Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 193

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Verdis

MicroSupporter, whom created the above article, has almost exclusively made significant edits regarding Verdis across multiple Wikimedia projects. MicroSupporter made a few gnome edits between June and July, but in August requested that Verdis and Free Republic of Verdis be unprotected. They added WikiProjects to the redirect Verdis (micronation) on 7 September, and added a wikilink to the Spanish entry about Verdis (which they created) to template:Micronations on 26 September. They are also very active on the current AfD for Verdis started on 11 October (which is the second time the article has been nominated).

On Spanish Wikipedia, MicroSupporter created Verdis and Daniel Jackson (político) (the "leader" of Verdis) in September, has somewhat frequently edited Verdis on Wikidata since August, and created the Wikidata item Daniel Jackson in September. Additionally, all four of their uploads to Commons relate to Verdis (granted these are in fact sourced, to verdisgov.org). Their only other article creation is Carolyn Shelby, another micronationalist, which was created on 8 October. Perhaps this was created so that they would not look affiliated with Verdis?

I felt the need to leave this here as Verdis was repeatedly recreated and edit warred in the past by IPs and sockpuppet accounts of SwedenAviator clearly associated with Verdis; see the first AfD for Verdis (December 2020) and AfD for the Free Republic of Verdis (July 2019). I do not know if MicroSupporter is SwedenAviator, but they are likely to be associated with Verdis or even know Daniel Jackson personally at least. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 18:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I have made edits to many micronations. Look at my contributions. I do have an interest in Verdis as I have found it to be the most 'serious'. I have also frequently made edits to articles surrounding Asgardia, Austenasia, etc. I am not that Verdis micronations President or even a citizen - I don't see a point in paying a fee for citizenship from a 'country' that will never be recognised. I do find it quite inspiring and satisfyingly interesting though. If it ever does seem to stand a chance, I will probably apply i dont know. i think they should just declare themselves an organisation like Flandrensis judging from their PoV on things. I recently made a list on wikiproject micronations on the articles i am drafting on adding to wikipedia soon. MicroSupporter (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of imaginary 'nations'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if they are imaginary. There are plenty of micronations and tongue-in-cheek countries on Wikipedia (Conch Republic for example). Doesn't matter if you think they are real or not, what matters is if they are considered notable enough to be on Wikipedia. MicroSupporter (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view matters. Articles presenting imaginary nations with populations of zero as having 'governments' etc violate this policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
With that POV, you're saying every micronation on Wikipedia needs to be deleted. You do understand that a micronation is an imaginary nation, right? Most, if not all are fantasy. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Micronations are not in any way a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. MicroSupporter (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
How about replying to what I actually wrote, rather than something you imagine I meant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
If you don't think the articles of micronations on Wikipedia are neutral enough, no one is stopping you from editing them up. You have already argued this with other people on Liberland's deletion page, who have also said micronations are not a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Personal opinion is different to notability. MicroSupporter (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Again, not a response to what I actually wrote. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
It is a very clear response to exactly what you wrote. Can't say it clear enough. MicroSupporter (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@MicroSupporter: How did you stumble upon Verdis and micronationalism? 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 13:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Are we still going on about this? I learnt about it through the internet and continued to build up my interest through there. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, to rephrase, I meant did you learn about micronationalism through Verdis first or via a different micronation or source? 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 15:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I learnt about Verdis after expressing interest in other micronations first. I will not continue to answer your questions. MicroSupporter (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I find this user's statement that they learnt about Verdis after expressing an interest in other micronations to be very suspect. Firstly, as mentioned above, their first micronation-related edits all concerned only Verdis. Secondly, they stated at WikiProject Micronations that they were considering creating more Wikipedia pages on micronational leaders, which included Daniel Jackson of Verdis, and all the ones they had in mind (excluding only Jackson) had extensive coverage and their micronations all had Wikipedia entries. This raises an eyebrow. For instance:
Verdis is the only micronation with no Wikipedia article prior to this user's creation of it. Additionally, Daniel Jackson is mentioned very scarcely in the media compared to the above micronationalists, though most notably Jackson is mentioned on the Spanish-language La Nacion and Spanish-language El Periòdic to give due credit, yet these are only two sources and the latter is much less prevalent than the above. In addition, the user states they speak English, French and Spanish, however almost every source on the article for Verdis is in a different language to those three, not to mention the English sources, Total Croatia News and Medium, are very obscure (and unreliable) compared to the aforementioned sources above. Even most of the other micronations that this user mentions appear in some academia or work of literature, such as Micronations and the Search for Sovereignty (2022)—to give an example of a work published after Verdis was founded—yet Verdis is not. Based on these given factors, I find it highly unlikely that this user just happened to stumble upon Verdis after researching micronationalism. Furthermore, there are even several more micronations with coverage from sources in English, Spanish and French (many with articles on a Wikipedia) that appear more prominently in search results than Verdis. This to me, at least, shows a clear connection of the editor with the subject that would indicate a conflict of interest. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 20:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
What in gods name are you honestly on about? Just because I show an interest in Verdis does not mean I am affiliated with that micronation or its 'president'. To add on to that, I mentioned adding Daniel Jackson in the list with other micronational leaders since he does have coverage on articles solely mentioning him in the title. I think you're overthinking this all and I don't know what you want form me. Just because I show interest in something doesn't mean I'm affiliated with it. It is just more eye-catching to me and I found it through researching Liberland. You seem to have some desperation to take me and anything I contribute to on Wikipedia off the platform. MicroSupporter (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Jim Karahalios

Obviously a relative of above subjects who is adding unsourced content to both articles. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 04:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I have to say that even if the first WP:LEAD sentence
"Jim Karahalios is a Canadian politician who has never been elected to public office"
is factually correct, it sounds like strange WP-writing to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Srushti Tawade

A new editor "Srushti Tawade" appears to have a user page with the start of an autobiographical profile of a rapper with the same name. Although there is not yet have a Wikipedia article for "Srushti Tawade" there is recent news coverage about her. This account may be used by the rapper herself, a fan of hers, or by her management/promotional company. If this is the rapper herself or one of her promotors then there is a COI problem. If the account was opened by a fan it could be misleading to imply that the fan has a close personal or professional connection with her. Blue Riband► 19:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Blue Riband: You have not notified the user that you have opened this discussion, as you are required to do. Also, the user has done nothing but create a user page. I see no COI here. Let's assume good faith here. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
You're right, I failed to give that editor the ANI notice. The Userpage however appears to be using Wikipedia as a webhost but that's a different topic. I'll leave it alone as this appears to have been a bad call on my part. Blue Riband► 13:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Dmitry Utkin

I’ve twice given an explanation of why I made my changes to that page. Editors Extorc and Mhorg reverted them without any comment or explanation why, even after I asked. Subsequently IP address 103.240.204.243 reverted them once more and user El C locked the page.

Not only am I taken aback by the lack of explanation of what’s wrong with my changes and the repeated, blanket reversion of said changes, but also given some of the editors’ profiles (showing Russian inclinations) and some of the IP origins and/or profile locations indicating India (where in recent months many Russian troll accounts have appeared all over Twitter and the wider internet), I wish to raise the recent edit history of that page as a potential Conflict Of Interest. I have a suspicion (which I would be perfectly happy to be disproven of) that some of the recent reversions on that page were not made in good faith. Rather, I wonder if they are part of a whitewash effort made by bad-faith actors working on behalf of either the Russian government or perhaps one of its many agencies.

I would like to raise:

  • Getting an explanation for why my changes were inappropriate.
  • The changes getting reapplied if that turns out to be the result of this discussion.
  • Unlocking of that page and re-locking after the changes are in place, if it really needs to stay protected.
  • An investigation into coordinated insincere efforts (Russian trolling, propaganda) on the part of editors (three) and IP addresses (one) involved.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.227.0 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted the tangent. The reverts look like good faith attempts to prevent content deletion, but in the future you should start a talk page section before posting here. Per WP:GS/RUSUKR all war-related pages have been extended-confirmed protected, so there's definitely no COI on El C's part. RAN1 (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for that! I’m quite new to Wikipedia’s policies and procedures so my apologies for misunderstanding how to handle such edit conflicts.
Will definitely look at talk page in the future if I run into something like this again. I’d looked at the other editors’ talk pages instead before posting here but it didn’t seem appropriate to add my questions to those. Realized now there’s an actual talk page tab on the article itself, rather than inside the edit history table somewhere (I think that must’ve just been my being blind).
I still think it’s weird that the other 2 editors would be acting out of concern for “content deletion”, that almost seems like they didn’t look to see what content was being deleted and why, even though I explained that in my edit comments. Hopefully your removal of the Wagner tangent does not also get reverted also..
Thanks again, RAN1! 67.160.227.0 (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Citations to Ian von Hegner

These three accounts (non overlapping, not sock puppetry) are all singularly devoted to adding mentions of Ian von Hegner to the encyclopedia, including mentioning them by name in articles [1], Replacing citations by others with citations by Hegner ([2]), and writing a biography of Hegner (Draft:Ian von Hegner). Talk page messages directed to the currently active account (GLORIFICUS1) have gone unanswered. They don't even communicate in edit summaries. Is this actvitity appropriate? MrOllie (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

User:GLORIFICUS1 has been blocked by ToBeFree and I have blocked the other two accounts for WP:REFSPAM. Suspect likely undisclosed COI as well. SpencerT•C 09:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Cannabidiol (CBD)

Making repeated edits at Cannabidiol. These are rather WP:PROFRINGE and are original research woven around primary sources, but the kicker comes at the end in the mention of

Authentic products (such as those supplied by Healthcare International Research)

It turns out "Healthcare International Research" is a company[3] promoting "very best in CBD products". So the whole thing smells off. More eyes please! Bon courage (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The post is a correctly cited and referenced addition relating to the Origins of Cannabidiol. Are you disputing this? The mention of a company is to emphasise the salient point of ensuring readers do research on obtaining genuine CBD products. Why is this a particular problem to you? Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of a specific company's products. Ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I have no interest in HIR as a company but accept your point; it doesn't read well. I will remove any connection to a specific company and repost in accordance with the guidelines. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
if you repost you will be WP:EDIT WARRING and likely to get blocked. Your edit was bad from very many points of view; you need to discuss it at Talk:Cannabidiol. Bon courage (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
please explain 'many points of view'. How can a correctly cited and referenced addition be considered bad? certainly from an academic point of view it is merited. Are you even qualified to advise on this matter? Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


Frankly, I find your claim to have no connection to the company hard to believe. Either way though, you are required to discuss disputed content on the article talk page. And note that if you make any further attempt to hijack a disambiguation page in the manner you did here, [4], you will almost certainly be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Why have you just deleted another post that is correctly cited and referenced with no mention of any company? What is your motivation for deleting factual information that has been published correctly?? Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
If you are referring to my deletion of the material you added to the CBD page, I removed it because it should never have been added there in the first place. That isn't an article on cannabidiol. It is a disambiguation page, with links to relevant articles on subjects that the three-letter acronym 'CBD' may refer to. Something that should have been blindingly obvious from the content that was there before you edited it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
ahh.... so you deleted it because you don't like it... despite it being factual, informative, correctly referenced and relevant to the page. Are you actually aware that scientific research on the topic of CBD belongs on the CBD page? I believe the fundamental aim of Wikipedia is to share information in the public domain.... information that is correct. My additions are correct... your removal of them are based on your personal dislike of the facts. There is a colossal difference and quite frankly, you should be banned from this site unless you can counter-argue or debate in an evidence based manner. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
That response indicates there is either a serious WP:CIR or troll issue here. Do we have to wait for this to play out at length or can there just be a block now? Bon courage (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Again, your post is based on your emotions. Mine are based on facts. I accepted your initial comment about mentioning a company and amended my post accordingly. Now both of you are not satisfied with this and are trying to ban me. Why? because I am defending my argument in the correct way? What is your actual problem now? I don't have one other than supporting my addition the this site. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Nothing you have said so far suggests to me that you understand how Wikipedia actually works, what our requirements for content are, or how to appropriately deal with disputes. I suggest you take the time to do a little research before proceeding further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I will do that. In the meantime, please actually read what I post and take the time to explore the references and citations I include to support my work. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
References are irrelevant to the CBD disambiguation page, since article content doesn't belong there. As for our actual article on cannabidiol, content regarding medical claims is required to comply with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). If you haven't read that, do so. And then discuss the disputed content on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I am not making medical claims at all... I have never stated this. I have made an edition to the page titled 'Origins of Cannabidiol'. This is a completely different subject. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Discuss on the article talk page. Not here. On the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Note I've also just spot-checked one of the cited sources.[5] and see that text from it has been copy-pasted into Wikipedia. It's likely these edits need to be suppressed to avoid a WP:COPYVIO. Bon courage (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
    I haven't copy-posted this into Wikipedia. I only listed it as a reference. I hope this is clear. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
    Really wish you were already blocked, since this is just an utter fucking waste of time. The text

    The ECS emerges as a complex and widespread brain signaling system that plays a role in affective and cognitive functions, and psychotic disorders, and might be the target for the act of various therapeutic compounds. The elucidation of the ECS also sheds light on the human fascination for cannabis, which appears to be the only plant that produces a potent phytocannabinoid activator of the CB1R.

    from the source I linked was copied[6] by you thusly into Wikpedia:

    Further scientific research concludes that the ECS emerges as a complex and widespread brain signalling system that plays a role in affective and cognitive functions, and psychotic disorders, and might be the target for the act of various therapeutic compounds. The elucidation of the ECS also sheds light on the human fascination for cannabis, which appears to be the only plant that produces a potent phytocannabinoid activator of the CB1R

    So there is a problem. Bon courage (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
    Firstly, its only a waste of time because you are deciding to 'waste time on it'.
    Secondly, it's quite ironic that you report me to an administrator for defending my viewpoint in a polite and logical manner and here you are swearing to me on this post. I feel sorry for you. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
    At this point I'm going to disengage. I have half a suspicion this is a WP:LTA on the stir, but whatever - our long-suffering admin corps will need to deal with it. Bon courage (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, probably best you run off and go and annoy someone else. You have done nothing to help this situation. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
    To add, I welcome the investigation into Long Term Abuse; after all, you are the one who is swearing and making unfounded and unwarranted claims. I wish you a good day (if you know what that is!) Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @Qualitative CBD Researcher: I have no expertise on CBD or neurobiology or any other such topic, so I can't really comment on the content of your edits at CBD. I can comment that you should not be adding article content there at all. The purpose of that page is to point readers to a number of articles that might be related to the initialism "CBD". The content you are trying to add should be added to Cannabidiol, if you can get past the COI problems that have been noted here. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you for the information. This is the first time I have posted on here and your advice is greatly appreciated. I did initially post on the page titled Cannabidiol but it was removed due to a genuine COI claim. I will rewrite the post to reflect impartiality and post again soon. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
@Qualitative CBD Researcher: Given the degree of disagreement that has been exhibited here in this discussion, you might be wise to propose your edits at Talk:Cannabidiol prior to editing the page directly. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree; my post certainly ruffled some feathers today! None of it intentional I may add. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Article about Wikipedia page creation is itself covert advertising

Just thought this board might want to know about https://techbullion.com/american-wiki-editors-reviews-a-perfect-platform-offering-you-pristine-wikipedia-page-creation-services/ maybe someone wants to look into "American Wiki Editors", americanwikieditors.com ☆ Bri (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, their text is awkward, pretends that they are following our rules, and is clearly either written by non-native readers of English, or machine-translated; I'd guess the former. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I've spent the last 10 minutes laughing at all the stock photos on their home page, ROFL. ~StyyxTalk? 20:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Found a mention of Tech Bullion in Ozy (media company). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
@Bri: - looks like another front of https://www.americanwikispecialist.com/ and https://www.wikiconsultancy.com/ (already in WP:PAIDLIST). this shows a list of all the other sites hosted on their server - these reviews would suggest that they are all scams. SmartSE (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Just found another recent one of these: How to create your own Wikipedia page as a musician, creator. I didn't know about Hire the best Wikipedia specialists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  • americanwikieditors.com, wikiconsultancy.com, wikimaven.com, along many others are ABTACH Ltd (AKA Wikiprofessionals). I'll update its entry at WP:ABTACH. It's community banned. MarioGom (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

North Dakota State College of Science‎

The editing history and name of this editor - the college's mascot is the Wildcats - raise substantive questions about a conflict of interest, potentially an undisclosed paid editing relationship. The editor has not responded to a warning left on their Talk page so discussion from other editors may be necessary. ElKevbo (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Marketingcats is the official log-in of the NDSCS Marketing department, and changes made through this account are made by officials at North Dakota State College of Science (NDSCS). Official, updated content is being added to our page. Marketingcats (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
And consequently blocked per WP:ROLE. SmartSE (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
New account ContentCreator16s has resumed where the blocked account left off. Would appear to be the same person/people who are now again, undisclosed paid editors. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Blocked. --Yamla (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
@Marketingcats: The North Dakota State College of Science article isn't a page, it's an article - a subtle but important difference. It also isn't your article but an article about your institution. You have no right of ownership or control over the content of this article or any other on Wikipedia.
Your username violated Wikipedia's username policy against accounts named after organizations and also implying shared use.
You also did not properly disclose your employment in accordance with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure policy.
And because you have an inherent conflict of interest, you should not be editing the article directly, but limiting your involvement to submitting edit requests on the article's talk page.
If you wish to continue in any capacity, you should request an unblock on your talk page instead of creating new accounts in an attempt to evade the block. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
See also- UTRS appeal #64382 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The sad thing about this is that the NDSCS marketing department could make useful contributions to help improve the article about the college. They could provide much-needed independent citations for the many currently-uncited facts it has. They could upload better photographs, under open licence. And they could use the article's talk page to make suggestions for non-promotional changes to the article, in cases such as the appointment of a new college President. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

User:‎AdvocateSheikhKhalidSaifullah

Promotional article currently in draft space. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 23:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a simple case of a user creating an inappropriate draft. The matter can be handled by declining or deleting the draft (which has already happened). It does not need to be raised to the level of a noticeboard discussion. Also, you failed to notify the user that you had started this discussion, as required. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @Beemer69: Failed to properly ping you in my reply. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Eugenix hair sciences

Looks like a UPE trying to WP:GAME the system. The editor created Eugenix Hair Sciences yesterday, it was A7'd. Today he created Eugenix hair sciences. It was A11 but withdrawn for some reason. Sent to Afd. Seems to be a clear coi. scope_creepTalk 03:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I withdrew the nomination because I didn't feel an administrator would think it was clear cut enough for a CSD. I pinged the admin that left the initial COI notice as I felt they might have a better judgement on this issue. I agree it appears that it is a paid editor but they have posted on their page that they are not being directly or indirectly compensated. They have also authored Rohit Raj Goyal which does seem to pass muster but haven't dug in depth. Unbroken Chain (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
@Scope creep: there was also Pradeep sethi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), founder of the company. I don't find their explanation credible so shall block. SmartSE (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
@Smartse: That confirms it. scope_creepTalk 12:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Is [email protected] still monitored?

I'm trying to deal with a complex case of suspected WP:UPE that involves private information. Is [email protected] still monitored? Or would it be better to contact a functionary/ArbCom directly? Thanks for the help! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It is monitored, but doesn't seem to be very fast. Lots to watch, not enough people. - Bilby (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Good to know, no issues with waiting, just didn't want to wait in vain. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
It's absolutely still monitored, but as Bilby says there's a fair bit of work involved in reviewing most submissions so it's not a fast process. :) firefly ( t · c ) 12:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Time for patience, then. I understand why each case would move slowly. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Nearables

Appears to be a fairly old case of WP:COI. Editor only contributed this page, and may potentially be a paid editor for the company. Could provide more details pursuant to WP:Harassment#Exceptions if needed.

The page also does not seem to contain much encyclopedic information on its own, everything but the one product line described seems to be roughly "Internet of things, with a different name". Might potentially be a good candidate for deletion or merge into another article, however I must admit I do not know the appropriate rules and procedures fully.

Note: I decided to take this directly to COIN instead of user's talk page lack of contributions on the account for 8 years. Aveaoz (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I've started an Article for Deletion discussion. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

TechnologyOne edit request open since February

Hi folks – I know this isn't the typical use of this forum, but hoping it's OK for this somewhat unusual case. I have some edit requests for my TechnologyOne client that have been open for almost nine months with no response. I believe the requests are straightforward and presented helpfully (if not, please let me know); I think it's just that no one has had a chance to look at them. If anyone is willing to take a look and respond on even just a few items, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks much. Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Scope Creep, you have now removed this twice, but it seems a perfectly reasonable thing to post here, and such requests used to be more common. What are COI editors trying to follow the rules supposed to do, if the article talk page produces no result for a long time? Or was there a special page for such requests? You say this is the "wrong venue", but what is the right one? Please DON'T remove it again without discussion. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Johnbod: This is not the venue for it, your unlikely to get any help here. I don't what the proper venue is. What is most galling here, is this editor who is already being paid to update the article, begging us for help, as the process is not going fast enough for her liking, i.e. she can't get her bonus, because her kin is flooding Wikipedia with useless paid content. What is needed is perspective on your part. scope_creepTalk 22:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree they are "unlikely to get any help here", but that is hardly the point (most requests on wikipedia space are hopeless). She is following the proper procedure we ask COI editors to do, and you have not answered my questions: What are COI editors trying to follow the rules supposed to do, if the article talk page produces no result for a long time? Or was there a special page for such requests? You say this is the "wrong venue", but what is the right one? You may find it "galling" that she is getting paid & you are not, but the proper question to ask is: would these changes improve the encyclopaedia? And if so, can I be bothered to okay/make them? You may not be, but others might. Actually I see that User:Pigsonthewing, a much more experienced editor than you, has now updated the article with some of them. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Clout God

User's sole edit was to create the apparently autobiographical draft. This report is being filed on the suggestion of Cullen328 after he claimed that stage names were allowed under current policy.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Definitely a COI and should be advised on the particulars of WP:SOAPBOX. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Reggio and Draft:عبد العالي انور

User has stated on the Commons, where they've been uploading copyvios related to these draft articles, that they are the manager of Reggio and Abdelali Anouar (عبد العالي انور), thus implicity that they are receiving compensation. WP:PAID says to report suspected undisclosed paid editors directly here (or to ANI), I thus assume the direction that this board is for when "talk page discussion has been attempted and failed" to be limited to COI issues rather than PAID. Эlcobbola talk 18:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Century Plyboards again

This was a topic at COIN back in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 93#Archive 93. I don't have time for full followup but it looks like new sections titled awards and products were added today (I deleted the latter as it was sourced to press releases). These are of course hallmarks of PR activity. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Timtempleton

Bri, scope_creep and I have long had concerns that Timtempleton (reported here several times previously) is an undisclosed paid editor and recently they were confirmed to be socking with TechnoTalk (reported here in July) to recreate articles and keep them at AFD e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Contentsquare_(2nd_nomination). Considering that, I think it is as close to certain as it is possible to be, without having direct confirmation, that they were being paid to edit. There is unfortunately a lot of cleaning up required given that they've made 18000 edits between them. I've created User:Smartse/TT with a survey of their contributions and I have been finding plenty of problems: 10 year old spam, refspamming from technotalk, misrepresentation of sources (compare with Bluerasberry's version) etc. Many articles meet WP:CORP but there may be others like Kareo with dubious notability. SmartSE (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You forgot called out in 2014, 2016, and 2020 already. Jeesh. I was really miffed about having a respected admin allow TT to exploit the workaround (if it's even worth that term) of salting policy as noted in the 2016 link above. Are we making progress here? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I wish that we had this process automated:
  1. autogenerate list of all the companies whose articles were made
  2. query Wikidata for email addresses of those companies
  3. automatically draft an email to each company, publishing that draft on wiki in public
  4. send the email out asking the company to pay to clean the mess that they paid to make in Wikipedia against the rules
What a mess and burden to put onto volunteers. Companies should pay money to clean up after themselves. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I wish. What an absurd conversation that was about datacore. Its like doublespeak, or more accurately doublethink. The list needs to be carefully examined, in light of TT2 adding his brands per WP:ASTONISH and of course the rest. I will work away at it, in my odd hours. scope_creepTalk 00:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Block evading comment
  • Tim here, with a new account. I’d have responded earlier if you hadn’t blocked me. I told you before why I’m doing company edits and articles. I’m doing it to get into companies, so I can do other Marcom work. I’m also doing it for fun. There are few editors as prolific with business articles as I am. If I get one of these companies as a client, then I no longer edit their articles. You can see in the edit history that many of my articles haven’t been edited by me in years. And I see Executive DBA Council was just prodded. That’s a group of schools including where my wife got her PhD. If I was paid, don’t you think I’d have kept it updated? You’re jumping to conclusions. PrematureBlock (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
    • @PrematureBlock: Setting aside the issues of creating a new account to evade a block, your motivations for editing Wikipedia (I’m doing it to get into companies, so I can do other Marcom work) is a blatant conflict of interest. Whether or not you are paid for your writing here, your desire to write for companies so that you can impress them and get hired on to do other Marketing Communications work directly conflicts with the need for Wikipedia to have neutral, unbiased writing. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
    • I've blocked PrematureBlock; they're either Timtempleton on a proxy, or someone trying to joe job them. In either scenario, they shouldn't be editing. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
@Blablubbs: TimTempleton is back. scope_creepTalk 07:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Blocked. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Mick Clegg

Has one of the obvious signs of either UPE or COI editing. Onel5969 TT me 17:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969: What sign would that be? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd be happy to tell you off-wiki, but am hesitant to post, thus giving potential COI/UPE editors hints at how to avoid being spotted. Onel5969 TT me 20:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
@One15969: We'll be hard pressed to discuss this matter given that secrecy. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
No worries, then don't discuss it. No skin off my nose. First and last time I report to COIN. No reason to help COI/UPE editors evade detection. Onel5969 TT me 02:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
@Onel5969: It looks like case of coi. scope_creepTalk 00:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@Scope creep and Onel5969: Apparently there are esoterica of COI of which I am unaware. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
From my view, there are multiple signs of possible COI in this article, WikiDan61, and the creator of the article can be asked if they have a close connection to the subject and to disclose per WP:COI if they do. The article can also be edited to tag, remove, or source unsourced information and rewrite puffery. Beccaynr (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Since we're going to be all hush-hush here (not a good look for Wikipedia, in my opinion), I'll just note that bring an editor to COIN for their very first edit seems a bit WP:BITEY. But hey, that's just me. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

In the additional notes section of the Welcome banner at the top of this page, it says: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Ordinary talk page discussion does not appear to have happened yet. The Welcome section also states Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. I think it would be helpful to start by discussing COI concerns with the new editor on their Talk page and then returning to this noticeboard with evidence if there are continuing concerns after that discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi. My apologies, I haven't ever posted here before and came at the suggestion of another editor. But it's still my responsibility. However, a note was placed on their talk page on 11/2, with a link to the appropriate policy/guideline, and they have ignored that message. Unsurprising, since they have simply created this draft and then never edited again. Onel5969 TT me 19:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Wendy Oldfield

EstevanOlivier used the edit summary 'Rewrite of full article as requested by Wendy Oldfield appointed social media manager.' The edits included what looks to me as highly promotional language, 'creator of beautiful music', 'During their Six (6) year reign they had a number of hits including the ever popular...', 'Wendy Oldfield is the Mother of three amazingly talented children...'. The user has removed the inline referencing. The edits are also poorly written. I do apologise as I'm writing this on my phone and can't link to the Special diffs.

They have added links to YouTube, Apple Music, Sound cloud and others. I have reverted their edits twice and left a COI notice on their talk page to which they haven't responded. I've added the noticeboard template to the users talk page.

Any advice on anything I might have missed on this report would be well received on my talk page. Thank you, Knitsey (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I've now reverted this for a third time. I don't want to get into trouble with edit warring. Am I correct that in this case it's ok to keep reverting or should I leave it for an Admin? Knitsey (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for stating your reverts with such aggressive responses (The edits are also poorly written.) I must say in real life it would be considered rude of you to talk like that or stating things in such a way.
Rather assist in fixing what you find wrong as we all don't just fully understand platforms as you have so specifically made out to have mastered.
Assisting and building people in such matters will help things move in the correct fashion rather than being as arrogant as you have come over with your statements and non helpful attitude. EstevanOlivier (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
This is real life. - Roxy the dog 22:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
? EstevanOlivier (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Just a response to your in real life remark. In the meantime I have looked at the article and history and think Knitsey's actions are correct. The edit they have last reverted is entirely WP:PROMOtional, and should not be allowed to stand. I make no WP:COI judgement. - Roxy the dog 22:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
From what i understand in that respoce in my talk page it seems like you feel im getting paid for this?
This is some one I know that aked me to do it as she does not know how to an im not being paid im simply trying to help her.
With that said i am willing to work with you so we can update it as the current one is very outdated.
Would you prefer me emailing it to you so you can then assist me and we can have that profile updated they way you would like as i am also new here and dont fully know how to do this without you finding faults? EstevanOlivier (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I have page blocked EstevanOlivier from the article due to edit warring and non-neutral promotional editing with a conflict of interest. Cullen328 (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Goodday @Cullen328 I have just visited you Wiki page and must say you seem like an interesting person and even found some articles I have interest in.
With all that now has happened and I accept the actions taken.
May I ask if you would help me update the information in the way you would like it, I am totally willing to work with you and form an article update that you will accept as it seems I’m not good with this.
From your profile I see you follow the guides with great passion and understanding and would ask for help.
Please let me know how I can give you the updated info so we can post it correctly
Regards EstevanOlivier (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Strange President

Along with Draft:Arseniy Lytar, there are obvious signs of either UPE or COI. And their behavior subsequent to being called on it, would seem to suggest the former.Onel5969 TT me 19:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm also curious about the sudden involvement of Dmitry Nikonov on the latest draft version. Liz Read! Talk! 01:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Erica brigade

This editor has essentially admitted to undisclosed paid COI editing here, and if what they're saying is true, they've been engaging in this activity for years. I had reverted their unexplained change to File:John Wick - Chapter 4 promotional.poster.jpg which was contrary to WP:FUR and WP:FILMPOSTER, and in response they openly admitted that they were editing on behalf of Brigade Marketing LLC, a film marketing agency. This user has edited a large amount of film-related articles since 2016, all without disclosing their COI (their user page is empty, and none of the articles they edited are tagged), and their talk page is littered with deletion notices for film-related images they uploaded in the past. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeeeeep. Definite COI and, in my humble opinion, should be indef'd for unpaid promotional while we sort out all the damage she's done, as she is clearly WP:NOTHERE. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I concur. They have clearly been here long enough to know better. BD2412 T 23:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi there,
Apologies, the current editor was unaware about the Wikipedia guidelines (or the notices that have come up in the past). I have reviewed the guidelines and would like to verify that to avoid COI moving forward we will provide one of the following:
a statement on our user page,
a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions Erica brigade (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Indeffed. Stating that "the current editor was unaware about the Wikipedia guidelines" makes it clear that in addition to being an obviously undisclosed paid editor, this is a WP:ROLE account: "Because an account represents your edits as an individual, "role accounts", or accounts shared by multiple people, are (as a rule) forbidden and blocked". BD2412 T 06:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
All of the articles edited by them need to be tagged with {{Connected contributor (paid)}}, and possibly {{Undisclosed paid}} as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Looking at their edit history, I also have copyvio concerns. It's not a long list, though. I'll go through it manually over the next few days. BD2412 T 18:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Alice Blue (company)

Two editors have submitted slightly different promotional drafts about the same company. They appear to be two different probably paid editors hired by the same company (or by its agency). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I can definitely see the COI, these two should be asked to reveal if they're being paid or not. 𝘾𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙢𝙖𝙣2917 (talkpage) 16:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Contextualise was asked a few days ago. I have just posted the standard COI inquiry to Savitha5267. They have also been asked whether they are using multiple accounts or coordinating. My assumption is that they are two different humans being paid by the same company, and they might or might not be coordinating. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh. I hadn't checked. It seems very plausible they are being paid without disclosing, but we should make sure 𝘾𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙢𝙖𝙣2917 (talkpage) 12:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Ovedc

Those two, as well as other articles. The pattern of editing suggests that the user, who have had a run in for undisclosed paid editing seems to be under the impression that as long as they disclose they're paid, they're free to make promotional puffery and mold the articles to be more favorable to the clients than encyclopedic. Inclusive of, but not limited to this edit. I've reviewed many of their edits and I am seeing a clear conflict between encyclopedic goals vs doing advocacy editing in the best interest of their clients. Graywalls (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but this only half of the problem. The other half is: he submit drafts and at least 70 percent of them don't approved and he submit PR stuff again and again, and the reviewrs need to work hard to check them, User:Ovedc exhaust the volunteers trying to check his drafts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1FC:B2D2:0:0:B37:3CCD (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I find this edit very questionable where the COI/U tagged the code to make the contents they do not like invisible from public view. Graywalls (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Gavriel D. Rosenfeld

The subject created this autobiography in 2008, and has been a WP:SPA in the fourteen years since, including bookspamming [7]. That's a long time to ignore WP:COI concerns. The second account is a new WP:SPA. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I have pageblocked Gavrielrosenfeld from editing Gavriel D. Rosenfeld. I am undecided about the other account. Cullen328 (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Cullen328. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Richard H. Ebright

See this relevant ANI discussion. In brief, editor has only edited this article since creation 11 years ago, and mainly to add more of the guy's papers to the page, until at one point there were dozens for every sentence [8]. They edit warred ([9][10][11]) for years ([12][13][14][15][16][17]) to keep them on the page, calling any attempted removal vandalism. Only edits to any other pages have been to increase Ebright's citations or add the article's wording to related subjects ([18][19][20]) I and another user have attempted to discuss possible COI ([21][22]), to which the editor has never responded, while continuing to revert.

Of note, there are several news pieces about Ebright and his topics of interest written by someone named "Barton Reppert" [23] [24][25], a pretty unusual name. I know what you're thinking -- Shibbolethink just OUTED this user! To the gallows with him! But importantly... that guy died about 9 months before this account was created [26][27] so, unless a lot of people are really really wrong about the space time continuum, it probably isn't him. Just something I noticed that's maybe a reason why this account has the name it does.

Anyway, do we think this user has a COI? Thanks — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears that every single one of the editor's contributions is directly related to Ebright. Perhaps the contribution history isn't definitive, as we're only talking about 83 or so edits. Then again, those edits are all since 2011. Being that focused on a single person for that long a time...a COI certainly seems likely. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree that there is a COI here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Prior to this listing I had already Pblocked the user from that one article for 3 months in response to an ANI post. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Question: What if a user inserted a link to a web shop...

...where a subject of an article may be purchased. Is that acceptable? I, following the algorithm of actions suggested on WP:COI have already written on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Hidden_ads_in_the_Liniment_article, but no one have replied. Should I just revert the edits of that user? Tosha Langue (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It's just link spam. Reverts and spam warnings like {{uw-spam1}} are the appropriate response. MrOllie (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Good to know! Thanks, @MrOllie Tosha Langue (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Marquis Who's Who

An edit summary mentions "talks with forbes to remove the article." This suggests that the anonymous editor is associated with the subject of the article, otherwise how would they know what is going on between the subject and Forbes?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be coi. Perhaps working for the company or an affiliate whose dependent on the quality of the data. scope_creepTalk 16:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Agree, the IP information tool shows that the internet access of the IP is corporate, owned by a business. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
They've edited again but have yet to comment here.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The editor doesn't like those two sections and been on a bit of rampage today. Perhaps that will bring them to this board, but I doubt it. Its a classic whitewashing exercise. Thankfully he has been page-blocked by Widr this afternoon. Thanks Widr. scope_creepTalk 18:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hainosaurus boubker

Two users have been edit warring a paper into the Hainosaurus article describing a new species, that was published in a predatory journal operated by SCIRP. One of the users, THRempert, self-identifies as the lead author of the paper, while the other has an easily discoverable connection with one of the papers other authors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi. A new species of Hainosaurus was named and I would like it to be listed on Wikipedia. The paper is past peer-review and published in the Open Journal of Geology. The species is named in accordance with International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN)'s guidelines and you can find the species registration on ZooBank's official registry of zoological nomenclature. THRempert (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
If you want your research to be recognized, maybe don't publish it in a predatory journal then. Sorry, but Wikipedia does not accept citations to such dubious sources. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi. The species exists. Open Journal of Geology is not a predatory journal. The paper underwent peer review from 2 expert reviewers whose comments greatly helped the final publication. I think the discovery of a new species should be listed on Wikipedia, no? THRempert (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure @Headbomb: will have something to say about that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
While I applaud your research and how it emphasizes that there exists a Moroccan tylosaurine that deserves to be recognized, the shady reputation of SCIRP is enough of a concern to be considered an unreliable source for Wikipedia. Even if they have been peer reviewed as you say, we cannot be assured that the reviewers are of the standard necessary for publication in a more robust journal unless transparency is provided (such as the reviewers revealing themselves if privacy policies permit it) that conclusively shows Open Journal of Geology is an exception. Macrophyseter | talk 23:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Open Journal of Geology is most definitely a predatory journal because Scientific Research Publishing is most definitely a predatory publisher. See WP:VANPRED#Use in the real world vs use on Wikipedia for when predatory journals can be cited on Wikipedia (i.e. nearly never, unless an external reputable third party has endorsed the research). Citing yourself is also extremely discouraged under WP:SELFCITE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
For reference, the paper under dispute is doi:10.4236/ojg.2022.1211042. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
To add, registration on ZooBank is not going to help here because we're concerned about validly described species in a reliable journal per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Also, ZooBank does not determine whether a species was reliably described, just that a taxon was established that follows the (rather loose) ICZN rules; for example, several of Raymond Hoser's taxonomic vandalisms are validly registered[28] and remains valid per ICZN ruling despite being unrecognized by pretty much all of herpetology. Macrophyseter | talk 02:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Scores on the doors

Creator and primary contributor, who has almost no edits outside of this page, has repeatedly added promotional WP:COATRACK content for the commercial website http://www.scoresonthedoors.org.uk/, e.g. this series of diffs from August 2021, and repeatedly violated WP:ELPOINTS#2 by placing inline external links instead of using reference tags. "Scores on doors" as a concept does seem to be notable (e.g. [29]), so deletion is probably not a viable option. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur that there does indeed seem to be a COI here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Definite COI - should be advised on COATRACK and if they cannot comply, should be blocked from editing this page and a COI notice added to the talk. I would agree it does not appear to be notable, would recommend AfD. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scores on the doors. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Sbhpost

It is time we acknowledge that Sbhpost is Greshun De Bouse. If you look at the user's talk page, you will see that I and other editors have suspected it for some time, but this edit sent me over the edge with how blatant it is. She created her own article and then tried to shove her name unsourced into a bunch of other articles. She also did the same for Henry Hooks, Sandy Hooks, and more recently Opal Hooks, who are revealed in her article she wrote on EverybodyWiki (which Wikipedia will not allow me to link to) to be relations of hers. She has a bunch of holidays she has made up, a couple of which seem to have a tiny bit of news coverage, but the more you look into it the more it all seems like a big grift. --Pokelova (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

After a WP:BEFORE search on Greshun De Bouse (which is quite a 'down the rabbit hole' ride of self promotional claims in various places), I have nominated the article for deletion as there is nothing substantial to meet notability here, let alone dealing with the likely WP:COI concern. Melcous (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
@GPL93: That should not be in the lede. Its a single sentence in the pdf transcript and is essentially WP:NPOV as its not be verified. Its a WP:SPS source. I'll take out. I've taken it out. On the Henry L. Hooks the notability criteria is super-tenuous or tenuous at best (to be more accurate). Going around WP:PUFFing stuff up is damaging to wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 12:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
@Scope creep: I have already removed it, as well as another addition to Gordon Parks in which the editor added an incredibly distorted photo of Parks not even looking at the camera and signing a book taken by Hooks that they described as "iconic". There are similar additions to other articles at well that have not yet been removed. I'd support Henry L. Hooks being draftified and submitted for review, which should have been done anyway per policy. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
@GPL93: The editor seems to be puffing Hooks, where ever they edit, for example at: George Brown Jr. where he states "was famed photojournalist". Seems to be pushing Greshun De Bouse as well. scope_creepTalk 13:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
@GPL93: I think there is a clear WP:COI through the family member Greshun De Bouse. scope_creepTalk 13:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
@Scope creep: I think Pokelova's analysis establishes a definite link. Sbhpost has also either completely ignored or been incredibly combative towards the multiple requests for a COI disclosure and continues to make COI edits directly to articles without following procedure and create COI articles. It looks like the autobiography is on track for deletion once its AfD closes. At this point, I think an indef block is probably the best course of action. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Awdhesh Mishra

Edits suggest Awdhesh123 is Awdhesh Mishra or a close associate.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I have posted a {{uw-coi}} warning in their talk page. It is generally more appropriate to post this warning first, rather than reporting to WP:COIN. MarioGom (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Allegany College of Maryland‎

This editor has admitted to a connection with the college but has not complied with our terms of service and continues to edit the college's article. ElKevbo (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Technically, they can continue editing the article. A clear disclosure needs to happen though. I see there is already discussion at User talk:Sweetpea05, which is going in the right direction. I don't think there's any action to be taken, other than explaining the user how to disclose properly? MarioGom (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, @User:MarioGom isn't there a prohibition against undisclosed paid editing? Until they disclose whether or not they are getting paid for what they write here (I think it's very likely that they are), they should cease editing the page.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Sure, it needs an appropriate disclosure. But there's an ongoing conversation in their talk page about it. It looks like they could use some assistance, but it seems obvious there's no attempt at concealing the fact that it's paid and who the employer is. MarioGom (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that. They added a malformed paid editing notice to their User page but they quickly removed it and haven't replaced it. In the meantime, they've continued to heavily edit the article of their employer despite our advice. I've raised these issues with them directly but they may need further assistance or perhaps a block if they continue doing what they're doing. ElKevbo (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I have posted another message to their talk page. MarioGom (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Godblesshealth

User:Godblesshealth is a single purpose account that cites only the work of a Yating Yu, with links to the ResearchGate copy predominantly displayed. In one such case, the text from the journal article was directly copied (Special:Diff/1070045475). Such behavior is also repeated on Chinese Wikipedia. (zh:Special:Diff/70014420) All of Yu's work has been cited 61 times based on Yu's ResearchGate profile, and the number decreases if self-reference is excluded. An undue weight has been given to Yu. I suspect a COI and would like to invite the noticeboard for discussion. -Mys_721tx (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this with the editor in question? ElKevbo (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
This editor appears to have only edited over 6 days in February. Looking at the edits, they do appear to be WP:CITESPAM and could, if confirmed, be deleted. I suspect that discussion is going to get nowhere if this editor has not been active for 9 months.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't really understand the complaint. "cited based on Yu's profile", I don't know what that means, and what does "the number decreases..." mean? Yes, we seem to have a case here of someone creating a Wikipedia account in order to add their own articles--but then, the articles seem to be solid, published in acceptable journals, and on top of that, the editor seems to be long gone. I do not want the baby thrown out with the bathwater. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Like other indexing services, ResearchGate counts the number of citations of an author. The total number of times an author has been cited is listed under their (self-created) ResearchGate profile. WP:WEIGHT requires us to give due weight of a point of view, even if said view is published in a reliable source. Considering that a faculty in Gender Studies has triple digits of citations, a graduate student with double-digits of citations hardly represent a majority view. Yu has also inflated their citation counts by citing themselves in these publications; the number of third party citations will be lower than the total, hence the decrease. Mys_721tx (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh now I get it. "has been cited" meant" has been cited elsewhere, and by including their work here, they upped their citations. Well, I don't believe that a faculty member in Gender Studies needs triple digits, and I think that that is a very unhealthy attitude: I sure hope you are not a dean or a provost somewhere. If the journal is peer-reviewed, then we can accept the article, and if you want to push WEIGHT that far you can do so on the article talk page. As for the editor, as an administrator I am often very critical of folks citing their own work, and had I seen this in February I might have done that. But I do not see any good reason to remove their citations, even if they were added under these circumstances. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Where did you get the impression (?) that "a faculty in Gender Studies has triple digits of citations"? Also, Dr. Yu is not merely a "graduate student" but someone already obtain her PhD and now serves as a post-doctoral researcher at a top 150 university. Also citations in Wikipedia do not really count as academic citations in serious academic instituions. Gnb093 (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I suggest this request be closed. Nothing conclusive has been produced and as per Velella the editor in question has been inactive for months. Also considering the amount of disruption Mys 721tx has been involved in that this is probably a case where further scrutiny is not in their interest. Mkdw talk 21:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
This thread was 2 days away from being archived had you chosen not to have the last word. I have not reverted anything you are disputing over nor have I gone against any advice I sought, namely Drmies' and Enterprisey's . If these do not satisfy you, you are more than welcome to file a report to WP:ANI. Mys_721tx (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Comet Research Group and User:Incendiex90

User has a COI notice on the article talk, due to their entire wikipedia editing career being spent on this article, and the related Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, and their stated connections to the group and its theories (See user page). Their edits can be summarized as:

  1. removing criticism of the group or the hypothesis, [30] [31] [32] [33]
  2. inflating the reach, standing, or importance of same, [34] [35] or
  3. arguing for long stretches of text about the hypothesis in detail while personal attacking others. (See: Talk:Comet Research Group#Misinformation, User talk:Incendiex90#No personal attacks)

Most importantly, the editor has continued to remove criticism and revert others attempts to bring the page to NPOV despite acknowledging their own COI. What are we to do in this situation? I believe the editor should be temporarily blocked from editing these particular pages, as they appear to be unable to separate the requirements of wikipedia from the personal connection they have to the subjects. As is customary on Wikipedia, connected editors should be suggesting edits and justifying them on the talk page, instead of directly editing the articles in question. I actually think this editor has a lot of potential for good contributions, and they are clearly very knowledgable on these subjects! So I very much want them to stay on Wiki. But I also want them to edit in compliance with our requirements for COI. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

If being a member of the CRG is a COI for the YDIH, then being a published critic of the YDIH should also be grounds for being blocked from editing the article.
I don't have any scientific publications of evidence supporting the YDIH, but I do have published editorials on the subject. The same goes for other frequent editors the the page, like Hoopes. Incendiex90 (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
If being a member of the CRG is a COI for the YDIH, then being a published critic of the YDIH should also be grounds for being blocked from editing the article. absolutely true. Well, to be more specific, those persons should not be editing in a way which inflates the importance of their own criticisms or increases the market share of their own criticisms. But they can and should be editing the article in general. And more specifically, Hoopes is at least one component removed from the subject as their PhD, academic writings, etc. are mostly in other fields, they just come to this subject as an outside observer of pseudoarcheology, etc. They don't have a COI for YDIH writ large, because they represent the mainstream view of anthropology and geology on this subject. Editing in line with that scientific consensus is not a COI. Editing in a way which promotes their own specific published criticisms would be. For you, editing about the YDIH in general would not be a COI, but editing in a way which removes published criticisms of the YDIH probably would be. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I really don't agree with your characterisation of my activities. All edits were made in good faith, adding citations to support claims, deleting unsupportable claims that were not properly cited, or cited at all, should not be seen as advancing a personal agenda, but rather as improving the quality of the article.
The entire framing of this section by ShibbolethInk seems to be implying I am not acting in good faith. Incendiex90 (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I actually think this editor has a lot of potential for good contributions, and they are clearly very knowledgable on these subjects! So I very much want them to stay on Wiki. But I also want them to edit in compliance with our requirements for COI. as I said above. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
You say I am knowledgable on the subjects, but then you tell me I should not be allowed to edit the very subjects I am knowledgable on... that's interesting :P
Is it enough that I promise to never personally edit the CRG page again?
Barring me from editing the YDIH page is uncalled for. Removing published criticism of the YDIH is not in itself a COI, provided it improves the quality of the article.
I would argue I have significantly improved the article, particularly by removing things you claim above to be improper. Hoopes edited in a way that promotes their own specific published criticisms; Hoopes has published extensively on the YDIH and its "pseudosciencific" origins, and clearly has a biased view of it, as evidenced by his own publications, and his repeated violations of the WP:SYNTH rule to make claims that aren't supported by the citations he used.
I'll cop the COI on the chin for the CRG article, it was improper of me to edit that again. However, barring me from the YDIH is improper. I am the number 1 expert on YDIH literature in the world, hence why I had such a problem with you using van Hoesel et al. 2014 to support claims it does not make. Incendiex90 (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
You say I am knowledgable on the subjects, but then you tell me I should not be allowed to edit the very subjects I am knowledgable on... that's interesting :P
Not exactly what I said. You should not edit those articles directly, until you show you are able to do so in a way which does not breach your COI. I think you are capable of doing so, and should do so in the future. In a way which is uncontroversial direct edits, and controversial ones suggested on the talk page, like everyone else who has a COI.
However, barring me from the YDIH is improper. I am the number 1 expert on YDIH literature in the world
That is precisely why you have a COI in that space. You can provide your expertise, I want you to do so. But I want you to do it in a way which complies with our COI policies.
Hoopes edited in a way that promotes their own specific published criticisms; Hoopes has published extensively on the YDIH and its "pseudosciencific" origins, and clearly has a biased view of it, as evidenced by his own publications, and his repeated violations of the WP:SYNTH rule to make claims that aren't supported by the citations he used.
Sure. But when other editors (who are not Hoopes) restore those edits, endorse those edits, or in any other way introduce material related to claims the group promotes pseudoscience, you should argue it out on the talk page. I am not sure whether Hoopes has a COI for the entirety of all criticisms about YDIH, that would seem quite far-reaching. it doesn't work tit-for-tat, as wikipedia advantages the scientific consensus in all things.
If there are independently reliably sourced claims that it's pseudoscience, and those claims are WP:DUE, then it's absolutely appropriate to put that in the article. You removing such criticisms would be a COI problem.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
The whole reason we have the COI guidelines is that the conflict tends to compromise judgment. No one doubts that you are editing in good faith and doing what you think is best for the article - the problem is that you are so close to the subject that your view of what is best for the article is hopelessly compromised by your non-Wikipedia interests. If your referred changes are really unambiguous improvements to the article, then others will recognize that when you propose them on the talk page. If they don't, you're probably too close to the issue. MrOllie (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I propose rather than barring me from editing the YDIH page, I am given a probationary period, after which an evaluation of my edits is conducted, and if they are found to be unsatisfactory in regards to the above criticisms, I will happily accept whatever fate.
Now that I am aware of this potential COI, which I was not informed of prior to this, I will double and triple check before I submit that my edit can't be seen as biased.
Is this agreeable? Incendiex90 (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
an evaluation of my edits is conducted, and if they are found to be unsatisfactory in regards to the above criticisms, I will happily accept whatever fate. - The system we have for this is that you propose changes on the talk page and other editors evaluate them before they go into the article. Please respect the Wikipedia community and the process we have developed for this. MrOllie (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

However, barring me from the YDIH is improper. I am the number 1 expert on YDIH literature in the world Great! We like to have experts here, but their COI must be recognized. We have blocked a Nobel Prize laureate because he, as the world's "number 1 expert", thought his edits deserved more respect than the edits of other editors. His appeal to authority did not work, and we had to indefinitely block him because he kept editing articles citing only his expertise. No, he had no higher status here than any other editor. The same applies to you. He was a pusher of fringe ideas and thought that we must accept his ideas, even though they were not published in RS. That's not how we work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Just curious, who is that Nobel Prize laureate anyway? 2001:4453:5C6:CB00:E972:893:80EF:721D (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Negar Mortazavi

User Nov2000 is on Wikipedia since 2020 and the only article they edited is Negar Mortazavi (also on fawiki). They keep removing notable controversies about the person and do not respond to talk page messages. there seems to be a connection between the user and the subject as Mortazavi herself denies the controversies on media.

P.S. I don't know where to report their disruptive editing on that article on enwiki (put some light if you know), but the COI case needs to be reviewed here. Thanks. Jeeputer Talk 23:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

For the time being, I have upped the page protection to admin-only (since it was already on autoconfirmed protection). I don't know what's right and what's wrong here, and have protected it on the version that existed as of the time I was brought in without regard to what side of the dispute happened to have the upper hand as of that time, but I would stress that this is not necessarily an endorsement of their version — it's just that the editwarring needed to stop right away, so I would obviously request that the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the disputed material be discussed on the talk page by people with more knowledge of the subject than I have. I will, of course, happily reduce it back to autoconfirmed protection again if and when the dispute is resolved, but since there was already partial page protection on it I didn't mess with the existing time. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@Bearcat: Thank you. I am trying to discuss but the user Nov2000 does not answer my questions in the talk page. are you going to review the COI issue? Jeeputer Talk 15:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Determining COI with any certainty requires tools that I don't have access to, such as the ability to check what IP a logged-in user is editing from, so that will have to be left to the team who have that expertise. My only concern here was ensuring that the immediate edit war stops while the rest of the process plays out. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I see no applicable evidence here. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
There are more applicable evidence which I will gather and send to the admin if needed. Jeeputer Talk 22:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
  • This case was archived without being closed. relisting it to the bottom. Jeeputer Talk 06:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Ncurses

Editor TEDickey has made edits on this page, for example here: [[36]] and here: [[37]]. In the article the (or latterly a) developer is listed as Thomas E. Dickey. These names are similar enough that I suspect a COI exists. Springnuts (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Per policy: While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. (the given examples don't demonstrate a conflict of interest) TEDickey (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
The point is that those two edits are several years apart, indicating that you have a track record of editing the article, notwithstanding an undeclared conflict of interest.
“COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. … Editors with a COI … are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. … COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead.”

Springnuts (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure: when it's a case where the focus of the topic might change - the potential conflict (rather than repair), I've tagged those for discussion. You might notice that one of the edits is by a user who is blocked, while the other repaired a broken link. More than once in the past, my edits have been discussed in this context, but no pattern of abuse such as you refer to has been observed in the previous instances. TEDickey (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I have very carefully made no suggestion of abuse. It was only when responding to a third opinion request that I noticed that there was an undeclared conflict of interest by you, as one party to an editing dispute. I raised the matter on your talk page, and within the third opinion. I haven’t looked in detail at the edits you have made over the years. Simply, I cannot think of any reason why you did not declare your conflict of interest, and I do not understand why you are resistant to editing in accordance with the COI policy above. But that’s only my opinion. I don’t have a dog in the fight. If the Admins are happy with the situation I’m happy too. Springnuts (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
So your statement (here: [[38]] made me interested, and I had look at your edit history on the article. I notice that in this edit here: [[39]] you changed the "developer" from "GNU Project" to "Thomas E. Dickey" who is ... er ... presumably yourself. No declaration of COI; no discussion on talk page; no request to another editor to make the change for you. I assume you were unaware of the COI guidelines, but now that you are, you will be able to recognise that this was not appropriate editing. There are another 6,577,411 articles on Wikipedia: it might be better to put your efforts there. With all friendship and good wishes, Springnuts (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
The original developer is missing from the info box, too, which is clearly bad. MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
yes... it's in the body of the topic. TEDickey (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
You might take the time to read the release notes for ncurses 6.2, which (no COI here, simply a WP:RS). TEDickey (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
or, if you like, you could read the section of the FAQ (which prompted this discussion). That was updated with this information in 2017 (4 years before I got around to updating the topic). TEDickey (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
but sure -- I'm being reminded that I shouldn't be in such a hurry to have corrections made. TEDickey (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I think most of these edits are fine. The infobox change is something a COI editor might want to request on the talk page rather than doing on their own. But I don't think anything needs to be done here? MarioGom (talk)

@TEDickey: you are not “being reminded that [you] shouldn't be in such a hurry to have corrections made”, you are being reminded that you should declare your COI and that you are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly. But the encyclopaedia is all the better for your input and your expertise: so you are encouraged to propose edits on the talk page. The point about this discipline is that you cannot know whether or not your conflict of interest is influencing your editing. With all good wishes, Springnuts (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Eurostar and me

Hi. I've dropped a {{connected contributor}} template on Eurostar because a family member is now working there, which allows me benefits such as travelling from St Pancras to Gare du Nord for next to nothing. I think this is the first time that a relative's employment has clashed with my own personal interests; the Eurostar article is one I would probably update anyway, perceived COI or not, and I have taken a couple of related articles, St Pancras and Ashford International railway station to GA. You could certainly get me in a pub and say, "the topic is 'Criticising Eurostar', go" and I'd ramble off a whole bunch of things (lack of service diversity, over-complicated pricing structure, uncompetitive rates for family holidays, etc etc etc). Am I just over-thinking this, or is putting a COI template up, however tenuous, the correct cause of action? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I can't speak for anyone else, but I appreciate anyone who is open about a potential COI, however unlikely it may be. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
IMO you have a conflict only if you have used or plan to use those benefits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Very much agree -- if you're not going to use those benefits, no need. But why wouldn't you? Assuming you do, I think a brief note is appropriate in the interests of full disclosure, but I don't think it should really affect your editing at all unless/until there's some sort of protracted issue, at which point I would encourage you to seek other opinions (which I tend to think you would do anyway). As ever, just one semi-informed opinion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Travel SPA IP editor, possible promotion

The IP geolocates to "Travelsa Vers" or I suspect travelsavers.com in Oyster Bay, NY. They have been making a lot of edits of a quasi promotional nature to travel-related pages and citing possibly their own newsletter like this. The newsletter's "about us" page says it's out of the same Oyster Bay, NY address as travelsavers.com's "about us" page. The cites to the newsletter started appearing consistently from this IP around June 2022 [40]. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that Cruise Planners helpfully lists several company executives intersecting with newsletter executives (link above). This is probably all the same thing and the IP is acting on behalf of the same blocked socks, maybe even the same individual but at least qualifies as WP:MEAT. MER-C blocked Travelwcp in 2020 for undisclosed paid editing. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Newsletter links

Anticipating we will want to delete most of these, here's articles where the travelmarketreport.com newsletter domain is linked. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Dana Strum

Obvious COI case on Dana Strum, with single purpose account User:Switch827 adding tons of promotional material and other garbage like this section. Its obvious the user is editing on Strum's behalf or even is Strum himself. The editor has never edited another page than this one. User has already removed the tag once, saying: Removed COI service message per Maintenance template removal rules that can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal. The tagging editor failed to initiate a discussion to support the placement of the tag, and there is no other support for the template --FMSky (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I've done a surface cleanup on the article, removed puff, promo and non-specific of which Switch827 has put in a lot. The editor has expanded it from 5k to about 140k. Hard to tell if he's a fan or has a coi. The langugage is very breezy style, non encyclopedic of a professional rock or metal magazine writer. It is generally well referenced. I've removed that section. scope_creepTalk 10:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

David Rosenboom

New editor who has admitted to WP:COI insists on reinstating unsourced content. More eyes requested, with appropriate sanctions if this accelerates. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

User has been blocked indef. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Catherine Opie and user:Csopie

User Csopie contributed a significant amount of content to the Catherine Opie wikipage, from 2007-2008, much of which has survived successive edits over the years. In their edit summaries they notified that they are in fact the artist Catherine Opie, I'm assuming they weren't aware of the Conflict of Interest rules. This seems like a candidate for the COI notice on the article. 19h00s (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Abraham Keita

The subject editor is being paid by the subject of the BLP. The editor moved the article from user space into article space. It was then moved to draft space by User:Onel5969. The subject editor then edited it, stating in an edit summary that they are being paid, and then moved it back to article space with the edit summary: "The WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict has been resolved.", which, of course it had not. Maybe they think that declaring a COI is sufficient. It was then moved back to draft space by User:Bonadea. A warning is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a proper {{paid}} disclosure on their userpage, so at least that is not an issue. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Maybe they think that that is all that is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

St. Andrews University (North Carolina)‎

This single-purpose editor only edits this one article. Their usename implies that they have a close relationship with the university as the institution's mascot are the Knights. Their former username, Detamblelibrary, is presumably linked to the university's library, the DeTamble Library. They have ignored the standard warning for editors who may have a paid editing relationship with a subject and continue to make substantive edits to the article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Electric Reliability Council of Texas

An IP belonging to EDF Energy's Houston office editing criticism of the Texas power grid is a clear conflict of interest.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Some of their edits seemed constructive like updating the leadership of ERCOT. I will review the edits and see what can be reinstated. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Anna Weyant

user:Jeffkov has contributed a significant amount to the Anna Weyant article. Weyant is a contemporary New York-based figurative painter. Weyant's relationship with her art dealer Larry Gagosian, and her subsequent auction sales figures, have been the subject of significant media attention, criticism, and critical discourse. The above user has over time attempted to remove references to the artist's controversies/relationship (Special:Diff/1124800500), directly copied and pasted copyrighted text about the artist's work from Harper's Bazaar/Fad Magazine/Artnet News/Barron's without direct attribution (several instances, including Special:Diff/1089215508), and generally used a promotional tone in edits on the page (Special:Diff/1088926400. I broadly restructured the page to be in line with the Visual Arts Manual of Style and asked the user on their talk page if they have a connection to the subject. The user reported having known the artist personally since her childhood. They claim this is not a conflict of interest, but I don't necessarily agree. Would appreciate insight from others as to whether this is indeed a COI issue.

I've made edits to the Anna Weyant article, but, as an aside, anyone with more editing experience should take a look at the page to make sure descriptions of her relationship/controversies have been written as encyclopedically as possible. 19h00s (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Looking at the linked diffs as well as your communication on the talk page, there are definite NPOV issues that lead me to believe he has a COI. I think he means well, but needs some additional coaching on the policy. eπ•💬 22:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Michael van Vuuren

User has confirmed he is the agent(s) of said player in question, and is removing sourced player stats because "we would prefer if certain teams weren't on the wikipedia". While the statistically sourcing may not be entirely accurate, no differing source has been provided. Editor may also be operating under IPs also per articles edit history. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I have warned the editor about the conflict of interest guideline. That could have been done as a first step, with a report here only if the problem continued. JBW (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Performance art

This user keeps reverting my edits without explanation. I added some references and removed some unreferenced statements about artist Abel Azcona, which they keep undoing. This user has been accused in the talk page of promoting him before. Also created the main article about the artist. Has apparently done this too on spanish wiki. Ye11owwa11paper (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:R/WallStreetSilver

Hiya, it is my first time sending things like this here, so I hope I am not wasting anyone's time or outing anyone.

I am afraid that SilverKnight1 might be breaking the COI rules over at Draft:R/WallStreetSilver. I noticed that over at Reddit we have [41], where a commentator (or redditor) at the WallStreetSilver subreddit (sub) - the same sub featured in the draft article - stated that "[t]he Wall Street Silver Wikipedia page was created on Nov. 22 by me [i.e. the redditor] but was quickly deleted", referring to an A7 by Happy-melon (deletion log here). The redditor also asked people to "[help] by adding relevant information" to the page lest it gets deleted again. another Reddit post asks others to "help with editing". And then we also have a third Reddit post. Here, a mod of the subreddit called for "quality notes" to be added to the draft page (Draft:R/WallStreetSilver).

A fourth Reddit post merits specific mention. Here, the redditor - also the original poster of the first Reddit post - asked fellow redditors to briefly summarize "the subreddit/purpose of the sub/goals", which would then be posted to the draft WP page. A reply (which starts with "Brief summary: WSS started as an offshoot of WSB") is found almost verbatim on the draft page, the pertinent section being:

WSS started as an offshoot of WSB, when the mods at the latter vigorously suppressed any mention of silver as an alternative to meme stocks and other mania-type speculation the sub promoted for unsophisticated retail investors. As a result, Ivan B created WSS to expose the manipulation and rigging of the silver market by bullion banks, under the noses of captured or negligent regulators, and the opportunities this created for contrarian investors who refused to follow the herd. (Reddit comment)
WSS started as an offshoot of r/WallStreetBets, or WSB, when the mods at the latter vigorously suppressed any mention of silver as an alternative to meme stocks and other mania-type speculation the sub promoted for unsophisticated retail investors. As a result, Ivan Bayoukhi created WSS to expose the manipulation and rigging of the silver market by bullion banks, under the noses of captured or negligent regulators, and the opportunities this created for contrarian investors who refused to follow the herd. (draft page)

The "Growth and Development" and "Common Beliefs/Interests" was also copied from the same Reddit comment, potentially with some slight modifications.

I understand that this breach of COI might be unintentional, but there is nonetheless convincing evidence that there is off-site coordination regarding the draft page's content. Sincerely, John Milum 10:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, Special:Contributions/SilverKnight1 indicates that the user was almost certainly a WSS single-purpose account, save for some newcomer tasks. The account has also not edited since 25 November. John Milum 10:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Editors with COI are allowed to submit drafts. There's nothing to do here, especially since the user has received a COI warning. MarioGom (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
@MarioGom: Hi. Thanks for your clarification. But do you know whether my above reasoning would constitute grounds for an MfD? Cheers, John Milum 17:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
JohnMilum98: I don't think MfD is the place for this. Copyright might be a problem, so SilverKnight1 would need to 1) explain if they are the author of that text, 2) ask the author of to clarify if they release the text under a compatible license, or 3) remove that text and start over. There's also the possibility of requesting speedy deletion (WP:G12). MarioGom (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Eduardo Dolhun

Hello, I am trying to comply with the Terms and Regulations. Is there a way to get rid of the disclaimer at the top? Make it smaller? I tried my best to comply with the terms and regulations. Is there anything I can do to make it not a large banner? Gsmouritzen (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The banner is as it is until the problematic content can be fixed by an un-involved editor. Your client does not get to control how a Wikipedia article looks. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Pension

S.P.A. only seems to edit this article; constantly linking to a single website, that of the Equable Institute, and/or quoting its stuff. Orange Mike | Talk 18:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Edison State Community College

This editor's username strongly suggests that they are employed by this institution to promote it. WP:OUTING prevents me from saying exactly why but I trust that anyone who spends a few seconds investigating will come to the same conclusion. They were explicitly warned a few years ago but they have returned to editing this article (and only this article). ElKevbo (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've identified them as a {{connected contributor}} (undeclared) on the article talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Traditional Fine Arts Organization

Please keep an eye on this spam project, target Wikipedia linkbuilding. 172.101.225.175 (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding userlinks to an editor whose only edits in the past month have been to this spam project (which I have reverted), despite previous requests to disclose paid editing. Melcous (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Headless content management system

Should User:Lidiainfantem (recently renamed to User:Lilybluestocking93) be adding references to https://www.sanity.io/ such as they has done at Headless content management system given what a Google search of their old username indicates they do for a living and who for? On their talk page, they indicate their intent to continue to do so. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a matter to contact [email protected] about if they're not being upfront about their affiliations. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
@Drm310: done. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_193&oldid=1129006932"