcare. Similar instances of trade name insertion have been observed on other pages such as Diazoxide being labeled as Balila and Flucytosine as Cytoflu, where they even included the drug's price alongside the company name. It is quiet imperative that we establish a rigorous monitoring system to halt such practices, especially considering these are prescription drugs. The fact that a trading company, rather than the manufacturer, is engaging in such manipulative tactics clearly highlights the pervasive manipulative nature of the pharmaceutical industry. Charlie (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

At Flucytosine's page, there is explicit mention of the exorbitant pricing of the drug in the US market, attributed to the monopolistic practices of a single manufacturer, with each tablet priced at $70.46. This Indian company inserted its per-capsule cost US$2.00 with its name and packing details (100 tablets per pack). This is a blatant violation of Wikipedia. Charlie (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Why is User:96AMJL involved here? Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I was edited that page on 19, and 20th Dec, I added some researches, and citations, not added its price, but when Charlie Mehta removed all my edits, I realize something wrong, after that I didn't edited this page. Please check view history. 96AMJL (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Another UPE rabbithole to jump down

If someone feels like bonking a probable UPE tree, I noticed a new redirect from Danoy123 while doing NPP who very neatly added 10 short descriptions using a helper script to become autoconfirmed (most likely to game the system) and then immediately resume editing a draft which was previously declined at AfC (and unsurprisingly only edited by another SPA), moving it to mainspace and then back to draft shortly after. The interesting thing is that all of the articles that the account added short descriptions to are themselves mostly edited by SPAs and written in a promotional tone (including by ultimately blocked user User:Reddragon7 who was a disclosed paid editor) and in many cases those accounts have edited other promotional articles, and so on. I haven't tested how deep the rabbithole goes, but WP:DUCK makes me smell a rat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigadierG (talk • contribs) 01:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd second this, maybe open a WP:SPI? Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I dunno, I wouldn't feel comfortable running a CU on this. The ten articles Danoy123 edited were created years ago, so if this is all one person or a network then they have a very good memory and kind of went out of their way to raise suspicion. On the other hand, they're all American businessmen, so maybe Danoy123 just scanned a category for pages missing short descriptions? If we tell people they can't create an article until they've made ten edits, we shouldn't be surprised that some of them make ten edits in order to create an article. It doesn't necessarily imply ill intent. – Joe (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Waqar Zaka

Just found a cryptocurrency enthusiast article of Waqar Zaka. It looks promotional, and looks being updated by paid editors and being sued by some paid editors. Even after being two time AFD they saved it. Looks like this cryptocurrency enthusiast got another Article, and this one advertise him in different way. (This)

I only found this source reliable, but the content is just a short chit-chat interview. Other than that, not much was found. This seems old page which encourages COI culture. Please check. Lkomdis (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd love to hop into this discussion just as soon as the OP decide to follow protocol and drop me a little notification on my tp. Can't wait. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I've made my stance clear here, so I won't repeat it elsewhere. But if anyone has questions, fire away! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@Saqib I will suggest you, please don't hurry for your desired result, let it be reviewed by others.
Hey, @MER-C, @Diannaa can you have a look, something very complex (fishy) going on here! , as you are more experience with such cases, any comment will be appreciated. Lkomdis (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh, by all means, feel free to ping anyone you want. After all, even you know I'm CLEAN. BTW, it wouldn't surprise me if you and Aanuarif (talk · contribs) are part of the same UPE group. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Of course! I won't be surprised to find out if you were refused to be paid by the subject. @MER-C @Diannaa Please have a look at his collective behavior in general. All his "Clean" and "Reliable" editing is just to remove the articles that I have created for no reason and proofs whatsoever. Speaks volumes of his agenda and intentions. Aanuarif (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Looks like I've got some fans on WP finally. Let me buckle up because it's going to be a wild ride! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
No, Love!
You seem to be so obsessed with my contributions. Aanuarif (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
OP blocked. S0091 (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_207&oldid=1225618218"