Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 189

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Draft:Željko Krušlin & Ivana Radaljac Krušlin

Editor is ignoring mandatory disclosure requirement for paid editing posted on their page and continuing to edit. Pattern of editing, including claim of 'my article' found at c:Commons_talk:Abuse_filter#Report by Latinozvuk, suggests close afiliation with subjects of the articles which are edited. In addition, there is a music industry company of the same name, Latinozvuk, based in Zagreb, Croatia. See here and here. Further, uploading a professional headshot of the subject, previously unposted on the internet based on my reverse image searches, suggests close affiliation with the subject. Could a sysop please review account activity and consider appropriate enforcement action? Melmann 16:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The content of Draft:Željko Krušlin also states that this person is affiliated with a musical group called "Latino". Also, the word "zvuk" translated from Croation means "sound" according to Google Translate. So a business named "Latinozvuk" seems to imply a management company for this group. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. Not just affiliated, the article subject is the founder and singer of the band, it's their band in a sense (although they do, to some degree, maintain a separate brand from the band). The username literally translates to 'Latinsound' from Croatian (the -o suffix is a grammatical case form required in Croatian). Melmann 15:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I've listed them at WP:UAA as a WP:CORPNAME violation, and left a link to this discussion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

vivo (technology company)

Hello - I have a question about the process of requesting an edit for users that have a conflict of interest. I work at vivo and there is a lot of information on our page that is outdated or incorrect. Following the Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia process, I have made requests to update the information with uncontroversial, accurate information on the vivo Talk Page with a disclosure of my conflict. I have received a response from an editor and they made one of the requested edits, but the editor has not engaged on the others without citing an issue with the content. While I understand that editors are volunteers and there are a high volume of edit requests, are there any issues with the requested edits or can anyone share guidance on how best to update our page? I am committed to following Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules and I want to ensure that our company issue accurately depicted on Wikipedia. I would appreciate any assistance with this process and let me know if there are any questions. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by COFFEELOVERS2022 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for respecting and following the COI guidelines. As you have already noted, the backlog is substantial and for this I can only suggest patience. Glancing at your edit requests on the talk page, I might suggest that you read about WP:Reliable sources as some of your suggested references seem to fall a bit short of the mark. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up! I'll be sure to review Wiki guidelines and make further adjustments on the references accordingly. Meanwhile, is it possible that we can have an estimated timeline? Would you be following up with us re the request? Appreciate your help and welcome any questions! COFFEELOVERS2022 (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Monisha Shah

This is to clarify a situation. Monisha Shah is Chairwoman (or Chairwoman-elect?) of Wikimedia UK. As MichaelMaggs has declared 1079637152 he has has no interaction with with Shah, stating: "One of the subject's current roles, namely chair of Wikimedia UK, is a role I occupied some years ago. I have never met Shah nor interacted with her in any way." He has not edited the article but has participated in the XfD, with Joe Roe stating " And given the COI concerns in the last AfD, I don't think it's a "good look" that WMUK people have already showed up to circle the wagons here." at Special:Diff/1079715716. So the question is does MichaelMaggs have a COI that prevents him from !voting or updating the article should he choose to do so. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Note:Self block for a week. scope_creepTalk 08:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
@Djm-leighpark: Obviously not. I have no love for WMUK, but MichaelMaggs has acted entirely appropriately here by pointing out that he has an indirect connection with the subject, and thus allowing participants to judge his opinions accordingly. Just having done the same job as an article subject doesn't create a conflict of interest to the point where someone isn't permitted to participate; by your logic, nobody who'd served in the military would ever be allowed to even participate in discussions of the biographies of former soldiers. ‑ Iridescent 14:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Tapasyam the great

This user uses its user page to promote a person named Tapasyam. Seemingly duckable. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

In the future, just tag such pages for speedy deletion under U5. --SVTCobra 01:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Canvassing articles with NGO reports using non-specific links

I placed a COI notice as well as a note about canvassing references (especially references lacking links to the specific data added to the article) on this users page a few weeks ago, but there was no response. They are canvassing a large number of articles about countries and sub articles with data from Human Rights Measurement Initiative, which is hosted by "hosted by Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, Wellington, New Zealand" and RightsTracker.org, which is affiliated wtih HRMI. While including data from non-commercial organizations like this isn't particularly problematic, it is unfortunate that the references being added just link to the main pages of those sites, so it's quite difficult for the reader to verify the content being added to the articles. I'm not a fan of canvassing like this, even for non-profits, but I'd like to solicit more opinions before taking any further action. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, just because the links are to non-commercial (or even respected, helpful) sites, I do not think this kind of editing behaviour without response/discussion to concerns raised is appropriate; and nor is linking four times in each article to the same home page without any of the specific data that is being included in the article, and putting this in the lead section (or even as the opening sentences) of various articles. I have removed those that I thought were most egregious, although Rathfelder has disputed a number of those. Melcous (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

User:IAmAtHome

continous spamming islamansiklopedisi.org.tr to various Islam related article despite revert. Their past 100 contribution can be checked for evidence of spamming. Hajrakhala (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you give 2-3 diffs of edits you especially disagree with? It would seem that İslâm Ansiklopedisi could be a good source for Islam related articles, but as always, context matters. Also, why do you think there's a COI? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Again they have started spamming [check this]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång:: You can check their past hundred contribution where they have spammed nearly dozen of articles by adding those links either by changing the further reading section to bibliography or as source. Hajrakhala (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I suspect canvassing here by IAmAtHome. Hajrakhala (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok. In your first example, @IAmAtHome added a cite where there was a [citation needed]. The cite supports the info asked for, and is a WP:RS in context. Why do you see this edit as problematic? Fwiw, I wasn't canvassed here. And you didn't say why you think there's a COI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
You might like to read Wikipedia:Spam, which states, Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes, or references. Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content, but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation. Variations of citation spamming include academics and scientists using their editing privileges primarily to add citations to their own work, and people replacing good or dead URLs with links to commercial sites or their own blogs. Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia. thanks. Hajrakhala (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
also my first example was not regarding adding citation, but it was on spamming further reading section by replacing it with bibliography and insertion of link at Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, please check carefully. Hajrakhala (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
By first example I meant [8], first in your list of diffs above. Neither that or [9] (earlier diff) seems obviously "for the purpose of promoting a website or a product" to me. They are on topic and I'm not offered to buy any goods or services. Is your hypothesis that IAmAtHome is part of whatever org that runs the İslâm Ansiklopedisi? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
It looks like you need to read wikipedia:spam again, in their past 50 contribution they have excessively used only that website as source or link spam, please check again, Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes, or references. Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Hajrakhala (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
It continues: "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." Can you give a diff example where they cited İslâm Ansiklopedisi in a way that didn't verify article content and helped build the encyclopedia? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
That said, @IAmAtHome this one [10] looks odd to me. You're putting something under References that's not used as a ref in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't know why you are taking TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi as spam. @Hajrakhala: Plus I'm not an agent of İÂ as you thought. You were also taking the use of İÂ source as vandalism.(see). Beshogur also used it sometimes. Although its in Turkish, but it mentions authentic and reliable historical allusions and it also contains analysis of credible authors sometimes, so I used it. Other encyclopediac sources (like Encyclopedia Britannica, World History Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Iranica, etc) are also used for citations. Cplakidas also agreed adding this in contents bibliography and further reading is useful. Wikipedia always requires more reliable sources. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Its Okay to remove this addition [11]. Would anyone tell me the reason of reverting this? IAmAtHome (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Sam Brown (veteran)

Normally I would not be overly-concerned about CoI in a draft but when I noticed this post I took a look at Draft:Sam Brown (veteran). It really reads promotionally (not unusual for a draft) but years ago the author removed unflattering but cited material and, having been reverted did it again on the bio of another veteran involved in politics. When I pressed them on this they repaid me thusly. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Because, somehow despite all your free time, you refuse to explain *how* the article comes across as promotional. Despite the fact that I removed the sensationalized content associated with mainstream media outlets. Instead, I parsed those down to just straight facts (as dull as they may appear to read). And when I pressed for constructive feedback or how to improve the article, you had nothing to say and nothing to contribute. And...you won't even agree to meet up for coffee or a zoom. I would have more respect for you if you could constructively articulate how to make the article less "promotional" and more fact based.
You should take note, because the other gentleman who declined the article, that person made a beautiful assessment and said simply "candidates usually do not qualify for notable persons. Will re-assess if he wins the General." You know what that is called? Constructive feedback. It makes sense. I understand it.
You, however. Not very direct and you can't back up your testimony with facts about how to change the article or what needs to be removed as "promotional." X72153 (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
X72153 the entire draft reads as though it was written by/for the candidate himself, i.e. promotionally. For just a couple of the many examples, you have "While many outlets and pundits have described [his] candidacy as improbable" with no source whatsoever, and then just a link to the FEC page on contributions but with the wording "more than" and "just" - words that imply a point of view ("isn't this remarkable!") rather than merely stating facts. Wording like he has "spoken to a long list and wide range" of groups is meaningless puffery, as well as completely unsourced. While the article cited uses the words "grassroots" and "knocked on doors" combining them into the sentence "His grassroots, door to door campaign" is entirely the kind of thing that would be written on his own website, not how an encyclopedia should read. There are many more examples of this kind of thing - but this is really not the place to discuss them. Suffice to say, it needs a complete rewrite and if you can't understand why, you should read more of the guideline on WP:NPOV and WP:V, as well as respond clearly to the WP:COI concern. Melcous (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Melcous, that helps a lot. Truly. Thank you. From your explanation I can see why the article needs to be re-written and also needs to have more sourced cited. For me, something as innocuous as “door to door” doesn’t seem that bad to write, but if someone hasn’t watched all of the interviews or seen his Facebook or read his Twitter feed, then it would be hard to justify “door to door.” It comes off the wrong way (and I need to provide plenty more citations). I will pull down the article and work a rewrite focusing on the constructive feedback given here. Thank you. This makes sense now. (And I will read WP:V and WP:NPOV. Thank you! 71.113.184.124 (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Melcous, that helps a lot. Truly. Thank you. From your explanation I can see why the article needs to be re-written and also needs to have more sourced cited. For me, something as innocuous as “door to door” doesn’t seem that bad to write, but if someone hasn’t watched all of the interviews or seen his Facebook or read his Twitter feed, then it would be hard to justify “door to door.” It comes off the wrong way (and I need to provide plenty more citations). I will pull down the article and work a rewrite focusing on the constructive feedback given here. Thank you. This makes sense now. (And I will read WP:V and WP:NPOV. Thank you! Sig by user:71.113.184.124. Added by scope_creepTalk 21:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Sudhir G. Pawar

 Looks like a duck to me Pavlov2 (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Steve Kirsch

The editor left a message on the talk page of the Steve Kirsch article, suggesting the article was biased. The latest of probably, now about 6-9 editors who have came in, in the last few months and tried to alter the article, or suggested altering in a way that breaks neutrality. The article has recently undergone a consensus based update with a group of editors and is largely accurate based on the source and within NPOV. This editor seems to think its ok to break NPOV and I believe they have some kind of coi. scope_creepTalk 10:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Atm I don't get why you think this is an editor with a COI rather than an editor with an opinion. Per definition, WP:NPOV doesn't apply to a talkpage comment, and they haven't edited the article, not yet anyway. The SK talkpage edits are their first edits this year, afaict they're far from disruptive. What action against this editor are you hoping for? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I doubt this is stkirsch (talk · contribs) (who is indefinitely blocked). Probably just someone who read one of Kirsch's social media posts complaining about the article. MrOllie (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Possibly. There has been six to eight people in the last couple of months trying to change the article. That is a pattern. scope_creepTalk 10:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Samir Shah

I've indefinitely blocked OliverSeager as a compromised/shared account and followed up on their talk page. Hopefully the person most recently operating the account, if they create a new one, is now aware of and will stick to the COI guidelines. If not, yes a partial block would probably be in order. – Joe (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2022 (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.

Samir Shah is an article created by OliverSeager as this draft who has made no edits outside the article and the draft was refused at AfC. I became aware Samir Shah was likely a notable figure and improved the draft and took it so mainspace as the AfC was long and their were existing poor quality redirects occupying the mainspace target name. In that process I became aware likely had an undeclared paid coi with the article (probably not trying to be deceptive about it), and challenged him on that point, but he has continued to add unsourced but likely WP:V continued contribute to the article. at e.g. Special:Diff/1079790593 which is to a agree promotional, especially given Shah's production company. I'm reluctant to keep reverting and need other eyes on this. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken a snapshot of Shah's Juniper website from 16th March 2022 [12] is a strong indicator of an undeclared paid relationship in the team at that or an earlier point. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Propose page block for OliverSeager on Samir Shah as in apparent position of (former) PA (Personal Assistant) really needs to have editing on the article restricted unless they can demonstrate no COI/PAID connection. Edit request on talk page via {{Request Edit}} would be welcome. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There has been a response at Special:Diff/1080932411 and I'd be grateful if someone else could ensure they have matters handled with due diligence and respect. I need to micro-wikibreak shortly on :en:WP after adding some sources I've just found to a draft article. It is just possible a page block could be avoided. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Notice that the person who responded with the OliverSeager account calls himself "Tomos Harrison", who claims to have "taken over" from Oliver Seager as Shah's assisstant. Looks like there are some WP:ROLE account concerns here. Miracusaurs (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The [current version of the webpage] above is compatible with that claim. The easiest way out of this will likely be indef OliverSeager and require the current account operator to create another account properly declaring the COI from the start. But that's really up to the user which may they want to try to handle this situation. Thnakyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
How can I resolve this issue? I really would like to avoid having the page come down completely, and would appreciate any advice from you. I'm not overly-familiar with using Wiki, so am unsure what the best options are at this point. Thanks again for your help. OliverSeager (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2022 (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.

California Housing Shortage

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. FinancialCents (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This topic is presented as factual but is rather a biased point of view. I have made an initial attempt to edit the article and present that there is an opposing viewpoint. I was told to create a separate page. But, this keeps the topic of the "California Housing Shortage" in the hands of those promoting the viewpoint as factual. What would the separate page be? Developers and others in real estate and construction-related industries are poised to receive massive funding and highly profitable advantages, under the guise of "affordable housing" which largely fails to benefit the populations purported to be central to the state mandates. Agencies referred to as "experts" are advancing overly simplistic Supply-Demand models which need to be replaced by more sophisticated and up-to-date Queueing Theory models recognizing the dynamic nature of demand, such that additional supply will simply attract more people to the state that is already drought parched and strained in resources and infrastructure. I need a source - other than those maintaining this biased article - to allow inclusion of the opposing viewpoints. I will add the required links to reference article. First I need to be allowed access to this page to make the edits. FinancialCents (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@FinancialCents: Can the template you have put in. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 08:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, please pardon that I am not completely sure what you are asking me for. Do you mean the existing article page on this topic? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_housing_shortage Or do you mean the edits I am attempting to make to the page? I am following what Slywriters says that I have to begin with the sources and then add the text, so I suppose I will need to do some searches for fairly major obvious ones. FinancialCents (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@FinancialCents: Is the California Housing Shortage a draft. I made an attempt to fix the template but doesn't seem to be an article there. Can you please take a look at them. scope_creepTalk 08:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Sources are your friend. You can not just add what you perceive at the truth, you need to provide sources that WP:Verify the information you are adding to an article.Slywriter (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Black_hole_information_paradox

It seems that jacob2718 is an active researcher in the field of black hole information. His edits have mainly supported the (sometimes disputed) conclusions in journal papers listed below, see the article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_hole_information_paradox#Technical_details

1) "Lessons from the information Paradox", PhysicsReports https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0370157321003720

2) "The Entropy of Hawking Radiation", Reviews of Modern Physics https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.93.035002

According to Wikipedia policy, jacob2718 should declare a COI regarding edits to this article, or clarify that he or she has no conflict of interest with respect to the article. Signature by user:Xcalmet User talk:Xcalmet Added by scope_creepTalk 19:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  • I don't understand what the COI is. The fact that he's an active researcher in the field of black hole information is a good thing; we want more subject-matter experts editing our articles, not fewer. His talk page posts seem to be suggesting that the article should cite more to actual scientific research than pop science media outlets; again, this strikes me as a good thing. So what is the COI? Is he adding links to papers he authored or something? Mlb96 (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Black hole information is an area of active research, and there is sometimes sharp disagreement between experts as to what is known or not known, what has been rigorously established, etc. It seems that Jacob2718 is using this Wiki article to advance his own opinions. He is not fairly describing other work in the field. For example, the work in
    "Lessons from the information Paradox", PhysicsReports https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0370157321003720
    of Raju et al. have been criticized and are not widely accepted, see e.g. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.04947.pdf. But this work features prominently in Jacob2718's recent edits.
    Jacob2718 eliminated a discussion in the Recent Developments section about the work of Calmet et al. He moved mention of published papers in top journals like Physical Review Letters [16] and Physics Letters [17] into the Popular Culture section. It appears that the original reference to this work, written by Jacob2718 himself, described it as supportive of Raju et al.'s earlier papers. It is strange that it has now been moved into the entirely wrong section.
    How can Jacob2718 justify first citing Calmet et al. as (presumably) important work in the Recent Developments section, supporting Raju et al., and now claim it is only an example of Popular Culture? This is not only unjustified, it shows active bias at work. Xcalmet (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    Being biased is not the same as having a conflict of interest. Based on what you've posted, I do not see any evidence of a conflict of interest. Your concern seems to be about NPOV, not COI. Mlb96 (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    My interpretation of the Wikipedia page on COI is that self-promotion (in this case, promotion of the research of Jacob2718) falls under the definition of COI. The information I provided above documents bias. The likely motivation of that bias is self-promotion.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
    "Readers expect to find neutral articles written independently of their subject, not corporate or personal webpages, or platforms for advertising and self-promotion."
    It is also true (as discussed in my previous post) that Jacob2718 does not exhibit a NPOV, and I will make a separate note of that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard Xcalmet (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Xcalmet:, I do not see any "Jacob" listed as an author or researcher in any of the sources you have mentioned. So how exactly do you classify it as self-promotion? I think you were closer to the mark in your previous comment when you used the phrase "active bias". --SVTCobra 15:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    Jacob2718 cites certain work preferentially and hence one can easily guess who they might be. Xcalmet (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    There are two sources which you listed and say Jacob2718 is giving preferential citations and thereby is self-promoting. Those two sources do not share any authors, either. So what am I missing? What am I supposed to guess? --SVTCobra 10:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Patrick Roche (Northern Ireland politician)

Identifies as the subject of the article, and persists in editing despite a COI warning. FDW777 (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@FDW777:, please notify the user of this discussion per the instructions at the top of this page. Thanks, --SVTCobra 12:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Sahiba Ahluwalia

User seems to be employed by the subject of these articles as suggested by their message on my Talk Page and a quick Google search. No disclosure of paid editing even after multiple notices. Entire editing history promotional in nature and devoted to these articles. Tow (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Webhelp

Article about a large "Bpo/Business process outsourcing" company. Recent editing clearly in favor of it. Geheimnisenthüller (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I just restored the article to the last version that wasn't edited by obvious COI editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Note: - User has been blocked by Ponyo. --SVTCobra 01:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Child In Need Institute

This editor has an undeclared COI and continues to add promotional, unsourced, and/or poorly sourced language to the Child In Need Institute Even after multiple warnings . VVikingTalkEdits 12:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Now disclosed here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

John Junior

This is only a partial list of suspicious accounts as there are many. The subject of this article does not appear to be particularly notable judging from the number of followers on various social media. The length and number of edits to the article thus seems rather odd. Particularly so when one considers that a number of the main editors have only ever contributed to this one article. It seems possible that one or two individuals, potentially with conflicts of interest, are setting up multiple accounts to edit this article while attempting to avoid detection. 2A02:C7C:362C:4B00:6925:230E:1318:36E8 (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

May meet notability via breath of coverage, but the article has serious flaws and the number of SPAs is staggering. At a glance, this needs attention. --SVTCobra 00:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I filed a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scooterlife, which is the oldest account of the ones above. This might be the work of one or more sockmasters, or a ring of WP:MEATpuppets that were WP:CANVASSed. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
A number of these accounts have now been blocked as confirmed sockpuppets. The older accounts are stale so there's likely nothing actionable for them. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Remote (company)‎


Since his recent return to Wikipedia, Husond created an article about an HR company that does payroll and employment verification: subjects not known to attract edits from ardent fans. Jeepday speedy deleted it but Husond complained only hours later, so Jeepday restored the article and draftified it. The next day, Husond moved the draft back into main namespace and then removed the tag questioning subject notability. I nominated the article for deletion. Husond has not disclosed a CoI even after I pressed him on the subject, opining that he doesn't have to disclose and even if he did I'm not allowed to ask. It would seem to me that Husond came back to Wikipedia only to edit for hire and is now pushing to defend his actions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I find your obsession slightly disturbing and will not entertain this discussion. Húsönd 08:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: I believe that is well. Its native advertising. scope_creepTalk 08:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I almost brought this here myself as I noticed Husond basically being resurrected just to spam some non-notable corporation that has been advertising for months for an article. But their insistence that they don't have to disclose leads me to believe that 1.) there's a COI and 2.) they don't know policy. CUPIDICAE💕 18:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    With such strong suspicions I'm surprised you guys are not spending a few hours trying to find actual evidence of COI. Oh wait, maybe you have already.
    On a serious note though, I had no idea the company had been trying to get an article (where?). Irrespective of it, I do think it should have one. It's a $4B business, it's notable, it's sourced, people will look for it on WP. Inevitably we will have to have an article on it. Húsönd 13:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Noting that this is now at ANI, that passions went a bit high but at least some parties are dialing back the rhetoric. If someone sees this here and feels the need to participate at the AFD, that's great, but please do go evaluate the sources there impartially. While opinions vary, at least some of us have found them quite sufficient. @Praxidicae:, if indeed this company has been "advertising for months" for a paid article, that would indeed change presumptions. Do you have direct evidence/knowledge of that? It would also be easy to be mistaken about that. Martinp (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Sarah Paravia

The user has repeatedly made non-neutral edits to Ash Bowers in an attempt to erase his previous career as a singer and over-emphasize his current role as a songwriter/producer/manager. The edits contain promotional verbiage like "chasing the music of his heroes" and "Ash took fellow songwriter Jimmie Allen under his wing". User also removed a DOB from Matt Stell, an artist who is part of Bowers' management company. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Pretty clear case of UPE here. I will warn the user. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
However please remember WP:DOLT. Considering per WP:RSPS we don't even have consensus on the accuracy of AllMusic for biography details, a birthdate sourced solely to AllMusic in the absence of something exceptional cannot comply with WP:BLPDOB. A date which may not even be accurate cannot be said to be widespread, and there's also no indication the AllMusic entry is linked to the subject. So I've re-removed the birthdate. Nil Einne (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
We are talking musical artists. It is entirely possible the editor is just an over-enthusiastic fan. --SVTCobra 05:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Monica Gandhi

The Monica Gandhi article has been repeatedly altered in the last few days by sockpuppets from University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), which is where Gandhi works. They have been deleting cited passages. In addition, one of the sockpuppets added the deletion template to the article a few hours ago after protection on the page lapsed:

Asking for extended page protection and intervention with the sockpuppets. Thank you. TheNewMinistry (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked Wikiscientist578 indefinitely. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Metropolitan College of New York

This editor is a single-purpose editor who only edits this article. WP:OUTING prevents me from saying exactly who this editor likely is and their relationship with the college but I trust that anyone else who spends a few seconds looking into this will come to the same conclusion. They have not replied to a Template:Uw-coi-username template left on their User Talk page. Their continued editing appears to be a clear violation of WP:PAID. ElKevbo (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

A quick Google search will show @ElKevbo is correct. It appears the editor has disconnected their account and the editing has stopped. The more recent editing has corrected some of the COI editing issues, but the COI banner heading should remain until the problem is completely resolved. ABT021 (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

XAG (company)

Two users, one with a username with an obvious link to the company, have turned this article into a blatant advertisement. CockpitJim (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Jon Moses

Hello. I've been flagged as having a close connection to Jon Moses. Jon lives in the United Kingdom and I live in the United States. I'm a big fan. I'd love to see his shows but we don't have a close connection. I hope this issue can be resolved and that I am following a neutral point of view. --Sarah Pesto (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

No evidence of COI so I removed the COI tag from the draft. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Rishad Bathiudeen and removal of content

Hey folks. Recently, the Rishad Bathiudeen article has had the allegations section of it removed multiple times by a user who claimed to "work for the office of Hon rishad Bathiudeen" (see here). Not only has this user not announced that they have a conflict of interest, they seem to want to purge Mr. Bathiudeen's page of any allegations made towards him. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Notified the user about conflict of interest/paid editing and edit warring. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Alexander Betts

This seems so obviously a personally-put-together PR page that it seems fair to assume bad faith on the part of @lucylimehouse. Indeed, that tag seems to exist only for the purpose of creating and amending the site. It seems to be simply a pseudonym for the person the page is about. There's no other input, other than corrective admin bots. It reads as a CV. It seems the worst kind of personal-promotion Wiki page. It's fairly large but contains nothing notable at face value. There's little or no other substatnive input. On the basis of discouraging COI inspired articles, it should be delete unless there is some useful defence put here, IMHO. Emmentalist (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I had a look, it seems to be. It does reads like a cv and some places it using commercial site references instead of academic sources, ala PR. As an supposed academic you wouldn't expect that. There is no dates, its one event flowing into the other. The only dates, dob, book publishing dates and of course, the honours. The main life section has nothing. I removed the impact section, the very name of indicates promo, again no dates in it, just listing and there is still puff in there. It is a terrible article. scope_creepTalk 10:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

nanoFlowcell

User seems to have edited nothing but that particular page... but something more suspicious happened last October when they completely shortened the article that also happens to remove negative information of the company, which should make anyone suspicious of what they're doing. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 01:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

They've also deleted a post on the company's talk page criticizing the company. Suspicious.... Miracusaurs (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Apparently they're still going at it after being warned for removal of information but with re-spinning of information critical of them, as proven in this edit. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 08:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Joseph DeCarolis

Earlier discussions on the matter can be found here:

I will not repeat that material. But just say that I would like guidance, or better still, a determination that I should go ahead and edit — or not — as the case may be. Many thanks in advance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison: What is the coi issue here, exactly? You know him in passing, professionally, your both doing the same job as energy system modellers. I see your in direct contact with DeCarolis. I think that would suggest you have a coi. I think you should use edit requests in the Talk:Joseph DeCarolis, or make suggestions in the talk page from this point forward and not edit the article directly. As you have created a sandbox article. I'm not exactly sure of the process regarding sandbox article, their use and coi. I'll defer. scope_creepTalk 09:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
@Scope creep: Thanks for your observations. My sandbox edits were simply to get the events straight — I am not familiar with the processes used to appoint senior public officials in the United States and some detective work was needed, especially given that the first nomination expired and needed to be reissued. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
@RobbieIanMorrison: Coolio. I would suggest selecting what sections you need put, create an WP:EDITREQ for that section/para/etc and let an uninvolved admin/editor in good standing, process the edit request accordingly. It might take some time but it will be done. scope_creepTalk 12:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
@Scope creep: I have decided to err on the side of caution and refrain from direct editing. I also talked to my wife who works with high‑level academics and she thought this the safest too. Thanks for your help. This is not easy territory to navigate. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Also alerting KidAd. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Resolved
RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

List of DreamWorks Animation productions

Self-admitted undeclared (potentially paid) conflict of interest with self-attribution at the diff here. Sysop User:Girth_Summit notified the user of COI guidelines and expressed concern at this diff but with no response. Contributor kept editing with (to me) obvious promotional and unencyclopedic POV. Problematic edits also violate citation policy for which the user was warned for two times in July 2022 here. The listed pages above are not exhaustive and I would personally consider all of the users' edits that I have checked to potentially be in violation. I conclude my preliminary findings that this user is well-aware of the COI policy due to the prior warnings and notifications by several editors (including admins) but continues to disrupt Wikipedia with this behavior, and ask humbly for your intervention. Kind regards. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 15:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Please notify the user of this discussion per instructions at the top of this page. Thanks, SVTCobra 15:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh right I was still going to do that! I got distracted as usual browsing WP... My bad. I'll notify them now. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 15:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Notified: User:Sevak Zeinali, User:Girth_Summit. ~~~~
Notified reported user as is mandatory and notified involved sysop as courtesy and to allow them to weigh in as they see fit.
@SVTCobra: Thank you for the reminder. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 15:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Joseph DeCarolis

This posting is not intended to relitigate a prior decision on COI editing (two postings above). In which I agreed to withdraw from direct editing. But rather to comment on Wikipedia policy and practice.

My only non‑Wikipedia contact with Joseph DeCarolis was modest, collegial, and historical. And related to an academic paper published in 2018 (doi:10.1016/j.esr.2017.12.010) in which I had sought background about a model that Prof DeCarolis had programmed.

It was my two Wikipedia‑related exchanges that made it look like my relationship with Prof DeCarolis was conflicted. The first was to confirm my edits on the TEMOA model. And the second was to obtain a headshot of Prof DeCarolis for his article [13].

So it seems odd to me that traffic directly related to developing on Wikipedia pushed me into COI territory. That experience indicates that editors should not have professional contact with parties they are writing about. I come from a tradition where talking to affected parties is generally regarded as beneficial and to be encouraged. Thoughts? RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah your case is probably a bit of a grey area. Nothing forbids you from talking to the party it is about, and that in itself is not really a conflict of interest either. The problem arises by the fact you worked together before professionally (from what I understand, correct me if I’m wrong) and that one could argue that highlighting the positives rather than negatives or otherwise editing in a manner unbecoming for an encyclopedia would benefit you substantially more than the average editor on Wikipedia. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 18:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
That's useful. I will, of course, stay with my earlier decision regarding COI status. The potential for benefit is not conclusively zero and I guess that is what counts. My historical contact and more recent contacts are not, in of themselves, informative, either way. Thanks very much for your response @Amadeus1999:. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@RobbieIanMorrison: You're very welcome! ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 18:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Gömböc

The Gömböc is a mathematical shape invented by Gábor Domokos, sold in a series of individually numbered sculptures by Domokos. On our Gömböc article, User:Gdomokos (who has not publicly self-identified or made the required declaration of a conflict of interest, although I have offline identifying information) has been a heavy contributor and has recently been edit-warring to include a huge and badly-sourced table of the ownership details of each numbered copy, after removal by User:Murata and later me. I think this is spam. Other opinions and assistance editing would be welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

(a) Almost all Gömböc models sold are non-numbered (serial) models. (b) The table in question contains individually numbered models which have not been sold to, rather DONATED to institutions. Almost all of the listed models are on public display, and this might be the only source where the list of these exhibits can be found. So if anyone wants to see a Gömböc (without paying money), this table is likely the best chance to do so. (c) The table contains publicly available information which has been collected over the years to serve the purpose described before. Sincerely, Gabor Domokos Gdomokos (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Content on this encyclopedia has to meet certain criteria: wp:ROC, wp:REL. If you want to compile a list of donations/projects you are free to do so, but WP is wp:NOT the place to publish it. Some individual pieces may present encyclopedic value, but probably rather to the person or institution owning or displaying it and not the mathematical body, that is the scope of this article. They should be therefore mentioned in the persons/institutions article.
(a), (b) and (c) seem to be correct but the mentioned purpose is not one for a WP article. Additional thought for User:Gdomokos: If the author has conflicts of interest even their correct information may be discredited and not meet standards. --Murata (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I am aware of wp:ROC, wp:REL and I think that the contents of this table meet those standards. If you can say specifically why not, please do so. Similarly, you may think that these donations probably represent value only to the institutions. I think differently: in my view the goal of wikipedia is to provide knowledge to the public and if anyone wants to learn about the Gömböc the best way is to see one. Also, the Gömböc is not just a geometric shape, it has cultural aspects and people interested in the Gömböc may want to learn about those aspects too. So it is clear that we have different views on the value of this table as part of Wikipedia and there may be people who share your views. I certainly know that there are people who share mine and there are several among them who would be happy to compile this table. Would that change the situation? Is there any rule of Wikipedia which would be violated? Gdomokos (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
No, if you recruit others to make edits on your behalf that would not change the situation, and it would violate rules. Wikipedia isn't a webhost or an indiscriminate collection of information and that table simply doesn't belong here. You also have an obvious conflict of interest and you have been in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use as described in WP:PAID. - MrOllie (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Leaving a comment here to notify everyone about my request for increased protection over at WP:RFP#Gömböc due to the edit warring and controversial nature of many of the edits and the alleged conflict of interest. Feel free to comment or contribute over there to leave your thoughts. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 19:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
The issue of CoI and EW aside, the table of examples looks like the sort of content we should be including. It is most certainly not spam. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Unusual edits on Limitless Win

There have been strange edits to the article for British game show Limitless Win, where users have wholesale replaced the reception section numerous times in the same way. The edits were first done via IP user 82.22.94.19 (talk · contribs), replacing cited reviews from a writer for The Guardian with a different piece from a writer in the Daily Telegraph. While I decided to, with proper citations, include my own prose based on the Telegraph review alongside the existing Guardian review, the edits to remove the Guardian review continued via a new account, Oracle987654321 (talk · contribs). I find these editing patterns to be unusual and concerning, and possibly indicative of some sort of PR operation. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection because of the edit warring and that's now in place for a period of two weeks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Ontario Party

This is a SPA which first edited March 31st, making WP:PROMO edits to a minor fringe party involved in an upcoming election. User reverted me in order to restore the unsourced party platform, with no introduction of secondary sources and ignored the CoI template I placed on their talk page. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 12:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The primary sources used in the article are without question verifiable, without reasonable doubt. I will add secondary sources as they become more available. To provide the party's platform is not promotion, considering the content is included without bias. TrickieDickie1 (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
An unrelated point, but much of the content added to Ontario Party was copied directly from https://www.ontarioparty.ca/our_platform_en, a website that does not license its content for use on Wikipedia. That makes the additions a violation of our copyright policies. I will leave some reading material about Wikipedia and copyright on your user talk page, TrickieDickie1. No comment on the CoI question (it's not my field). /wiae /tlk 21:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:AnkurSainiYT

User repeatedly recreates their userpage which is used only to advertise their Youtube channel. They have been told not to do so on their talk page already and have ignored their talk page messages. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

User has been blocked by Deb. Before I had a chance to inform them of this discussion (would've done so after but didn't realize I had to until after they got blocked). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: WP:AIV can also handle any repeat-offender promotional accounts who show no intention of listening to repeated warnings. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Emilio Sempris

New editor User:Gudisoc has what I believe to be an undeclared conflict of interest at this article. Nearly all their edits so far are on this article, and most of the files they've uploaded to Commons, e.g. c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gudisoc, are what appear to be scans of original documents belonging to Sempris, uploaded as "own work" by User:Gudisoc. They've steadfastly denied any connection with Sempris, [14], but I've done image searches on Google and Tineye, and can only find the images at "public files in websites and social networks" for File:Reconocimiento de la NASA 2007 para Emilio Sempris.jpg (as pointed out by Gudisoc [15]) and File:Emilio Sempris dando discurso inaugural de SERVIR en 2003.jpg: they haven't yet explained where they found the rest. It looks like either paid editing or an undeclared close connection with Sempris, in order to get these files for scan and upload. The first two days' edits were full of unsourced and detailed claims about Sempris' life and family, [16], most of which I've since whittled out. Storchy (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I see no evidence of CoI. The explanation given is plausible and the "personal" images are apparently from publicly available sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: two are apparently from publicly available sources. For the rest, they've all been uploaded as "own work", and as noted above I can't find them online, and the new editor has still not yet explained where they got the images, so until then, we should take them at their word that the images are their own work, implying that they scanned the original sources from Emilio Sempris. Storchy (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
"I upladed the files I downloaded from servir.net, and twitter, facebook or linkedin. I undertand they are public files." [sic], per this edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Just a handwaving statement like that is sufficient? We don't need URLs to verify that they're publicly available?
And what about the detailed and unsourced knowledge of Sempris' life and family added by the single-purpose account? Storchy (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

AnyDesk‎

This software is mostly notable for its use in Technical support scams. Lately we've had an uptick in single purpose accounts attempting to suppress information about this - which is fairly noncontroversial. A few years ago, in an interview about these scams, the company COO stated that the fraud is 'very common'. I guess the message strategy has changed. Situation could use more eyes, please. MrOllie (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

These are my accounts. I lost the login information for AndAmpersand187 so I made another. It's pretty apparent you don't understand how a lede works, or how to properly use sources. Judging by your edit history it's also apparent that you're just reverting edits to rack up the number of contributions you make, and not actually to contribute anything useful to the wiki. If you would like to re-phrase your edit in the lede to make more sense contextually, by all means do so. But reverting your bad line of text with improper citations over and over again is not actually contributing to the article. And claiming I have a COI because I corrected one sentence from a lede is nonsensical. Take it to the talk page of the article instead of resorting to petty disputes like this. BattleSpace736 (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Partially blocked BattleSpace736 and AndAmpersand187 from AnyDesk for breaking the 3 revert rule. This shouldn't and does not resolve the issue at heart, but my action is because the 3 revert rule was broken by this user. CU does not suggest any connections to other accounts, and supports the assertions made by BattleSpace736 with regards to their accounts (including about loosing a password). This block is not for any abuse of multiple accounts as the change in account was made in good faith. Any administrator is free to extend my partial block to a full block or longer partial block as they see fit, but would prefer if I was pinged if removal is desired. As I have run CU, I make no comment with regards to whether or not the IP address is related and will leave it to another admin to review. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz, MrOllie did not bring his issue with me to my attention on my Talk page. As per the Conflict of Interest guide, users are to "raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, which is the first step in resolving user-conduct issues, per the DR policy, citing this guideline." It was not brought to my attention that MrOllie believed I had a COI so I could discuss this with them in a civil manner. Instead, I was promptly tagged here after he engaged in an edit war with me. It's my belief that he also violated the 3RR.
While I understand MrOllie enjoys contributing vastly to the project, I don't think he should be running around acting as a moderator. BattleSpace736 (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
@BattleSpace736 while editors are encouraged to use the talk page of the editor(s) concerned, the next sentence says that If for some reason that is not advisable ... the next step is to open a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN). While discussion at your talk page may have resolved the COI concerns raised by MrOllie, from my perspective this discussion is also asking for other editors to keep an eye on AnyDesk for any single purpose accounts which is best done at this or other noticeboards.
With regards to 3RR, MrOllie has not from my perspective broken the 3 revert rule because they made only three reverts over a 24-hour period (their fourth edit in that 24 hour period was not a revert and added content). If I am mistaken, and you see 4 reverts on the same page in 24 hours then please detail which edits these are (either by providing the diffs or the timestamp of the edits you are talking about). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz while I understand he may be bringing up the point of single use accounts, there was no need for him to call me out publicly before reaching out to me on my talk page. If you look at the edit history, I even encouraged him to reach out to the talk page of the Article to discuss before he randomly posted on here in what feels like a petty attempt to end a dispute without a discussion. BattleSpace736 (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment This is the software that allows the screen to be switched on, on the "marks" computer, while your transferring the marks money out their bank, making it particularly dangerous. I will add it to my watchlist. scope_creepTalk 21:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Mark Wilde

Self-promotion and no secondary source references. 138.100.10.224 (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like an autobiography. Have trimmed it somewhat, but lack the academic expertise to go any further. Edwardx (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

User:DavidPinedaOCSA

This user has been editing Orange County School of the Arts, and apparently now with another account on that page (although it could be someone else). Ovinus (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Ggux conflicted about polyphenol research

I have been advised by User:Zefr to report here to have my conflict of interest assessed. I have been editing flavan-3-ol and other polyphenol related pages and have in some aspects a very different opinion. Since I have been working in the field of polyphenol research for more than two decades, I am clearly biased regarding the importance of the field (and welcome advise on what is encyclopaedically important), but I believe I do have some subject knowledge. Please advise. Ggux (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

See the COI notice on the Ggux user page. The editing history of this novice user (about 210 edits) is in two timelines, the most recent and majority of which, since March 2022, is 1) to push for acceptance of the COSMOS study, possibly involving work by Ggux, an employer or funding agent (Mars, Inc.) of the professional research by Ggux; and 2) the user is also pushing an unconventional concept not in mainstream science that phytochemicals, whose properties are poorly known and not recommended in diets by any regulatory authority, are nutrients. This appears to be a POV supported by the user's research and/or colleagues, emphasizing the issue of COI. The Ggux editing history also shows potential conflict with the article Jeremy P. E. Spencer (a nutrition scientist, created in 2018) and Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University of Reading {failed article, Nov 2019) whose members (possiby including Ggux) publish in the disputed article topic, flavan-3-ol, and so may be an employer of Ggux. The user appears to be a WP:SPA to push for unaccepted concepts in diet and nutrition. We should know more about the COI background. I have encouraged Ggux to widen their interests, let the dust settle on flavan-3-ol, and enjoy editing elsewhere in the project. Zefr (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I do not push for the COSMOS study, I believe that within the context of flavan-3-ols, it is a study of significant size and importance to merit a mention as outlined in WP:MEDPRI. Zefr has objected to this based on assumptions that are factually wrong (sample size) or are not relevant according to WP:MEDASSESS (i.e. funding).
  • I am involved in flavan-3-ol research (as I have mentioned more than once) and thus intended to contribute my knowledge. I do not think I have sufficient expertise to contribute to other articles. University of Reading had one of the leading Departments in this field in the UK
  • I fail to understand what unconventional concept I am accused of pushing. Polyphenols as bioactives (non-nutrient compounds in foods) is not new and has been discussed for more than a decade. The physiological effect of some of these compounds has been established (resulting e.g. in health claims, but also shown in Cochrane reviews - see e.g. Flavan-3-ols - and numerous discussion paper, including by members of the US DRI committee (cited in the relevant sections), state this.
I have suggested that it would be appropriate to have a RfC or 3rd opinion, but Zefr has ignored this in the past and reverted edits ([[17]]) on a different topic and has ignored that other editors in the flavan-3-ol RfC did not share their opinion.
If the contents of flavan-3-ol would be scientifically accurate, I would not mind - but unfortunately they are wrong and partly outdated. Ggux (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company

Single-purpose account repeatedly adding promotional material and marketing language to this article since 2019. The "UTM" in the username makes it even more obvious. --Sable232 (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This user is also repeatedly copy-pasting copyrighted material onto the page and not repodning to talk page massages. I would say this user is WP:NOTHERE. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Bitag

Adivaleza left evidence for their COI with this edit summary This is Adi, an employee of BMUI we change the history thru Mr. Ben Tulfo itself. BMUI is BITAG Media Unlimited Inc per the first sentence added with that edit. BITAGKATE's COI status is assumed by their username. I added a COI notice to both editors' talk pages. Adivaleza has not disclosed their COI despite the notice and a second request here

  • Adivaleza is removing out-of-date content and all four citations. It is being replaced with overtly promotional content with no citations.
  • Adivaleza added an edit request to their talk page (not talk:Bitag where it should have been placed). It was declined. No further edit requests were made. Adivaleza simply engaged in an edit war.
  • BITAGKATE has only made a single edit, removing an external link which does link to an apparently functional Bitag Media website: bitagmedia.com
  • After Adivaleza's fourth revert (at this time), I added an edit warning notice to their talk page.
  • Adivaleza then left a message on their talk page asking if the article could be deleted here.

I wouldn't mind helping them update the article, but there is little communication. I personally have no interest in this article nor the company and would like to clear it from my watchlist. Adakiko (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Note: PP added to Bitag expires 04:15, 26 April 2022 Adakiko (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I've let a message about WP:OWN on their talk page, and collapsed the improperly placed edit requests in {{hidden}} sections. Hopefully these messages will make them a little more cooperative. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
A user - a new user - who places edit requests on their talk page is not being uncooperative, and our response should not be to hide those requests. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1083856656 is a disclosure. Maybe partial, but apparently made in good faith. Adakiko: Next time I would suggest to give some more time, not just 24 hours, between a {{uw-coi}} notice and a WP:COIN report.
Adivaleza, BITAGKATE: Keep in mind that you can only use one account per person. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. And you must not edit while logged out (like this) to evade the mandatory paid editing disclosure. You can make further edit requests at Talk:Bitag. Note that, as other users warned before, edit warring could get your accounts blocked. MarioGom (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Josegutierrezcarlos

Hi, Please check Josegutierrezcarlos (talk · contribs) writing an article about his employer: Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation. See also c:File:RCBC PTG.jpg. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Yann please leave the required notice for Josegutierrezcarlos as described at the top of this page. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Done. Yann (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I have posted a {{uw-paid1}} warning to his talk page. This template contains useful guidance that is somtimes followed by some once they are aware. MarioGom (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Seattle Gay News

Persistent addition of non-neutral content, by an account with the same name as the paper's editor. Hasn't responded to notices regarding conflict of interest, except to deny promotional intent. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:4FAD (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

They have now stated that they are the publication's current editor. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Possible Conflict of Interest: Greeks for the Fatherland

For a while now the article Greeks for the Fatherland has been the target of consisent vandalism. A few weeks ago user AkisAr-26 appeared out of the blue and immediately contributed with some suspected WP:POV tendencies, which also appear to expand to the Greek Wikipedia focused mainly on the same article. Apart from some very unhelpful and sometimes misleading contributions, he raised multiple points on the talk page which indicate that a) he might be an old user with a new account, but most importantly b) there could be a conflict of interest. Upon asking him multiple times [1] [2] if he is involved with the party in any capacity, he refused to answer and dodged the questions. Since this is quite serious and his contributions have been disruptive for a while now, may I please ask you to further-investigate his activity to find out whether he is associated with the political party? The user will be notified of this discussion on his talk page. Thank you in advance. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@NikolaosFanaris: I don't see coi here, at all. The edits that AkisAr-26 are slightly more accurate to references. Treat it as a copyedit. scope_creepTalk 23:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@Scope creep: they have refused to answer to my question numerous times since the discussion started. It's not just the "focus" on references, but a bunch of other disruptive edits that indicate a close relationship to the topic. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Please see the this. I'm afraid the accuser is lying. I did answer his questions. AkisAr-26 (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Sure - you randomly woke up one fine morning and started editing specific articles related to neo-Nazi criminals that you are admiring. Sounds legit. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Jim Ward (game designer)

I'm not sure if this is an actual family member of Gary Gygax or just someone invoking the name, but they were warned of a possible COI last year, so given that I'm not sure if this edit is acceptable? BOZ (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyone? BOZ (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
It is not acceptable. Jim is an ex-boss, so I'd prefer not to edit his page directly. I can't imagine Ernie or Luke ever calling themselves GaryJr. To my eyes this looks like either someone possibly associated with the new museum in LG or some random fanboy. It's not a username violation, but is a bit iffy. Appreciate the eyes, BOZ. BusterD (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd start by making another post on Garygygaxjr's talk page, providing links to WP:CoI, WP:PAID, and WP:USERNAME, and explaining exactly what the issues are. We can't expect newcomers to comply with policies they've very likely never heard of. If Garygygaxjr then continues to edit, further action will probably be needed, but we need to give them a chance to respond first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if User:Fracone was aware of this discussion, but they undid the edit by User:ElKevbo and moved the page to James M. Ward (game designer). BOZ (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I see that it was reverted by User:Praxidicae again but the page move still happened, so not sure if that was a good move. BOZ (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
For the record, the Fracone move was correct. His working name, the name he's published under for over 40 years is James M. Ward. The disambiguator seems reasonable to keep, given the large number of James Wards on the DA page. BusterD (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
But are there any other James M. Wards? BOZ (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
No but a middle initial by itself is rarely a strong disambiguator, when other James Ward pages exist. BusterD (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Malinche Entertainment

Nearly all of this user's edits have been to this article and the company was founded by Howard Sherman. So it looks to me like this could be Howard's account. I have substituted Template:Uw-coion their talk page but have had no response as of yet. KaraLG84 (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Chris Barrett

There is a case pending at DRV concerning a promotional draft. The draft was speedy-deleted as G11, and that is being appealed, and the G11 is being endorsed. So far, so good. User:Acroterion and User:Stifle have both asked the author whether they have a conflict of interest, and there has been one reply that is a non-answer. Can we assume that failure to answer indicates Undisclosed Paid Editing? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The user seems to have stopped editing. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

User WikiDiaspora, multiple new articles: Jelena Medić

New user is producing lots of heavily-referenced articles for BLP. What is notable is that the pictures are all professional, and have rights assigned to wikimedia via private correspondence. A number of the pictures were owned by the subject of the article, which means that the user had to have had contact with the subject of the article. Several notices of possible COI have been posted: to user talkpage and to some of the articles. User denies COI. For example, see Talk:Jelena Medić, User_talk:WikiDiaspora#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Here are some more of the pages. Note that in one case, the rights to the photograph was owned by another one of the subjects they wrote about.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  • There's clearly something going on here, whether it's paid or COI editing, most of these articles are nothing short of complete advertisements and poorly sourced puffery. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    I've asked WikiDiaspora to respond here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not connected to the subjects of the articles in any manner. I get photos by contacting the authors (through Google). I think that it's natural that there is a connection between the personalities and events that are the subjects of the articles I've created because they belong to small ethnic groups and related professions. I apologize for any mistakes I may have made. Please, advise how to improve the listed pages in order to avoid deleting. WikiDiaspora (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Could you please remove {{Undisclosed paid}} tag from my articles if we solved this? WikiDiaspora (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Considering the puffy nature of the articles involved, it would be best if you disclose your conflict of interest. I don't see how you are contacting authors for photos and there's not some sort of business exchange involved. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I contact the authors usually by email. The article about Jelena Medić is perhaps the only article of mine where it coincided that the author of the photo(s) is also the subject. Therefore, please return the article so that I can improve it according to the guidelines. WikiDiaspora (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
WikiDiaspora, the metadata in several images that you have uploaded to Commons (e.g. [18][19][20][21]) states that 'WikiDiaspora.org' is the copyright holder. What is the purpose of this website, and what is your relationship to it? Spicy (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
That site is not active and I've added it as a source earlier because I was not familiar enough with the rules of Wikipedia. WikiDiaspora (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
That doesn't explain away what is being asked. And per the archived website, it was in a file directory that wasn't completely publicly available, so one last time: what is your connection to the website and the subjects you've written about? PRAXIDICAE💕 21:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
There are no any undisclosed connection between me, the subjects I've written about and that website. WikiDiaspora (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
You're looking at an indefinite ban (not just block) from Wikipedia. You would have us believe that you wrote glowing articles about living subjects and you also contacted them so they gave you professional photos and you tagged those photos regarding a eponymous website but you'd have us believe that the website isn't yours, that no one paid you money to write? I cannot buy your pack of apparent lies. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
As I said before, the article about Jelena Medić is perhaps the only article of mine where it coincided that the author of the photo(s) is also the subject. Everything you've written is a generalization. Please do not threaten or insult. That site was mine at the time it was cited as a source, now it's not. WikiDiaspora (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello again. I just wanted to ask you to delete all my articles that you think do not comply with the rules. I wanted them to be edited in the best possible way and in accordance with the mission of free dissemination of knowledge, and I spent a lot of time on that. I'm sorry it was interpreted as COI. In any case, I believe that it is better to give advice and guidelines to new users, and not to threaten them, because in that way they are deterred from further editing on Wikipedia. Have a nice day. WikiDiaspora (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The user is active on multiple editions of Wiki. The possibility of cross wiki spamming need to be examined. There are overlaps of articles being created in enwiki, srwiki, hrwiki, bswiki, slwiki and suwiki. Courtesy links to their page creation history across the wikis are below:

Chirota (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is true, I'm active on several Wiki editions. Wikipedia itself offers articles to be translated, so what's the problem? WikiDiaspora (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Hatchens

Ironically, given the thread just above this one, earlier today I blocked Hatchens for undisclosed paid editing. I don't want to give away the specific activities that gave him away, but his general pattern seems to have been to accept AfC drafts written by other UPErs. Maybe also some direct paid edits to articles.

Hatchens new page patrol and autopatrolled rights, and was an AfC reviewer. I'm afraid we're going to have to check all of the articles he reviewed or created for spam, so any help is appreciated. – Joe (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: presumably only the accepts need checking, not all their AfC reviews? And what should we do if we come across something dodgy — draftify, move an AfD, or decide each one case-by-case?-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Case-by-case basis, I'd say. – Joe (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
88 Accepted, according to [[22]]Slywriter (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The patrols are also bad. Don't also forget the article creations (68 items) and page curation log (949 items). MER-C 16:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Okay, well, unless someone tells me otherwise, I'll start with the AfC acceptances, and expand to other areas when those are done. Already sent one to AfD, and looking at another suspect one (although I also realise that it's easy to get carried away and see problems where they don't exist).
Would it be an idea to somehow mark those that have been checked and found likely okay, so that others won't waste their time reviewing them again? Maybe a null edit with something like 'checked' in the edit summary? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Unpatrol and repatrol would be more semantic. MER-C 17:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@Joe Roe I see that the block is a checkuser block after a VRT ticket, so I presume Off Wiki evidence has been presented. I acknowledge that I have no right to see that evidence, and that it will not be commented upon in public forum.
I wish to ask a simple question based upon the thread above.
Might the ticket be a result of Hatchens's report above?
I know that you may not be able to make a full answer, perhaps any answer, to that in public forum. I ask, simply, that you consider the possibility of some form of targeting of Hatchens by virtue of their making a post.
In asking this question I have not considered any behavioural evidence that I might choose to inspect from the pool available to me. I note that some of their AFC acceptances are considered to be inappropriate. I am continuing to AGF over this. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I have seen some of the evidence and endorse the block. It is unambiguous that Hatchens does not have the personal integrity to edit Wikipedia. MER-C 19:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there's been multiple past cases of UPE editors throwing rival UPE rings under the bus--without having reviewed offsite evidence, my inclination is that as long as we're doing due diligence in reviewing the reports, we shouldn't discard them just because they originated out of a turf war between UPE groups. signed, Rosguill talk 19:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@MER-C Thank you for the answer. I am disappointed about the evidence, though pleased it has come to light. The question needed to be asked.
@Rosguill I agree. We should not discard them, but we should also recognise them for what they are. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Like Rosguill says it's definitely not unusual for UPErs to try to use our enforcement processes to their advantage, either reporting established editors who have reported them, or reporting competitors. I suspect something like the latter is what's going on with the thread above this one. Usually they're not too subtle about it, though, and in this case I'm confident the timing is a coincidence. – Joe (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Huh. I've seen Hatchens around, but never realised that he presented himself as a native speaker of American English – his language patterns are so typically Indian. (Pretending to live somewhere you don't isn't exactly a violation of any rule, but it is a bit odd.) --bonadea contributions talk 20:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I do present myself as an American English speaker too, but at least I was honest in where I lived and I am not that proficient in American English. MarioJump83! 12:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Sure, you have a userbox saying that you use American English, but Hatchens has one that says that American English is his first language, which surprised me since he consistently uses Indian English on talk pages. It's a bit like if the queen of England were to have a Wikipedia user page with a user box saying "One is a native speaker of Australian English". But again, it is a peculiarity and not a policy violation – I simply wanted to point it out because it might be relevant in combination with the other issues. --bonadea contributions talk 14:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Jeffcoat

G'day, I'm real good mates with these two blokes (matter of fact I train with them), & reading WP:COIE it seems there may be a COI as I'm a friend of theirs. My contributions to their articles largely consist of adding details such as height & weights, personal bests, and updates on any international competitions they're attending. Does this constitute a COI & need I declare as such if so? X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 10:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@X750: Thanks for reaching out; I can see by your edit history that you've been around Wikipedia for a little while. Close personal relationships would constitute a conflict of interest, yes. You should probably add the {{UserboxCOI}} template to your userpage, and the {{connected contributor}} template to the talk page of each article.
That said, your edits to these articles don't look problematic. My suggestion for the future is that if you have any large amounts of content to add/change, or there is a possibility that other editors could challenge it, use an edit request on the talk page so that others can review it first. Thanks again and all the best. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I will do those templates. I just have one other question Drm310, you say large amounts of content to add/change, what is stopping me from getting around this by adding information in small bits? Not saying I would deliberately exploit this loophole but information on athletes tends to just trickle in. Thanks X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 20:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
X750, I guess the short answer is that there is nothing stopping you from making small, incremental changes. If anything, that makes it easier because if someone disputes the change, then the discussion can be more narrowly focused. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

K. S. Chithra

G H V S Simha has twice given the impression that the content they have added was written collectively, and has failed to address concerns on my talkpage and has since resumed editing the article. While they have denied being part of her PR team on their talkpage, I would like to request them to explain these two sentences as to who is "we".

The page has also seen its fair share of IPs and editors who have registered simply to edit articles relating to this person, indicating some potential off-Wiki coordination. More eyes would be helpful. Seloloving (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

: An IP is now insistently re-adding content which G H V S Simha had previously disputed with me over its removal. I do not intend to revert further as it would likely cross the three revert rule, even as the sources do not back the information being added. I will leave it up to other editors to decide on its merits. Seloloving (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@G H V S Simha: has explained that they meant "we" in the sense of other editors, and per good faith I am inclined to accept the explanation and request for this to be closed, subject to review by other users. Seloloving (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
They have been blocked by Ponyo for disruptive editing (and possibly socking with Simha Gorji). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


User:Coocat86 Potential COI and UPE

Since 2009, Coocat86 has made 64 edits to the project. Of those, 49 have been made to one article: NewsWatch. During this period, this user has aggressively defended this article against deletion twice. During this same time, the article has never been improved to include WP:RS. To date, the article is exclusively cites content available from the subject's web page. It is abundantly clear that Coocat86 is using WP as a promotional platform, which is a direct violation of WP:SPAM similar to WP:Brochure to support the ongoing business of Newswatch. It should be noted that upon examination, Newswatch is NOT a legitimate media outlet but, rather, a paid video production company (See: https://newswatchtv.com/2021/12/20/why-should-i-pay-for-a-video-production-company/). I have raised the possibility of Coocat86 being a wp:UPE and also having a WP:COI on their talk page with no response. I believe there is substantial evidence to suggest that this user has a direct COI and may also be a WP:UPE. I humbly suggest blocking this user from further disruptive edits and revisiting a WP:AFD discussion regarding the NewsWatch article. Volcom95 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any record of an AfD, just a failed PROD, so an AfD may be in order. I have removed copyvio, poor sources and promotional material. What's left isn't much or great.Slywriter (talk)
Seems to be an informercial. Good work @Slywriter: in identifying it. Propped up by coi editors. scope_creepTalk 14:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
And well done, Volcom95, for the gathering the evidence and reporting it here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Charles L. Venable

This user, who's username is the name of someone strongly connected to the subject of the linked article, received a warning about COI in March 2021 after they tried to remove some unflattering information. They returned yesterday and re-added some flattering but uncited information that had been recently added to the article by Candied tangerine (who has only edited Charles L. Venable), and removed by myself. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I have just noticed that the editor also removed significant content from the Indianapolis Museum of Art page in 2015 without giving valid reason, including removing information about pushback Venable received for decisions he made regarding the admission price to the museum.--Cerebral726 (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
In the AfD of Charles Venable, there are some people, likely a meatfarm, that seems to try and influence the deletion process. MarioJump83! 00:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Ruderboot10 (Translation)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowboat_Film-_und_Fernsehproduktion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_by_the_Lake

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Day_for_a_Miracle

I want to translate two German articles for my employer Rowboat Film- und Fernseproduktion but there is a discussion if my COI is too strong to do so. I add the discussion about my request for page importation below. There are already existing English articles of my company (see above).

______

Discussion request for page importation (for de:Schneller als die Angst and de:Mord in der Familie – Der Zauberwürfel):

Note by importing administrator: Not done; you have too strong a conflict of interest per your German user page. Graham87 14:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC) 

   The production company Rowboat Film- und Fernsehproduction pays me to tranlslate this article. Ruderboot10 (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

   @Ruderboot10 have you read and understand all of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure? — xaosflux Talk 14:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

   I have, thank you! My German User Page (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Ruderboot10) is also already verified. I didn't know if this is possible on the English Wikipedia as well. Rowboat Film- und Fernsehproduktion (https://www.rowboat.tv/index_gb.html) is my employer as well as my client. The series will be published internationally and that's why an English translation of its Wikipedia Page is justified (same for Mord in der Familie - Der Zauberwürfel). Ruderboot10 (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

   @Ruderboot10: We have very different standards regarding conflict and interest and paid editing to the German Wikipedia. Editing like this is very highly frowned upon here. Just because something is released internationally, it doesn't mean we need to have an article on it. I'm still not particularly inclined to deal with this one, but if someone else wants to do so, feel free. Graham87 05:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

   Can you open a section at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard on yourself and get some feedback first. If the general consensus is that this is supported I don't have an issue with the imports. — xaosflux Talk 10:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC) Ruderboot10 (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

______

If you need any more information, please let me know. Thanks for taking the time to discuss my request!

Ruderboot10, have you read Help:Your first article? The first problem is to establish the Wikipedia:Notability of the subjects. I notice that Murder by the Lake was submitted via Wikipedia:Articles for creation and needed further sources to establish notability. A Day for a Miracle was written in 2013 by an editor whose edits all related to Rowboat and was not submitted via AfC. TSventon (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I used another way to create a translation of the articles as described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Translation.I submitted my created drafts for review. Please think about reviewing my drafts to decide if the COI is a problem. Thank you very much, I really appreciate your help!
Draft:Spezial:Meine_Benutzerseite/Murder_Squared
Draft:Faster_than_Fear Ruderboot10 (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Ruderboot10, I don't review drafts, but I recommend adding some more independent sources such as this and this. I have moved the first draft to Draft:Murder_Squared. TSventon (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@TSventon Thanks, I will do that! Ruderboot10 (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
information Administrator note as the drafts were created, I competed the WP:RFPI's. — xaosflux Talk 14:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Christian Women in Media Association

The user does disclose their COI, saying they're the Vice President of the organization. They've drastically altered the article, pushing POV. I have notified them about the COI guideline on their talk page, but they continued. ~~ lol1VNIO🎂 (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 15:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the article back, removed a fair amount of unsourced cruft, and nominated at AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_189&oldid=1093361832"