Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 159

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

ICF International

Would others care to take a look at ICF International, where a few days ago I removed a substantial paid-editor rewrite of the page because I believe it to be a perfect example of what is meant by WP:COVERT advertising – stuff written by or for the company masquerading as neutral Wikipedia content? That edit has been reverted, but I'm not convinced that it should have been. That paid content was added by Mean as custard in August 2017, in good faith and in due process, and I'm not making or implying any criticism of that (or indeed any other) editor – I just don't believe that the right choice was made. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't remember why I originally added the content (it is not something I would normally do and I have no connection with the company involved). I fail to see why WP:COVERT applies in this case as contributors (paid or otherwise) with a conflict of interest have not tried to conceal their interest, and there is no suggestion that the content was promotional. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: This response is wholly inadequate. Our problem is not only your revert, it's your behavior. Why have you taken this to WP:COI/N instead of just WP:CONCEDEing and discussing it further on the talk page? Do you really think you've acted appropriately? Let me summarize what's happened here:
  1. On 20 July 2017, WWB Too opens a WP:ER on Talk:ICF International under § Proposed expansion of this article.
  2. Mean as custard implements the WP:ER around 9 August.
  3. You reply 24 August, questioning the edit.
  4. Both Mean as custard and WWB Too follow up with you, you don't get back to them. Years pass.
  5. Further implemented WP:ERs are requested by ICF Will beginning January 2020 and made by Spintendo and Can I Log In.
  6. On 26 May, without any discussion with past ER implementers, nor any talk page discussion, nor any discussion with the WP:PAID editor, you revert back to a version before 24 August 2017, with this overly dramatic, editorialized WP:ES (Special:Diff/959029665):

    Reverted to revision 790289973 by 67.197.0.86: Revert to last clean non-WP:COI version, however brief; enough of this messing about, we're not here to dance to the tune of WP:PAID editors – please see WP:COVERT for why their content cannot be accepted.

  7. A little later on 26 May, Can I Log In asks on your talk page why you reverted. You just repeat WP:COVERT (indeed, this has been all you've done every time anyone tries to discuss this with you, if you answer at all) and tell them to got to the talk page.
  8. On 29 May, ICF Will asks you, in good faith, why you reverted. You ignore them.
  9. ICF Will had opened an ER before your revert. That remained open. I saw the page in the ER queue and came across your revert. I quickly, easily determined that your behavior was inappropriate and unbecoming of a sysop and reverted you.
So, Justlettersandnumbers, care to explain the following?
  1. Why was this reversion so urgent that it should take place without discussion, even though there was already a talk page section from August 2017 you could have followed up on?
  2. Why have you failed to WP:AGF on the part of any of the ER implementers?
  3. Why have you decided to defend your WP:BITE of ICF Will and others? Simply because they're paid editors? I'm sorry, where does WP:BITE say it's okay to bite new paid editors, but other kinds of new users should be shown more levity?
@Justlettersandnumbers: Stop repeating WP:COVERT over and over again and get to the actual issues. If you want to discuss this at WP:COI/N, let's really discuss it at COI/N, especially your behavior as an administrator. (pinging other interested parties: WWB Too ICF Will Spintendo Can I Log In Mean as custard) Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 13:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Following the site's conflict of interest standards, I will request edits on discussion pages, says ICF Will 4 times on the talk page since Jan 3. That means the COI guidelines, which oh guess what? It includes WP:COVERT. So when you actually WP:AGF, you know they don't intend to WP:COVERT. If there is actual evidence to confirm so, ok fine. Right now it's not fine, that was inappropriate, and your current behaivior is inappropriate. justlettersandnumber I'd rather have you explain yourself, answering the 3 questions above and end this dispute now rather than resisting arrest and taking this closer to ArbCom, and you never want to end up as the subject there. Not to mention, 61 days in 2020, they already desysopped 3 users, about 3 weeks in between (or 2 not couting the inactive, about a month in between). {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 16:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with this sentiment and would go one step further than Can I Log In: accusing ICF Will of WP:COVERT is itself a bad faith personal attack in my opinion. There's nothing covert about their behavior, they're coming right out and telling us, and the world, that they're being paid by ICF to make edit requests. Again, Justlettersandnumbers, I don't understand why you can't just apologize for the obvious WP:BITE so we can all move on to actually discuss the content of the article, either here or on its talk page, as you should have done in August 2017. If this wasn't urgent enough for you to reply then, why is it now? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 17:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible edit wars between Bulgarians and Macedonians

Some days ago I noticed someone complaining about an edit war on an article about his/her supposed grandfather. (yea, raised my eybrow). But this appears to be part of a bigger problem that goes beyond my abilities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxS5tZc-yf4 And to be honest, I don't care about hundred year old stuff that is related to national pride. But if this is a problem spanning serval articles and languages, this has to be fixed.--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Iankush raj

A Google search reveals Iankush raj has a conflict of interest and is only here to promote these companies, but they are not ready to accept despite there is off-wiki evidence. GSS 💬 07:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

GSS, if there's off-wiki evidence, please email it to paid-en-wp(at)wikipedia.org. I'll add that I did the Google search you suggested but all I found was a similar (but not identical) name related to those companies, and I don't think they are the same person. creffett (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Masayoshi Yamaguchi

Masayoshi Yamaguchi (as an editor) appears to be interested only in editing the articles on Masayoshi Yamaguchi (a notable researcher) and Regucalcin (a topic of Yamaguchi's research). Repeated warnings about autobiography on the user talk page have led only to uncivil responses and the same behavior. Is there some other step we can take or is the only remaining resort a block? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: Yamaguchi has twice more edited the article on Yamaguchi after this report was made and he was notified of it. He has not responded here or elsewhere to the discussion. Would it be warranted to try indefinitely fully protecting the article rather than blocking? Indefinite because this has been going on for over ten years. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I left them a talk page note describing the potential upside of cooperation.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: I'm considering this an long-term edit war. COI guidelines do not prohibit COI/Autobio editing. I see no comments by the autobio editor on their talk page.
Here's what you should do. Instead of WP:BITING them, tell them that they should be making COI edit request. And revert only when necessary. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 22:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
You think that promotional autobiographical editing severe enough to have been the main justificaion for an AfD on the article is a non-problem, that WP:BITE applies to editors who have been doing the same pattern of editing for over ten years, that the complete non-response by Yamaguchi on his talk and here is evidence that we should try harder to engage with him rather than that he has no interest in ever cooperating, and that efforts to trim the self-promotion and cut back the autobiographical writing are both-sides-ist edit-warring? I know it would be a violation of WP:OUTING to demand a serious answer to this question, but: what planet do you live on? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
It is a valid concern; the user has edited the page for years and refuses to follow COI guidelines. WP:BITE applied to new editors, not long-term abusers of the neutrality of the wiki who refuse to follow the guidelines. This is precisely what COIN is here for.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
David Eppstein, if they're refusing to engage constructively and keep doing the same thing on the same couple articles, a pblock might be appropriate. creffett (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
A very good point, and one I hadn't considered. That would have much fewer side effects than either a block or protection. I'm not sure that a block on Regucalcin is warranted; at least, his most recent edits there was to add relevant non-COI information. But we could put one on the biography. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:JK News Magazine

The user is engaged in creation of promotional content. In Draft:JK News Magazine it is clearly mentioned as Founder Amit Kumar. Has been already been informed about WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION both at draft and talk-page, but instead taking an action has removed the COI tags. ~ Amkgp ✉ 06:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Good Design Award (Chicago Athenaeum)

Hello, I have received a message on my talk page in the German language Wikipedia from the above mentioned IP, claiming to be a lawyer. The message is about my edits to Good Design Award (Chicago Athenaeum) and Good Design Award (Museum of Modern Art). Now the message on my talk page is not quite a legal threat, but I am not sure how to proceed - I will certainly not "reach out" to his client or the lawyer itself. Meanwhile, I have moved the discussion to Talk:Good Design Award (Chicago Athenaeum), and would appreciate some help from Wikipedians there. I have reverted the changes by the obvious COI editor Glekel82. PS: I am a sysop on de:WP with some 60 k edits, so I find it a bit rich when a lawyer suggests that I propose changes to an article about his client on a talk page first. Is that how it works here? --Minderbinder (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Minderbinder, added notifications to users mentioned. Idan (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
No, that's definitely NOT how it works here. It's 100% the other way around. If his CLIENT wants edits to the article, the CLIENT needs to post the proposals to the talk page, disclosing their conflict of interest. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Looking at that article, I don't see evidence of notability, so I PROD'd it. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
See also Christian Narkiewicz-Laine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I did a major trim on that article as well. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Namira Salim

Farhadally is a single-purpose account who has been editing only the article about Namira Salim for the past four years. The information added is very extensive and generally promotional, with much "peacock" language, in the style of a press release or resume. They have uploaded many images as "own work", which also appear on Salim's own websites.

In 2017, an IP from Dubai, where Salim lives part-time, added highly promotional material about her jewelry business: [1]. A few moments later Farhadally added photos and further promotional material: [2] and continued to expand it the next month. A similar thing happened in February 2016. Content about the jewelry business was re-added by user Contentcontributer in January.

Yesterday Farhadally added another large chunk of content, largely copy-pasted or closely paraphrased from various press releases from Salim about some 2017-2018 events, plus extolling her new self-published music single. It's been reverted, due to the copyright problems and puffery.

The impression is strong that this is either Salim herself, or a PR person(s) who works for her. I've left messages about COI on Farhadally's talk page last year, but they didn't respond. IamNotU (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Farhadally has now been blocked for promotional/not-here editing. Contentcontributer isn't really worth bothering about... --IamNotU (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Lynn Anderson

Account has been editing this article with a strongly biased attitude since 2008; he has admitted to being subject's former agent and to a strong promotional interest in subject, particularly in posts to User talk:ChrisTofu11961. Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The user mentioned above is continuing to argue with myself and other users about the subject at hand. Not sure what the next steps will be here. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
From a recent post by Mikie: "I'm currently working with the Lynn Anderson Estate at this writing". --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Can a Wiki administrator please get involved? This is beginning to get out of control. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Ellen Rank

Editor was warned about COI editing in May by Fayenatic london here after apparently creating an article about his father. After no response to this, and various other seemingly related articles created, he has now created this article apparently about his mother. Melcous (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Academic working on COVID article

I wrote this article which contains material critical of a specific team's modeling. An editor who says they are part of the team rewrote and rebutted the criticism [3]. Could someone here contact them, I'd be more comfortable leaving this in the hands of a third party to notify and follow up. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bri: I did a review and agree with you, Eddingtonp certainly has a COI and their changes were not constructive (yet, I believe, made in good faith), and not only because they weren't sourced. Wikipedia is not a battleground; this is not the place to right great wrongs; if your colleagues don't understand how to use your simulation, that's a discussion for medical/computer science journals and among subject matter experts. After a broad consensus is reached in the right places, it can be added to Wikipedia. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that I mis-read the editor's affiliation; they might be a member of the team that was quoted as having criticized the other team's models. I'll trust you Psiĥedelisto to follow up as required. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bri: Yes, I'm aware that they're claiming to be from U of Edinburgh and not Imperial College London. Doesn't change what I wrote; they need to make requests on the talk page, and them just repeating the stochastic line which was already dealt with by the RS's, especially The Telegraph, isn't going to cut it in my view. I was up all night writing Disini v. Secretary of Justice, but it's on my watch list forever now and I'll follow up when/if necessary. I'd be willing to accept removing the mention of U of Edinburgh as it seems like Fox is sourcing that to GitHub[4], (perhaps without the team's consent,) if they ask for that. But justifying that it somehow makes sense that the results weren't reproducible isn't in my view appropriate unless an RS backs the claim. Maybe they, (or someone else,) knows of one that does. WP:NODEADLINE. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I happen to totally agree and was kind of livid when I read The Telegraph. Imperial acknowledged "some small non-determinisms" at github [5] which really lit me up. Andrew Gelman also had some things to say [6]. But that's part of the reason I'm staying away from it now; my judgment is clouded. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Taskflow

Twhuang-uiuc has an obvious COI on their draft, which they have not declared despite my uw-coi message to them yesterday requesting them to do so. This is a single-purpose account: every one of their edits has been to try to promote their project. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Expert network

Jordanshlosberg has a clear COI on this subject. I left them a uw-coi message on their talk page after reviewing a series of recent edits that they made to the article, which I reverted. They have continued to edit the article, reverting my revert, contrary to the instructions on how they should manage their COI, which remains undeclared. Their response to me on my talk page where they identified (and outed) a competitor only serves to highlight the need for them to step back from editing the article directly. (I have reported the outing to oversighters) Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Jordanshlosberg, since you have pretty clearly identified yourself as directly connected to the topic (given that you described edits as being made by "a competitor," you should not be editing that article. I don't care whether or not someone else is doing the same thing. You are welcome to make edit requests on the article's talk page, where your edits will be reviewed and made on your behalf if appropriate.
Mfripps, you should also not be editing the article directly if you are professionally connected to the topic. See my comment above regarding edit requests.
creffett (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Did some cleanup of the article. There were a lot of inappropriate mentions of particular companies working in the industry. - MrOllie (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Order of Saint Augustine

I found editor in an edit-war over a copyrighted logo. Has apparent WP:COI with the Order of Saint Augustine and Colegio San Agustín (Chile). I've referred him to WP:OTRS for the copyright assignment, but there are problems such as this cut-and-paste move: [7] [8]. And there are more articles to tag, potentially. Once again, listening for guidance. Elizium23 (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23 has accused me of affecting the point of neutrality of Order of Saint Augustine article without any base. He has not read the article or taking a look at my contributions before doing this. He has not provided any potential bias. My edits account for 6% of it in the phase of 11 years, and they are minor style changes, adding an image, and changing the infobox for the religious organisation one with the information that was already there. I have not added content to the article. Tagging the article undermines the work of several people who have actually worked on it. Kaklen (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Kaklen, I have tagged it as due process when I confirm that an editor has a WP:COI and has been editing the article for 11 years. This is prior to reviewing your edits and not, as you say, an accusation of bad faith.
Thank you for disclosing your affiliation on your user page, that is very helpful to us. The best thing you can do at this point is to make edit suggestions on the article Talk pages in order to ensure neutrality. Elizium23 (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Elizium23, if you are going to do something you should do it right, otherwise don't. You are not following the due process:
  1. The tag you put on the articles requires that you explain what you consider as not neutral. If the user does not do so, the tag can be removed by "anyone". You have had more than enough time to do this.
  2. The notes for the use of this Noticesboard states that you should "Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality ".
  3. Please, stop asserting that I "have 11 years of editing these articles" because that is misleading and tendentious. I have a couple of minor edits DURING 11 years..
In case you are not interested in doing things the proper way, at least do some WP:RESPTAG to not make others waste their time. Kaklen (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I have contributed to the discussion and added the proper tag to the talk page. The {{COI}} tag and posting here is meant to request help from other editors with discerning the neutrality of edits made to such pages. I'm not accusing you of stuff, I am simply raising concerns regarding what I have seen. Elizium23 (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I am glad that you have checked one of the articles and confirmed and recognised it is neutral. Kaklen (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Kevin Borich Express

The article was created by the user, who is a major contributor to its content. The user signs some edits on talkpages as Darrel Baird (see here). Darrel Baird is part of the management for Kevin Borich/Kevin Borich Express, see here. Related articles have been edited by the user.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Broughton Ales

User with apparent conflict of interest has added promotional content at Broughton Ales and at Pale ale. Tammbecktalk 14:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

If someone's username is the name of a company you can just report them to WP:UAA (which I've done). Spicy (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Brice Bexter

Moroccanproducts is a single-purpose account who I suspect to be paid by Brice Bexter (yep this is his account). Brice Bexter started editing his grandfather's article on 25 May 2020 and didn't leave the chance to put his name ([9]) and use the same description, international actor, that Moroccanproducts used. Moroccanproducts even used the picture that Brice uploaded. It's either paid editing or sockpuppeting TheseusHeLl (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

TheseusHeLl, you are required to notify editors when you open a thread about them here. I will notify both Bexter_brian and Moroccanproducts of this discussion for you, please make sure to do it in the future. creffett (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
As for the merits of this...yeah, that's blatant COI or UPE. I will investigate in more detail tomorrow to determine whether this is autobiographical sockpuppetry or UPE (since that will decide who gets blocked). creffett (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying them, Creffett -TheseusHeLl (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I added more pages and users to the COI list. There are more tho. Idan (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel pretty confident that there is either sockpuppetry or UPE afoot and have filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Elglaouilegacy. I left Brian El Glaoui Bexter off of the SPI list since they only have two edits and are very stale from a checkuser perspective. creffett (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Bexter brian and Moroccanproducts were confirmed to each other, I have blocked them and Elglaouilegacy as a sock group. creffett (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Kickingback77 is ... back?

articles (incomplete)
120 more
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Articles created and exist
Timecard for en.wp sockpuppet RobertoPizza, or in other words, what it looks like when editing Wikipedia is literally your job

At a minimum we have a case study of a sophisticated and persistent UPE sockfarm. Maybe more depending on the damage inflicted.

  • this is described by checkusers as extensive and complex. definitely proxy use.
  • there is evidence of systematic automated account generation (WP:BEANS)
  • almost certainly UPE
  • suspected by one reviewer of being reincarnation of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kickingback77
  • indication of intercontinental scope was mentioned in the SPI

Maybe zzuuzz or MER-C would like to chime in? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a great case study, as there's a high level of certainty that these accounts are connected. As I mentioned in the SPI, the relationship to the original Kickingback77 account is not very clear, however the similarity to socks in that SPI archive is striking. In the latest SPI there are currently 36 accounts going back a few years.
The thing to stress is that I do not know what these users are up to, but they appear to be up to something. I highly recommend browsing the edits made by all the accounts in the SPI. There is a common theme in the edits, and any COIN regular will instantly recognise the pattern of entrepreneurs, philnathropists, brands, corporate activity, and just generally things which would employ a public relations team. The edits from the accounts are varied, somtimes quite minimal, and sometimes apparently unrelated to UPE. I wonder how much of this is signal being disguised by noise.
This is some seriously organised sockpuppetry. As I mentioned in the SPI, I think this is likely to be one person, but multiple people can't be ruled out. Their editing times appear to be regimented into a standard working day (UTC). Their use of proxies, which may not be always the case, is a case study in itself which unfortunately I can't share publicly - again this seems to be an attempt at disguising signal by noise. There are examples of editing from different continents within minutes of each other. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Here is one of the timecards for reference. Three years editing 9-5, Monday through Friday. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
And interestingly, looking at all editors together, never on a public holiday in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but just about every other weekday in the year). Only one of the accounts, Goldenducky, had a brief editing session outside of office hours. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I suggest that all articles started by these accounts and which have no substantial contribution by anyone else, are moved to Draft immediately. Guy (help!) 15:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Started indexing article creations above. I wonder if Cliff1911 was correct? Their last visible edit is in October 2016. Bri.public (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
What tags would be appropriate for these article creations? UPE?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I usually do db-multiple|g5|g11 for UPE sock creations ☆ Bri (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah yeah, looks like Cliff1911 was tagged by accident. Thanks for pointing that out. Mz7 (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I hit a brick wall at a continuation of the same SPI on a group that looks like a sockfarm involved in Singapore weightlifting. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

FriendlyData

It's pretty clear to me that Michal.on, currently blocked for sockpuppetry, has a major conflict of interest with FriendlyData. In this userpage diff, Michal.on adds a link to [10], a website that coincidentally (sarcastic) shares a name with their sockpuppet account, User:Micrum. The website is the personal site of Michael Rumiantsau, the founder of FriendlyData. - ZLEA T\C 01:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

ZLEA, what action are you looking for here? They and their sock are blocked and you've tagged their draft as UPE. creffett (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm just putting it here in case there are any necessary actions that need to be taken. If none need to be taken, then that's great, but I'm not familiar with the COI process. - ZLEA T\C 01:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

FLAT EARTH

I say the text i added should not be removed.@Deacon Vorbis==Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion== Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Baratiiman (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Baratiiman: who are you filing a report about, which articles are concerned and what is the issue?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Presumably this concerns Baratiiman's attempts to portray Muslims as flat-earthers in recent edits on Flat Earth, its talk page, and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#FLAT EARTH. What it has to do with conflicts-of-interest is unclear to me, but it appears to be forum-shopping. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

i found some better websites than this encyclopedia case closedBaratiiman (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

St John of God health care system

I have reason to believe that this editor is affiliated with the St John of God system in Australia. She has been editing all related articles since 2017, and has touched no other topic. Before I mass-tag every article to that effect, I'll check in here for confirmation and direction. Elizium23 (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

{{connected contributor (paid)}} Yes this is correct. I will ensure I tag all my updates to this effect from here forth. The changes are to more accurately reflect our service provision as our current statements are out of date and misrepresent the organisation, services and hospitals. --AnneGartner (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@AnneGartner: see WP:PAID guidance. The articles should be tagged {{COI}} until cleaned up by non-COI editors. Before they can be cleaned up thus, you should of course stop editing these articles. All of this on top of disclosing your COI in the appropriate places. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion, not even when such promotion is euphemistically called "more accurately reflect our service provision". Tagging updates "from here forth" is not sufficient: past edits should probably all be reverted; COI editors can post their suggestions on talk pages, where the COI tags should be posted too; continuing to edit articles is not what COI editors should do. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Added Matthewperk to the above, an account exhibiting a similar SPA behaviour towards the Australian St John of God health care system. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
And Lbfitzpatrick with similar SPA interests. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Also Paul sjog (with the tell-tale "sjog" = "St John of God" abbreviation in their editor name). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
There are likely a few more of these SPAs, although I expect them to have less edits per account. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: next time, if you add the articles concerned to the list at the top it will be easier for use to see the actual COI edits. The template is {{pagelinks|Some article}}.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, none of the users have been notified on their talk pages, as required. See the big red box at the top of this page. Notification is important as a discussion is not possible if they do not know about it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP, I only found one user; @Francis Schonken: added the rest. Elizium23 (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Elizium23 for posting the notifications on the user talk pages (my bad for not doing so before for the three I added). Afaics, the problem with this series of articles is that they provide too much detail, that is detail that is either unsourced, or sourced to (almost exclusively) primary sources, i.e. sources self-published by the organisation. This is not what Wikipedia articles should do: they should have a sound basis of content referenced to secondary sources, before any such detail could be added (and even then, such detail should be well-sourced and not overshadow the content found in independent sources). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
What do you think is their notability status? Would they survive AFDs? Elizium23 (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Some might, some might not, dunno. I suppose any major hospital would at least have some independent local press, so depends on whether such local (or other) press is accessible enough to build an article upon. For the time being, I'd suggest no AfDs though, rather a WP:MERGE operation to a list or some such, as I suggested below, until (some of them) can be spun out to separate articles when there's enough of a basis for independent sourcing of such separate articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Involved articles, as far as I could determine:

All of them created and/or significantly expanded/modified by the SPA editors listed above. Based on the lack of secondary source-based info in most of these, I'm also not too sure they would all normally have separate articles, instead of just being listed in a List of St John of God health care system hospitals → List of St John of God Health Care facilities or some such. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC) (updated list name proposal 08:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC))

I'll elaborate on one of these: Hawkesbury District Health Service was created June 2017 by AnneGartner, based on two independent sources verifying two info bits in a 3000+ bytes article, and the rest unsourced or based on five "sjog" (St John of God) on-line sources. A few dozen small edits later that situation hasn't really changed: the article still reads more like someone from within the organisation wanting to give data which "reflect our service provision" (aka some kind of free publicity) than an encyclopedia article primarily based on independent sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, we can include more external references for all pages. The difficulty we find is that many of our external articles do not necessarily specifically reference individual services within our hospitals. However, you are right Francis Schonken that we would have independent newspaper articles we can reference. Would it be acceptable for me to review each page again, and include appropriate sources for the information so that you can consider these as remaining individual pages? Thanks AnneGartner (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Re. "... external articles do not necessarily specifically reference individual services within our hospitals" – in which case such individual services need not be listed, because Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, not a compendium of which services are offered by which hospitals. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which includes "Wikipedia articles are not ... simple listings ... [of, for example,] ... products and services ..."
Re. your proposal to review the pages: again, as a WP:PAID editor it is not a good idea to edit these articles directly. I suggest you rather post suggestions on these article's talk pages, except when, for instance, removing listings of individual services, which don't belong in the encyclopedia in the first place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
As an example I merged Hawkesbury District Health Service to St John of God Health Care#New South Wales ([11] [12]) – apparently a separate list article, as I suggested above, is not needed for the time being: afaics it can all be merged, that is, while omitting the unsourced and the bulk of sourced-to-self-published-material content, to the St John of God Health Care article, thus also restoring balance of self-published and independently verifiable material in that article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Francis Schonken I will post suggestions in the article talk pages of additional references. I note that Wikipedia is not a list of all individual services etc so understand your point, however I would request that before pages are merged I have a chance to add external references where possible. If you review the individual updates we have made in the past or requested this year, you will see that our intention is to always remove incorrect statements (for example we are not the third largest hospital operator and that was referenced previously, or update CEO names) rather than to position ourselves in a PR or marketing sense. AnneGartner (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

AnneGartner, the very claim of "third largest operator" is not neutral, because that can be measured in five different ways, and would need to be cited to an independent source. Elizium23 (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Salvageable articles on individual St John of God facilities

See also: Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board § Hospitals that have been identified as being worked upon by paid COI editors
The sheer volume of items needs to be on hold - many of these are viably rebuildable articles that can by-pass PR hype and utilise information that clarifies the validity of an articles and subject existence - however the Australian project which has a limited amount of editors to be able to drop everything to rebuild articles is that immediate actions are unreasonable on the range of required actions... Some level of respect for the editing community in which these institutions exist would go a long way to provide some opportunity to recover otherwise lost items, in other words some communication with that community and some options to work on the articles. JarrahTree 08:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@JarrahTree: please stay off my user talk page about this content issue – there are enough more suitable venues that the talk page of a user who has virtually no interest whatsoever in this topic. Further,
  • Posted the info you provided on my user talk page to Talk:St John of God Health Care#Moved here from user talk page – where it may be of more use to editors interested in the topic.
  • Added (for the time being) a "Further reading" section to St John of God Subiaco Hospital, with the Trove link pertaining to that hospital (as suggested by you) – this may be a good start to exploit external sources with info about the hospital, and should be enough to prevent it being turned into a redirect. Similar "Further reading" sections can be added to other St John of God articles, for similar actions and preventing merges.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
well so far they have gone to the wrong places, point taken though. JarrahTree 09:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I mean: are there others that should have a separate article in the foreseeable future, or are there some of this list that shouldn't have a separate article yet? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
It is dependent upon various conditions - whether any fellow editors respond to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board and are interested in assisting in editing - secondly - if the hospitals are recently (post 1950s) established, whether the gaining of adequate RS is at all possible - thirdly - if they were established prior to the trove newspaper copyright issue cut off date - they are easily converted from PR into viable adequately covered with RS articles - it is all is whether anyone is interested to help, perhaps after the weekend, the response (or lack of it) might be a good indicator, of whether the recovered... as to whether others that could have separate articles will only come after chances to review the situation, again requires time and patience... JarrahTree 09:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, a list of salvageable vs non-salvageable is maybe too early to determine (apart from the Subiaco one), then clean-up can continue on a case-by-case basis, which means giving more solid references to some, and maybe also redirecting some others – also reinstating articles that were redirects and appear to have sufficient independent sources, when such sources are added to such articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
In time all are salvageable and have wikidata prooerties as well. JarrahTree 10:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but that should not prevent clean–up as long as they are far from compliant to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Trying to stop them from being turned into redirects without actually providing references, cleaning up WP:NOT type of content, WP:CHALLENGEing unsourced content (etc) is merely counterproductive. I think you're ideally placed to perform such clean-up, as you have done before, which will happen anyhow, and is not dependent on whether a particular editor contributes to it or not. If someone then later wants to turn a redirect into a solid article, it's easy enough to revert the redirecting, and start the article from some content that may have been there before.
Anyhow, enough of this discussion I suppose: what is at stake is clear enough probably. I'd say, see you in mainspace. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sharpe James

User:John Sharpe James had been editing Sharpe James and their edit summary seem to imply they may have relationship to Sharpe James. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit: User has been blocked. If there's any progress with this thread, please ping me as I have unwatched this page to avoid getting nonrelevant notifications. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Jason Altmire

This page has serious and long-standing COI problems where blatant COI accounts remove reliably sourced content which does not depict the subject in a favorable manner and they add mundane trivia and puffery about the subject which is sourced to primary sources. Every single thing about the editing by the account EdwardsCluaser screams of COI. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The patterns of editing by the two accounts I've listed above are very strange. I strongly suspect WP:PAID. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
This page is on my watchlist now. Definitely suspicious. Toa Nidhiki05 16:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
This IP number[13] on the Altmire page (and which is clearly EdwardsCluaser) tracks back to Jacksonville, Fl, which is where the HQ of Florida Blue (where Altmire works) is located. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
An IP number has explicitly asked MoorePhin to get in touch with them about writing a Wikipedia article for themselves.[14] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Neither MoorePhin nor EdwardsCluaser identify as COI accounts or PAID accounts despite numerous chances to fess up. Which demonstrates that the intention is deception. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I think there's enough to go on here to (i) block both users, (ii) do a check to see if they are related (does the IP address track back to the same geographical location), and (iii) if possible, whether it's possible to link these two accounts to a broader set of PAID accounts who are organizing in some way Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, if you think they're connected, recommend opening an SPI - my brief glance doesn't show anything strong enough for a DUCK block, but a checkuser investigation might come up with something more concrete. I'll also note that EdwardsCluaser is one revert shy of a 3RR block. creffett (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Birdman Bats

The abovenamed editor, as well as several IPs editing the same articles, appears to have ties to the subjects of the noted articles. Their response to notifications on their talk page (by myself and another editor) and on Talk:Birdman Bats and Talk:Gary Malec has been to delete the comments, remove COI templates, and give a non-response to my query about any possible COI. —ShelfSkewed Talk 19:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding a note that I've reverted an edit by 2601:646:101:D1F0:8097:56D0:C839:4D26 to blank this section in Special:Diff/962050546. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Also noting that same IP is blanking AfD notices and removing notices from talk pages (other than their own). e.g. Special:Diff/962059147 ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Noting that OP did notify the reported editors but the editors removed the notification templates from their talk pages. creffett (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@ShelfSkewed: you need to notify all the users mentioned above so that they can join the discussion and explain themselves, if desired. Notifcation template is at the top of this page in red text.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Um, I did.—ShelfSkewed Talk 22:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP, he did notify both users, as creffett noted. They just removed the notices from their talk. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah ok, 1000 apologies then! It's hard to keep track of what they were removing. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP, and that's why I made that comment in the first place :) creffett (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Creffett: Yes sometimes at my age I miss things now and then. Also I need new glasses. I humbly apologize.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I see a strong UPE aspect to this, based on some off-site googling. Shall we tag Birdman Bats for UPE?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the IPv6 /64 range that the reported IPs come from (Special:Contributions/2601:646:101:D1F0:8097:56D0:C839:4D26/64) is definitely doing a lot of editing on Birdman Bats and related topics. Haven't done enough analysis to tell whether this is the same editor, but there's definitely SPA activity going on there. creffett (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP, go for it. I'm pretty sure I've seen the same thing you have, and I have given Skipbreen exactly one chance to disclose their paid status before I block for UPE and send everything they've touched to draft. creffett (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Roger that. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I've also tagged Gary Malec as UPE, since it is obviously the same kind of funny business.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Skipbreen is now blocked, the paid editing is obvious to anyone with a search engine. Yunshui 雲水 14:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I took the liberty of also blocking the IPv6 range for a year - almost every edit coming out of that range was related to these topics, so either logged-out editing by Skipbreen or meatpuppetry from other people working with them. Looked like a static /64 assigned to a business, so low collateral damage risk. creffett (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
This sounds like it is all taken care of, since the editors are blocked, one article is back in draft and the other is being assessed at AfD. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Simon Tian

Normally I'd be loath to make a COIN report where a user has self-declared that they have no conflict of interest, but I'm having trouble understanding this editing pattern from a non-COI editor, so I think it's best that it's brought up here. Craftsman2116 created their account three weeks ago, and has edited no articles apart from the article on Simon Tian. Their edits consistently remove criticism and readd content that paints Tian in a positive light, violating WP:NPOV. User talk:Craftsman2116 shows a number of warnings about this behaviour, but they have continued to do so recently, readding a lot of content that was previously removed by a number of editors, myself included, over varying concerns on reliability of sourcing, verifiability, due weight and promotional status. This needs to be addressed one way or another, and it looks exactly like the pattern of editing you'd expect from someone with a COI - even though Craftsman2116 has claimed that they do not on their talk page - so I think it's probably best to bring it up here for discussion. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It certainly does look like promotional editing, although Craftsman2116's edits are in geenral good and well-sourced. I have added users Vegitaboss and LiesForgotten, who are both SPA contributors to his article. LiesForgotten does seem to be doing the opposite of promotion though. I would think an SPI for all three users would be useful, to narrow the filed, as it were.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: That's reasonable. I will say, I hadn't realised that LiesForgotten hadn't contributed elsewhere; I'll note that they were the one who let me know that this was still going on. LiesForgotten, would you mind explaining why you have a particular interest in the article yourself? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to reiterate that I have no conflict of interest here. I am simply a customer of Simon's latest company and am aware of many individuals actively attempting to paint him in a negative light. As mentioned by ThatMontrealIP, all my edits are well-sourced and entirely factual. In any case, I'd say it's actually LiesForgotten who has a clear COI here. User:Craftsman2116
@Craftsman2116: you can sign your posts automaticly using four tilde (~) symbols. Now regarding the COI, if you have siginficant contact with Tian's company and would like to see him succeed as a business, that is perhaps a COI. Is that the case? Ideally you would have no contact with the subject.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: I affirm that I have never made any contact with Tian himself. I am simply a customer who have bought a product from his latest company. In any case, I don't find my latest edits to be in any way "poorly-cited", and the page is far from how it was when LiesForgotten first started performing his (clearly) disparaging edits. Correct me if I'm wrong. Craftsman2116 (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@LiesForgotten and Craftsman2116: OK good! We have established that neither of you have a COI problem with the article. What you have is a content dispute. Do you think you could post your concerns to the article talk page and work it out there? That's the normal way of doing things. You both sound like you have strong views on the subject; the goal is obviously to find some middle ground. The article talk page is for just that purpose.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: Definitely, happy to do that. Craftsman2116 (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys (and I hope I am doing this right, as I am new to this), To answer Naypta's question, the reasons I have any interest in the Simon Tian Wiki page are twofold: It was the first page I found that was so riddled with problems and poor citations that I felt like I could contribute more than just small spelling and grammar fixes (like I did before the creation of my account). I wanted to "be bold" and do a larger edit, including removing the things that I felt constituted blatant advertisement or self-promotion (especially since large sections of the the page were initially almost verbatim copied in the "Neptune/Neptune Pine" Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune_(company)), which Simon Tian's Wiki page originally linked to (I did not remove these links). I did a lot of work on the page, found sources for poorly-sourced materials, and tried to present things thoroughly and without bias. After some (very interesting) research, it appeared as though some things were being phrased in ways which misrepresented the facts, were not related to Simon Tian the person, or were hearsay. Unfortunately, I had to remove quite a bit; however I would have respected if someone had disagreed with my removal of particular points, as I was being bolder than I normally would have been. When I first spoke with Naypta, she mentioned something which she thought could still be included, and I was fine with that - I'm not perfect, and I welcome differences in opinion. My edits (though extensive) have been in good faith.

I am not trying to disparage Simon Tian's name (I don't know him) but also want things to be presented in an equitable, representative way. I would not like to let his Wikipedia page, among the ones his linked to, be used to self-aggrandize or sell products; for example, the Neptune (Company) page still links to a product the company makes from Best Buy, along with taking whole sections from the Wikipedia page for Simon Tian.

However, my continued interest in the state of the page comes from all of my edits/work being reverted, without comment, by someone without an account. I edited once again, tried to be thorough, but all my changes were reverted, once again, without comment. It was after this point that I reached out to Naypta, as I was (and still am) new to the culture and programming language associated with editing more than a few words in Wikipedia. I wasn't sure what to do with the situation. I began looking further into the edits, and it seems like negative points have been removed continuously from the page. I was happy with the page how it was presented after many edits from people much more experienced than I am. It is disheartening to see that all get removed by someone who intended to revert the changes and undo the hard work of everyone involved. I am invested in the Wikipedia page turning out as comprehensive and bias-free as possible.

Just as a note, I have actually contributed to other pages - I was actually contributing when I got notified of this COI thread. I haven't been on in a while, and I did a lot of really small edits before having an account, but I do try to add citations when I can. I just haven't seen something so obviously in need of changing that I could spend a few hours on delving deep into it and changing it thoroughly (although I have been keeping an eye out).

LiesForgotten (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Nikhil Kamath

The user is mostly creating promotional articles and uploading promotional images as his own work and claimed I am a photo journalist and all these pictures have been clicked by me. In November 2019, he uploaded File:Reena Shah.jpg (a selfie) as his own work and used it at Rinaa Shah the image was later deleted (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reena Shah.jpg). In January 2020‎, he created Rita Dev, a non-notable singer and uploaded File:Rita Dev.png (an eight years old image). He recently created Nikhil Kamath a non-notable businessman and two promotional articles about non-notable businesswomen. I asked them if they have a conflict of interest but they denied. GSS 💬 12:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so this user disclosed they were paid to create Tanya M Sood but not assuming good faith. Just after I declined their submission at Draft:Tanya M Sood they started draftifying pages that I have created e.g. Atari, Nawanshahr for a silly reason. GSS 💬 09:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
and they removed their entire edit after I asked them to fully comply with the WP:PAID policy. GSS 💬 09:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Ernest_William_Corfe

Hello, could an experienced Wiki user please review this page? There is a conflict of interest due to the subject being an ancestor. I have used neutral and factual language, backed with links to evidence, but I'd like to ensure this with your help. The photos used belong to me. Many thanks in advance, and I'd be interested in any feed-back.

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

JoniCorfe (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your upfront request. I looked at it and cannot see how he is notable. Do you have more sourcing?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I could not find additional sourcing so I have nominated it for deletion. The sources included are inadequate; one did not even mention him, and another namechecked him in an image caption. The only source I saw in a search was a book written by one of his grandsons. Next time please follow our COI rules and avoid creating articles about subjects you are related to. That also applies to editing articles you have a COI with. Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@JoniCorfe: is James Albert Bedbrook also an article that you have a COI with? It would seem so from the sourcing. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Antonia Darder

This SPA admits to "helping" Darder with her website and with the article about her. Orange Mike | Talk 18:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I have received no compensation for my input. I have a background in journalism and believe the information is 100% fact based and accurate. There is no conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmflores (talk • contribs) — Kmflores (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Kmflores: As Orangemike pointed out to you, if you have worked on the subject's web site, you have a conflict of interest. See our policy here. Just knowing the subject in a personal or professional capacity is a COI. Since you have a COI, you should not be editing their page, even if you think you are doing so neutrally. This policy is one of the ways we preserve the neutrality of the encyclopedia. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Art of Odessa

User Art of Odessa has been editing articles on artists from Odessa. A little simple googling connects their username easily to the first five asterisk-marked article subjects. No response on the user's talk page regarding COI. it may be just be someone translating .ru articles into English, but it is hard to parse their contribs as they have never left an edit summary. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

User credibly disclosed no connection on their talk page. This can be closed. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Arabella Advisors

clickbait, paid editor used edit requests by the book ☆ Bri (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Call this a press tip from The Daily Beast: "Lefty Advocacy Outfit Enlists PR Strategist to Clean Up Its Wikipedia Page" with a big "BUT" – on a quick look, it appears the edits came in through a kosher edit request on the talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I think all of this checks out just fine. Unfortunate, but hardly surprising, that the firm hired a PR firm, but the edits requested by the rep, who clearly disclosed her COI in good faith, seemed to have been largely overruled by the main editors involved anyways. So off the bat this company seems to be handling their issues with the article much more reasonably than most probably do. Daily Beast seems to just be going for clickbait. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible UPE

Sbmnlaw‎ appear to be an undisclosed paid editor mostly creating promotional pages and uploaded File:Dr. Jaswant Singh ji.jpg, File:Govind Singh Rajpurohit.jpg and a few more as his own work with metadata on commons-wiki and failed to provide a source when requested and claimed: Many I have taken from my computer having more than a decade ago and even I have forgot the real source. He recently created Draft:Glen T. Martin and uploaded File:Glen T. Martin, President, WCPA.jpg on May 25th as his own work and I'm unable to find this image online. GSS 💬 06:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Jaswant Photo was taken during elections in 2019 by me from Honor phone. Govind Singh Rajpurohit photo is from facebook and in future from flicker photo will be used.Sbmnlaw (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sbmnlaw: can you please provide a link to this image of Govind Singh Rajpurohit? I tried but can't find it on his Facebook and also please explain where did you get the file:Glen T. Martin, President, WCPA.jpg from? GSS 💬 11:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sbmnlaw: This image of Glen T. Martin was uploaded on Flickr today (uploaded on commons by you on May 25th) and you have again failed to provide the actual source. GSS 💬 17:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
It must be noted that Sbmnlaw failed to answer my question above and created another promotional article Secugenius (now in draft). GSS 💬 14:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I just removed a corporate job posting from the now-draftified article this uncommunicative person posted. It’s hard to envision circumstances where they would be a positive contributor here. IMO it’s past time for a block. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The user has time to create promotional articles (see Draft:QuickX), but they have no time to reply here. GSS 💬 17:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The user had time to e-mail me about this, although why, I don't know; AFAIK I have never had any interactions with them - Arjayay (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
This user has submitted Draft:QuickX and Draft:Secugenius which I have declined. Both look like PR jobs. - FitIndia Talk Commons 11:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Fitindia: and now they're move warring. They first moved Draft:QuickX to main and after I reverted their action they moved it to Help:QuickX. GSS 💬 14:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I have Secugenius a trim. Some of the source-inflation techniques look like those used recently by numerous socks at Yuva Unstoppable. Definitely UPE.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sbmnlaw just moved Draft:Tina Akhoondtabar into mainspace, a few hours after this notification was placed on the talk page of the blocked sockpuppet who created it. There's a history with multiple recreations of this article by sockpuppets of پارسا آملی (talk · contribs), see the report from 23 May 2020 in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/پارسا آملی/Archive. The user has also moved a couple of other drafts into mainspace with nonsense rationales such as "New concept trendy due to covid-19" – that draft was created by a disclosed paid editor and is written like a promotional brochure for the company. --bonadea contributions talk 14:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sbmnlaw: You moved the draft:QuickX for the third time after it was declined by Fitindia so can you explain what is the urgency? GSS 💬 15:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Appu Ghar (Gurgaon)

Removal of fair use and sourced content with legally threatening language in edit summaries. Trying to censor information about the company from the article (possibly due to the company being in liquidation). Gotitbro (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I've reported the user for user name violation. A user name in the name of a company is not permitted. Graywalls (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

IP User from india removing any negative references / content regarding apple products

IP 2402:3a80:922:ce6b:f43f:a533:7f4d:23f2 also known as

  • 2402:3A80:93D:8F69:F933:45C9:2FB6:58D7 and
  • 2402:3a80:9bd:b174:651d:3c93:ec5c:6bf7

is massively and continously trying to remove any non positive content regarding apple devices. Please block. Disclosure: I am right to repair activist and entrepreneur, please consult my user page for any additional information. Fthobe (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  • comment. But the cited sources don't directly support the position "With the iPhone 11 Pro and Pro Max continues the strategy of discoureging customers to seek 3rd party repairs while rendering repairs with Apple more costly". Where did that come from? Additionally, which secondary source interpreted the Apple publsihed documents to draw the conclusion about "trending" carbon foot print deal? that looks like original research. The person who removed it may have COI, but what they removed don't appear to be inclusion worthy. I'd try to find sources. Consult WP:RS as for what's reliable, and WP:NOR as well. Graywalls (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Zama Khumalo

User ZS Khumalo has likely written an autobiography. It has since been tagged for deletion. User ZS Khumalo has repeatedly removed the deletion tag while being warned about removing it. In the article, it reads that Khumalo is one of the three founders of 013NEWS. The user also created the 013NEWS article and added the story about his incident (here and here) to the Racism in South Africa article. I have since reverted those edits. The user also hasn't declared COI on his user page or other places. LefcentrerightDiscuss 17:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Porter Novelli

User:MaryGaulke, who is a paid contributor for Porter Novelli, requested on my user page that I make changes to the Porter Novelli article. There were three separate requests,[15][16][17] and at no time was a conflict of interest disclosed to me. There is also no connected contributor template on Talk:Porter Novelli. I believe these are violations of WP:DISCLOSEPAY. In December 2019, there was a similar issue with disclosure.[18] gobonobo + c 12:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gobonobo: I believe you have misinterpreted Ms Gaulke's user page. She has fully disclosed her association with Porter Novelli, and her COI regarding the brands they represent. There is no indication that she has ever edited the Porter Novelli page or that she is being paid to do so. She has properly requested edits to the page rather than making them herself. (I presume she requested that you make the edits since you were the person who introduce the material that she found to be incorrect.) I see nothing wrong in her behavior here. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@WikiDan61: I'm not referring to her user page. She posted messages on my talk page, requesting that I make edits, without disclosing her connection the company. She was also not listed as a connected contributor on the Porter Novelli talk page. gobonobo + c 12:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Gobonobo: True, she did not. But a quick look at her user page would have clarified the issue. And, since she is not being paid to edit the Porter Novelli page, any such disclosure seems unnecessary. And she is not listed as a connected contributor on the Porter Novelli page because she has never edited that page. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
How do you conclude she's "not being paid to edit the Porter Novelli page" when it says "I'm a content strategist at Porter Novelli" on her user page? She has directly edited the article [19][20] and authored major rewrites of the article. [21][22] Then there's asking editors to perform edits. None of these warrant at least a Template:Connected contributor (paid)? gobonobo + c 12:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The first two diffs you listed were minor edits (one undoing vandalism and one changing an infobox parameter). The third and fourth diffs you listed were performed by independent editors after a COI edit request, as is the proper process. I don't believe there is an "undisclosed paid editing" problem here, but I'll leave that decision to the admins. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi all! Gobonobo, I apologize that I didn't disclose on your talk page; I can honestly say that I didn't expect removing two inaccurate, unsourced words from the article to be so contentious. Regardless, I've added the connected contributor template to Talk:Porter Novelli, which honestly I'd simply forgotten to do. That's my usual best practice (I promise – you can check other talk pages where I've posted), and of course, I had previously disclosed my COI when requesting other edits on that talk page. Normally I would post edit requests at Talk:Porter Novelli, but in this case I went directly to Gobonobo because it was a simple and, I thought, uncontroversial request to undo an inaccurate edit. Happy to answer any further questions. Mary Gaulke (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@MaryGaulke:Actually it was sourced, and at the time the source did confirm the connection. I think it's disingenuous to claim that it was inaccurate. Can you just clear this all up right now? Did Porter Novelli contact Lachlan Markay of Daily Beast to change the wording of that article before or after you asked me to change that edit? According to the corrected Washington Free Beacon article, "Arabella Advisers hired a freelance public relations specialist". I see that you are working on User:MaryGaulke/sandbox/Arabella requests, but you seem to be saying that there is another PR specialist that is freelance? gobonobo + c 13:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Gobonobo: The article originally implied that Arabella was a Porter Novelli client, but did not state as much. (I can share the original text if helpful.) I reached out to Markay after publication to state that I did this work on a freelance basis and Porter Novelli was not involved, and Markay updated the article to clarify the relationship. It was never accurate to say that Arabella was a PN client. Mary Gaulke (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll just add that I have assisted MaryGaulke with edits in the past. She has gone above and beyond most other paid editors in being transparent about her connections. I have 100% confidence that her requests were made in good faith and compliance with policy. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Applause Entertainment

User bio suggests that he works for SEO and his linked-in page (listed on userbio) confirms his COI for Applause Entertainment. Single purpose account intended for editing Applause entertainment page, and TV show pages. All of these shows are by Applause entertainment. I have given him a notice asking to declare COI on his talk page but there is no response. He has not declared COI on his talk page or Applause Entertainment related pages. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 16:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually he has made somewhat of a COI declaration on his userpage, but it has not established the link between his employment and his edit history.
@KevinThomas71293: You are obligated by Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure policy to identify every article that you have edited on behalf of a client. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Followup: This user's initial userpage edit did, in fact, contain a paid editing disclosure. However, since then, they have removed it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Not only is their paid disclosure not remotely close to what we require as per the TOU, they've been adding promotional garbage to articles for a year now and taking a look at Digi Osmosis' client list, they've definitely not disclosed most of their paid edits. Praxidicae (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Bruce Pittman

... has been editing the article about himself and film projects he's been involved in over the years as BPittman50. This diff mostly contains edits he's made. They don't seem too bad to me relative to many cases we see here, but this is not a subject I generally edit in so I'd like somebody else to check the edits out. I'll also notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film.. Graham87 17:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Mid-Atlantic Union of Vietnamese Student Associations

I currently can't investigate this further, but Special:Diff/963116045 looks strange to me, after a warning about the potential conflict of interest. Perhaps someone could have a look whether the revert was appropriate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It was indeed appropriate for being unsourced and non-neutral. I think the editor may have had a past affiliation with the subject but I don't think it's current. Still best to avoid editing directly though. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I cannot for the life of me see how this would be notable, and a search did not discount that thought. AfD'd.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Shed Shimove

This article purports to be about an "ideas man", edited by an "ideas man" to include links describing his new products, failing to meet notability standards. Wikipedia is not your megaphone for self-marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4E80:8D10:CDB6:B8E3:12DC:31F8 (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed six inline links. Article is extremely promotional.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Broward County Library

User has been asked at least 3 times to disclose paid editing / POI both on users talk page and via email. Has been UPE since 2016 - RichT|C|E-Mail 14:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I have trimmed a bunch of unsourced, or promotional non-encyclopaedic content from the article. Still needs non-primary sources and more work could be done. Melcous (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I gave it a bit of a trim. Quesiton: for the section that is a list of locations, would you call this an indiscriminate list; is it appropriate as is? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Andrea Orcel

Andrea Orcel and the importance of having a positive Wikipedia page

"If you're a senior banker, how important is it that you have a glowing Wikipedia entry? Many in the industry may not have given it much thought. However, someone claiming to be acting on behalf of Andrea Orcel has been taking an interest in his own particulary entry." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to this writer for informing us about a WP:SPA and possible undisclosed paid editor. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I added user and article links above.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Creation, direct editing by user Mitzi.humphrey on her relatives and organizations she's related with

Long term COI, promotional editing. The list above shows a few examples, but not every articles to which she's suspected to have COI with. adding her husband as "notable" to high school he graduated from, creation/direct editing of pages about her family members and friends, and companies/organizations she is/has been affiliated to. I am getting a feeling the user's primary purpose seems to be getting the names out for her friends, relatives and affiliated groups rather than to build an enclypedia from neutral point of view. Over a long period of time, concerns about COI have been raised by multiple users and I feel her participation in discussion has been very sparse. Graywalls (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  • You'd be hard-pressed to find an article Mitzi authored where she didn't have a CoI. Entities connected to her life are probably the only reason she edits. Were she a corporate paid editor she'd've been blocked long ago. She hasn't stopped her pattern despite being given many warnings over the past years and she never discloses until well after the fact. For such a disregard of the Terms of Use, I think she should be banned from creating articles, at all. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
    Would anyone object to solving this with a pblock from mainspace? creffett (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
    Never mind, I just went ahead and indeffed, they can negotiate unblock conditions as appropriate. creffett (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
    They had seven COI warnings in five years. Sounds like an extremely reasonable block.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
    @GeneralNotability: Followup: the more I look into MH's contribs, the more appropriate this block becomes. She was working on a user space draft on her daughter. The talk page of another article pretty much sums up the overall approach to COI. I'm not sure how this was allowed to go on for so long.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
    I think Wikipedia's over-educated under-employed editors are classist in their approach: quick to stop corporate entities and other moneyed interests but reluctant to halt the fanboys unless the subject at hand is easily derided as cruft. Mitzi liked writing biographies about her family members and usually, her articles were well put together. She wrote more articles about notable subjects than I have. Regardless that she openly flouted WMF's terms of use, you never heard from SanFran about it but they were ready to stop Fram or anyone else that dared challenge their actions. I don't doubt that Mitzi has a draft about herself written up, too, and when Mitzi asks for the standard offer she'll be back at it. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I have been going through Mitzi.Humphrey's articles checking for notability and COI. In November 2017 she created the article Haruyo Morita. A bit later a good faith user added a source for the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts acquisition committee on December 13, 2017. The VMFA source is a set of meeting minutes wherein a real life person named Mitzi Humphrey tries to donate a Morita work to the Museum.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Postscript

  • I've now been through all of her 80 or so article creations. I've made significant cuts to some, tagged others for notability and COI and AFD'd a few. The subjects fit four general areas:
  1. People named Humphrey and Belknap, along with the houses they lived in and businesses they started: Sheryl Humphrey, Humphrey-McMeekin House, Alexander Pope Humphrey, Edward Porter Humphrey, Eleanor Silliman Belknap Humphrey, Lewis Craig Humphrey, Edward William Cornelius Humphrey, Edward Cornelius Humphrey, William Richardson Belknap, Morris B. Belknap, Belknap Hardware and Manufacturing Company, William Burke Belknap, W. B. Belknap and Abraham Belknap.
  2. VCU School of the Arts faculty, VMFA curators and related academics;
  3. artists who were involved in or exhibited at a set of Richmond Virginia galleries and arts organizations (Artspace, Art6, Richmond Printmaking Workshop, One/Off Printmakers) that a real-life person named Mitzi Humprey was also involved in as curator, director, founder or board member; and
  4. Bankers, economists, and economic theories: Real bills doctrine, H. Scott Gordon, Craufurd Goodwin, Robert P. Black and J. Alfred Broaddus.
The VCU profs is the only section where the COI is not immediately clear. The economists category is interesting if you connect the dots.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Does membership require disclosure?

I have tried searching the archives but can't seem to find any solid guidance. Does membership in an organization imply such a close connection that disclosure would be required? For example, would a member of the Communist Party of Britain, or Kiwanis International, or the Girl Scouts of America be expected to place a {{connected contributor}} notice on the talk pages of those articles? Would they be allowed to edit them at all? To be clear, I am talking about rank and file members here, not the secretary-general. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Translation: "Am I closely connected to the Knights of Columbus?" No, ordinary members are not generally considered to require such disclosures unless their editing is to promote the organization or the organization's POV. NPOV editing standards apply to all editors. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Eggishorn, That's not accurate. As I have not edited in that area in some time, and don't plan to for the forseeable future, this question wasn't about me. I'm genuinely interested how involved one has to be before the relationship has to be disclosed. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I would think that mere membership in an organization would not require disclosure, or else every Wikipedian would have to disclose, for example, their political party affiliation before editing articles about politicians in their own (or an opposing party), or their school science club membership before editing articles about science. BD2412 T 00:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
We should view WP:COI as our policy on COI editing, not on having a COI. Nobody here should be required to disclose membership in anything just by virtue of having membership. If they are engaged in any form of advocacy editing for a membership based organization, then and only then does enquiry into the relationship make sense. Our editors who regularly encounter advocacy editing are generally quite good at sorting this. Can you point to a specific edit that concerns you, Slugger O'Toole? John from Idegon (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
John from Idegon, There's no one edit in particular. I have been asked at various times if I belong to certain organizations, and I have seen others asked as well. It doesn't seem like merely being a member (or alumna, or resident, etc) should be enough to trigger notification, but I wanted the thoughts of others. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Slugger O'Toole, if you are getting asked that by multiple editors about different subjects, you should probably be looking to improve your comprehension of WP:NPOV and WP:V. John from Idegon (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is good practice for editors to disclose even slight COI liberally and be very conservative about adhering to the neutral point of view. I disclosed my Sierra Club membership when I first started editing and wrote quite a few club related articles including biographies of club leaders of decades past. In 11 years of editing, no established editor has ever accused me of POV pushing, because I try very hard to write neutrally, and well over 95% of my editing has nothing to do with the Sierra Club. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Cullen328, In theory, that sounds reasonable. If I were to disclose, however, that I was a member of B'nai B'rith, an alumna of Liberty University School of Law, and a resident of Alanson, Michigan before editing any of those articles, it probably be pretty easy to identify me off-wiki, which I may not want. Can't be too many Jewish alums of a small, ultra-conservative Evangelical Christian law school living in a tiny village in Michigan, even if 95% of my edits have nothing to do with any of those articles. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
If someone like that does not want to be identified, then that person would be wise to avoid a highly idiosyncratic pattern of editing which might lead to someone else figuring out who they are. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Cullen328, Fair enough. But searching for clues through an edit history to determine an identity is a lot more difficult than reading an explicit acknowledgement. This is particularly true, to use your example, if 95% of edits are on other topics. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Any editor who refrains from POV pushing and sticks strictly to the NPOV will encounter no problems, Slugger O'Toole. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
John from Idegon, That's good advice, and those are areas I am working on currently. As I said above, however, this query wasn't about me. I've seen the question asked of others as well. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I asked a similar question on this noticeboard a few months ago (regarding how I should handle being a member of the United Methodist Church if I were going to update some articles on Methodist history and whether I should be using edit requests). Here's my thoughts on the matter:
  • Being a member of a large organization, in and of itself, is kind of a hazy area, but I'd generally call it "not a significant COI" - not enough that I would expect disclosure or edit requests. There may, however, be a predisposition toward bias, but as we all know, bias is not the same thing as COI.
  • The COI scales with responsibility - if you have a leadership role within an organization, that's getting into COI territory.
  • The COI also scales as we get into subgroups of the organization - in the example I gave, writing about the history of United Methodism as a whole probably doesn't trigger a COI, whereas writing an article on the specific church I'm a member of would probably be COI
  • Because of your relationship with that large organization, voluntary 1RR would be best - if challenged, let the other person revert and talk it over. Recognize that even if it isn't an outright COI, you're likely to have some bias toward the organization.
GeneralNotability (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
GeneralNotability, Our thinking largely aligns here. I already have a 1RR policy on contentious material. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Simply being a Catholic is not a COI in the sense in which Wikipedia understands it, but the fact that so many users are calling you out on your disruptive POV editing should be a wake-up call about your ability to edit in that topic area regardless. It's not acceptable editing just because it's not COI. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Neelacanta Sthanumoorthy

Author was asked by User:Ponyo on 6 June to declare any conflict of interest. Draft was resubmitted without a declaration. Name of subject and name of author are very similar. (Article is not an autobiography because subject is deceased. Submitter may be family or estate of subject.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Patryk Jaki

My edition about Jaki's education was deleted by user @SolidarnaPL:. "SolidarnaPL" is a styled version of "Solidarna Polska" which means "United Poland"; editor is probably associated with Jaki's political party and deleted information about accusations of academic dishonesty in Jaki's doctoral procedure..

He attended the University of Wrocław, where he earned a Master of Arts in political science. He subsequently submitted his doctoral dissertation at the University of Opole, but was rejected.[1] In 2019 he submitted a thesis at the War Studies Academy setting out his ideas on Polish penitentiary system and was awarded a Doctor of Philosophy degree for it.[2] This exemplified the custom in Polish politics for a rising young official to write a scholarly work in mid-career. Later the dissertation became a target of professorial misconduct accusations.[3][4][5]

--Centyja (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Patrykowi Jakiemu odmówiono zrobienia doktoratu na Uniwersytecie Opolskim". edukacja.dziennik.pl (in Polish). 2019-12-03. Retrieved 2020-06-19.
  2. ^ "Patryk Jaki obronił doktorat". www.rp.pl (in Polish). Retrieved 2020-06-19.
  3. ^ "Do trzech razy sztuka. Wiemy, jak to było z doktoratem Patryka Jakiego". naTemat.pl (in Polish). Retrieved 2020-06-19.
  4. ^ "Wyborcza.pl". wyborcza.pl. Retrieved 2020-06-19.
  5. ^ "Niechlujstwo i błędy na stronie tytułowej doktoratu. Patryk Jaki jest prawdziwym "obnibusem"". KODUJ24.PL (in Polish). 2019-12-09. Retrieved 2020-06-19.

Relix magazine and its staff

This is one of those investigations that spiral away and keep uncovering new issues, hence the wall of text.

Caryplace7, who registered in mid-April, is an SPA displaying several signs of undeclared COI (quite possibly UPE). Their first edit was to create Draft:Mike Greenhaus about one of the editors-in-chief of Relix magazine. The first AfC reviewer added a question about COI, which Caryplace7 answered here saying that they are merely interested in Relix and the improvisional music scene; the reviewer assumed good faith. The full conversation, from the end end of May, is here. Since then, Caryplace has been using the reviewer's AGF and comments on three sources that the reviewer said were independent (which they are in a sense, but they are not secondary) to mildly bludgeon the same reviewer, another reviewer, the Teahouse, Draft talk:Mike Greenhaus, and the Teahouse once again. A quick perusal of those threads gives a pretty good idea of what is going on and how the user cherry-picks parts of responses, ignoring the rest (including the renewed explanations of the first reviewer). After all that discussion and advice about notability, secondary sources, and how to identify and present them, Caryplace7 created this in mainspace. I moved it to draftspace and redirected the new draft to the older one.

All Cayplace7's edits that don't concern this draft have been to add links to pieces in relix.com or its subsidiary jambands.com (mostly but not exclusively things with Greenhaus listed as the author), or to other articles about Relix and its staff, such as Peter Shapiro (concert promoter) and Dean Budnick. That a genre enthusiast might add external links to articles and interviews to various Wikipedia articles about musicians is one thing, but the single-minded focus on Relix is a bit beyond that, as is the urgency in getting an article about Greenhaus into mainspace. I just realise that they created another article yesterday, David Goldflies, which is not directly related – but have a look at the sourcing. That article should also be draftified IMO, but I don't want to come across as hounding the editor so I'll leave that to someone else's discretion.

It looks like Relix is probably a major publication in a relatively narrow field and I am not suggesting it should be blacklisted, but I am convinced that there have been some concerted efforts to promote it in Wikipedia. See the contributions by the three IPs listed above, from April this year. I checked all the edits from the first of those, and about a dozen each of the edits by the other two, and all of those were additions of ref links to relix.com or jambands.com, usually mentioning Greenhaus' name; sometimes they were accompanied by a sentence or two in order to motivate the inclusion of the ref link. I also followed a few of the links to the source, and discovered various things like this autobiographical essay at relix.com which was added in this edit – I fail to see any connection to Greenhaus in that text, despite him being cited as the author in the WP ref.

There are a couple of older SPAs as well, Kevwinst (talk · contribs) and Rwupubl (talk · contribs), focusing on other people connected with Relix; I don't believe for a second that for instance this or this were not acts of promotion. Kevwinst hasn't edited since October last year and has never been given any COI notices or warnings, so I added a COI notice to their user talk page now. Rwupubl has been dormant for almost a year and I am only mentioning that user here to show that there's been a long-term issue with promotional editing about Relix staff. --bonadea contributions talk 11:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

FTR, Caryplace7 has posted a comment to this report on my user talk page, apparently self-identifying as the first of the three IPs listed above. --bonadea contributions talk 16:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a link to my comments on your talk page Bonadea (talk · contribs). As I mentioned, and you mentioned, I am new to Wikipedia so still learning. I have made several edits related to Relix and other publications in a similar space. As I mentioned, I am a fan of the magazine but not involved (also a fan of the music it covers, like David Goldflies; Bonadea suggested I work on other bios in our talk so I did). Bonadea has correctly asserted that Relix is a major publication in a niche genre which is why the scope of articles focusing on that music (jambands) is narrowed to a few writers and magazines, Relix being the biggest. I was trying to help flesh out those bios and also was trying to add a bio for one on Editor Mike Greenhaus, who did not have one (I tried both submitting it to be reviewed and adding it into a red link). Once again, I am new to Wikipedia and clearly not doing this right. I am happy to delete the Mike Greenhaus draft and, if you like, will not edit anything directly related to Relix or the people you mentioned. But please don't block or blacklist the Relix wiki bio or other subjects involved and bring them into this as I don't want to hurt them. I came to Bonadea in good faith--we first connected on the Teahouse as I was trying to learn about this process--and I have been in regular communication with him and other editors. I respect he is being a diligent editor but can we leave this as I won't go near those pages and, if you think I am not being faithful, you can flag me. As for the Govt Mule article he mentioned, I did link to it and the author's name, Greenhaus, is cited at the bottom of the article. I have not resubmitted the bio draft for review by the way and, as I said, I am happy to delete it all together. I have tried to be in communication with editors who rejected my bios and to seek guidance through the Teahouse, which I thought I was suppose to do if I had a question. I have been hyper focused on finishing that Greenhaus bio since I spent so much time on it. But I was not trying to be promotional or do anything to upset the review process. The guidelines encourage editors to "Be polite, and welcoming to new users" and to "Assume good faith" and, given that I am admittedly new to this, I would appreciate being treated as such as I learn how to edit. Thank you Caryplace7 (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

As for the Govt Mule article he mentioned, I did link to it and the author's name, Greenhaus, is cited at the bottom of the article. It is mentioned now, but it was not mentioned yesterday. (I almost allowed them to gaslight me there, but the archived version confirms my memory: https://web.archive.org/web/20191224114213/https://relix.com/articles/detail/the-core-govt-mule/ ). --bonadea contributions talk 22:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Fraser (lawyer)

Standard biographical conflict concerns; subject revising the article in promotional fashion. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Steven Van Zandt

Hey everyone, I have a serious problem of interest here and that is that there are Wikipedia users who do not stop undoing all the edits made by all the high-ranking IPs. A few moments ago I received several notices from Sundayclose saying this and that about Steven Van Zandt, which I recently updated the infobox (with all his personal and musical data), alphabetically order the occupations in the opening sentences and finally, also order the categories alphabetically because of course, it is part of the alphabet but despite the fact that I sent the message through its discussion page here, it has proceeded to undo the changes and the message that I send after he left several comments in the edition histories that he is a musical artist, the same happens with Kendall Schmidt, he also denounced my editions and the same I leave in summaries of editions that he is a musical artist which he did not understand.

There is a reason why or someone else has chosen to undo the only two editions I update and alphabetically order about Steven and Kendall, to see if we reach a consensus or not, thank you. 148.0.124.199 (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You offer no evidence of CoI; please use the process described at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I did but as I told you before Sundayclose has proceeded to withdraw my message on its talk page and has discarded my only two editions. Here is the evidence: 1, 2, 3, and 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.0.124.199 (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I can read. Now is the time for you to read the advice I just gave you, and to follow it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Girish Makwana

These two accounts are not sockpuppets, according to CU, but they have submitted almost the same BLP, so they may be being paid by the same person or agency. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Shivranjani makwana was asked in April about COI and did not answer (but stopped editing, so possibly got a meatpuppet to spell them). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Kalki Bhagwan

After more than one request for disclosure of COI over a long period of time, editor prodigyhk has recently declared knowing the subject of the article, Kalki Bhagwan, an Indian guru, for nearly 30 years. However, there is some evidence to suggest that prodigyhk also serves as the regional founder of the guru's 'Oneness' Organization in a particular region of the world which I will not disclose here to protect the editor's privacy. The editor, prodigyhk, has not responded to requests for clarification regarding COI on his/her talk page. Some of the online references to support my assertion have recently started being removed, however I have kept copies if it becomes necessary to submit evidence. merlinVtwelve (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Eastern Rail Services

I nominated this article, on a very small 3-person company, for deletion after coming across it on NPP. I was surprised to be immediately confronted by Neith-Nabu with a COI query based on me not nominating other similar companies.[23] I found this query to be irregular, with a whiff of entitlement, but moved on. However, since this has been at AfD very low-edit count accounts have shown up, namely Sleepyste (20 edits) and Hopldoele (46 edits), in particular this edit from 20 June (describing 16 June events) raised alarm bells for me: [24]. Neith-Nabu has uploaded an image of the company's equipment with a source note saying this is his own work: [25]. Sleepyste has uploaded two images, taken since the AfD started, from the company's stock yard: [26][27]. Both images were taken at different times/dates and are also labelled as "Own work". I think the ensemble here is suspicious - low-edit accounts showing up with images taken from within the company's facilities.--Eostrix (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Neith-Nabu has previously contributed to Mid-Norfolk Railway (where i recall coming across Neith-Nabu) and likely frequents that railway relatively often and the use of that line by Eastern Rail Services is likely to have triggeredd his attention. I challenged Neith-Nabu at tbe AFD and he gave the following response [28] which I WP:AGF to be reasonable and so he probably shouldn't be on this COIN. I could say a little more however the problem is this page's notes clearly state: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue" and I am pretty sure looking at the user talk pages that discussion hasn't taken place so there is possibly an harrassment problem here, albeit maybe unintentional, if I understand the guidelines for the page corrrectly.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
All information posted above - which consists mainly of these accounts uploading images of the company's kit labelled as "Own work" - is public. The AfD discussion was extensive. I was debating whether to post here or at WP:SPI, I chose here as I consider multiple people (as opposed to a single person with multiple accounts) to be more likely. In any event, this merits uninvolved attention.--Eostrix (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Eostrix You are sidestepping the "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue" and pressing home your POV; however well intentioned and for whatever basis. If you insist on continuing please provide specific Diffs where you have asked each of the above users about their possible COI before bringing this here. Its pretty unlikely these are the same individual. Because this was nom'd for delete so soon after mainspace it will be difficult to prove between canvessing and natural collaberation, and a good AfD closer should be able to take that into account as is not a !vote count. It obviously helps if someone contributing to Wikipedia is a Billy-no-mates otherwise they risk their friends jumping in to AfD's .... an this might or might not have happened here; and thats softer than a direct canvas and we should be WP:AGF. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
COI has been discussed on the AfD page, and considering Neith-Nabu is referring to other users as "infesting" Wikipedia, diff, this has reached the point where outside involvement is warranted.--Eostrix (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Eostrix my reading of that diff, which may be incorrect, was that that comment @Neith-Nabu made was perhaps somewhat akin to a personal attack. And quite frankly as an WP:NPP in particular when you decide to bin someones work they are going to pretty upset, especiallly initially. And there are noticeboards to deal with that if necessary, however WP:COIN is not that place. Yet again you are seem to be trying to dodge the direct question " "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue"" which you do not seem to have done before coming here. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Neith-Nabu has uploaded many pictures of trains to Commons, [29] from various companies, and has edited many different articles relating to rail transport and Norfolk. I find it plausible that he just has an interest in trains rather than being affiliated with this company. The accounts with two digit edit counts showing up to vote in the AFD are certainly suspicious and I suspect there may be some off-site canvassing going on. But the edit histories of these accounts show a general interest in rail transport, not limited to specific companies, and I get the impression that this is more of a WP:FANPOV issue than WP:COI. Spicy (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • After consideration of the evidence I thinks there's sufficent to issue Sleepyste with a Template:Uw-coi and a belated become to give links to the required policies & guidlelines should they have an undeclared COI. I think I'm right in saying they've haven't made a contribution or !vote to the AfD, they have provided a couple of photos to commons, which is not an issue if they have a COI. They have made a couple of mostly relatively small edits to the Eastern Rail Services which technically would be a slight problem if an undeclared COI though nothing I'd refuse on q request edit (the lede edit might have been challenged); and an edit to Template:British railway spot-hire companies. I dont see that Sleepyste needs to answer the uw-coi warning if they dont want to unless they wish to contribute to those articles in future or participate in the WP:AFD. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Happy to confirm Sleepyste has confirmed no COI on his talk page so pragmatically hope thats the end of that one. 21:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
However it appears that the nominating editor is on a personal vendetta against the company, myself, or both. Neith-Nabu (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, I have no connection to either Eastern Rail Services nor any of the other editors who have made contributions to the article. If any off-site canvassing occurred, I wasn't privy to it. Worth noting that according to Metadata, Neith-Nabu's images and Sleepyste's images used different camera types, so drawing a long bow to suggest these editors are one and the same. Appears the only thing the three of us have in common is trying to improve the article.
Neith-Nabu, I don't think the nominating editor has a personal vendetta against you, he is just annoyed that editors have appeared to beef up the article, lessening the chances of the AfD being successful. Hopldoele (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Oberoi Realty

The user has edited only the article Oberoi Realty. There could be possible copyvios here. The last revision of the page in January 2020 before Shweta-biraj began editing the page (see this) is much different from the most recent revision (see this). LSGH (talk) (contributions) 06:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_159&oldid=966438797"