Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 148

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pages of Dr Kamakshi Hospital and Undiporadhey

I suspect the mentioned pages to be paid edits. As it is disclosed here at http://digitallyvibed.com/blog/how-to-create-your-wikipedia-page/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:886:3adb:ddb8:f254:4bc0:755e (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked, quarantined, regex salted and reverted. I quarantined the film article too, because business development = advertising. MER-C 15:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Robert Maximilian de Gaynesford

The subject matter (literature/philosophy) is outside my "comfort zone", so could someone else look at this article. Possible COI as all edits are by a new/SPA. Certainly needs other cleanup - refs on headings, questions in the text, independent sources? etc. MB 16:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I have informed them of Wikipedia's COI rules, and of this discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I have read through the history of the article and it seems more autobiographical than paid editing. The article was mainly written by IP Address editors until Phenomenologuy started this month, although non SPAs have made minor corrections. As a full professor the subject seems notable, but the NPOV and formatting of the article need improvement. TSventon (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the info about the photo in the infobox is described at commons as "a selfie" (and was uploaded by Phenomenologuy). MB 23:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
There's a distinct lack of secondary sources. Is this person even notable? --SVTCobra 00:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I did a bit of searching and I cant find anything on him, so I have listed the page on him for deletion here. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • There is an even stronger indicator than that. I looked at three of the IP addresses. They all geolocated to the institutions where the article said that the article subject was working. Uncle G (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that for the IP which created the article all those years ago. --SVTCobra 18:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I am new to the editing process, so forgive me if I make mistakes. I am Maximilian de Gaynesford, and my user name is Phenomenologuy. A page about me ("Robert Maximilian de Gaynesford") was added to Wikipedia without my knowledge or permission in 2005, and since I have an interest in accurate information being given about me in a public forum, and since the original article and its updates were incorrect, I corrected them myself. In subsequent years, banners have been added to the page at various times to ask for further information to improve the page, and since no one else seemed to be doing this and I was in a good position to do so, I made the necessary improvements myself. Recently, I thought it would improve the information if a photograph of myself were included, and I went through Wikipedia's steps for doing this - in the process, making it quite clear that the picture being uploaded was a selfie. The fact that I did not create the original article explains why the name itself is misleading: I actually go under 'Maximilian de Gaynesford', and if you Google that name, you will find many references to me - they will attest that I am a reasonably well-known philosopher, with a Chair at the University of Reading, four books with excellent academic presses and am invited to present my work regularly at public events, so that there is some justification for the original decision (not mine) to include an article about me on Wikipedia. I have obviously never accepted pay for this editing, and I have neither sought nor received any form of financial benefit through doing it. My sole aim has been to ensure that a page which was created by someone else and without my knowledge should be regularly improved according to the requests and requirements of Wikipedia itself. If I can be of further help in your discussion, please do not hesitate to contact me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phenomenologuy (talk • contribs) 09:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Phenomenologuy:, thanks for responding. It is understandable if editors are not familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies and that is part of the reason Wikipedia has notice boards like this. Firstly I suggest that you read the conflict of interest (COI) guideline, which strongly recommends that editors with a COI post to the article's talk page, rather than directly editing the article. I have added a COI notice to the article talk page. You could also read the guideline on autobiography, which explains how difficult it is to write objectively about oneself. The article has been nominated for deletion, so you could contribute to the discussion if you believe that the article should or should not be deleted. I have also posted a welcome message with more general links on your user page. TSventon (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you to TSventon for the very helpful information.Phenomenologuy (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Two things:

  • User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you — This strong advice to not write given in 2006 is tame by today's standards, where some people discourage writing even if one has independent sources in hand.
  • If it were just that all of the IP addresses geolocate to the places where the subject works, I would not be concerned, as after all that is information that was being put right into the article. But some of them (including some as far back as 2005) apparently geolocate to the subject's home, residential ISPs in the same towns/cities. The Wikipedia:privacy policy carves out an exemption for this, but I do not think that anyone envisaged a case where Wikipedia would be publicly hosting a 14-year-long record of a biography subject's apparent IP addresses, work and home, as an article's edit history. (And although a few of the IP addresses are clearly not the subject, we know that fools on the WWW often aren't careful enough to check.)

Uncle G (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand Uncle G's admonition and thank them for their concern for objectivity and factual accuracy, which is precisely what prompted me to correct and update information being made public about me by Wikipedia in an article created without my knowledge or permission. I was quite happy for my IP address to be known - Wikipedia advised me that it would be - whenever I made an edit. I now know there is an alternative way to correct and update information - through the Talk page - which I will happily use in future. I am grateful to this discussion and particularly TSventon for revealing this to me. Phenomenologuy (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Well if you are happy about the IP addresses, that's something. I am still a little concerned on your behalf. It's an extraordinary situation, and while it is within the letter of the policy it does not seem to me to be in the spirit of it that this is the case. I've not encountered a situation like this before, although as the years accrue no doubt it will happen again, and it may have happened elsewhere that I am not aware of. Unfortunately, there's only one thing that could be done about it, should it be a problem. Uncle G (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Uncle G, what do you think. Let me know if there's more that concerns you. I've been pretty comprehensive in my search but you are smarter than me. Phenomenologuy, make sure you don't edit while logged out, OK? It's not just not OK, it's also not smart given the internet. BTW, 1968 was a good year for bald guys with glasses who do philosophy, and I salute you. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I asked Drmies to come here and xe has oversighted several of the recent home IP addresses, leaving the edit contents and summaries visible. This alleviates my privacy concerns here. There are a few edits, such as ones from from Williamsburg in 2005 and 2006, that I suspect to be the article subject too, but given the above I am not going to fuss over them.
    • Phenomenologuy, the best thing that you can do for Wikipedia is write about something else. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pragmatic maxim has a whole load of citations that never made it onto Talk:pragmatic maxim or even into the article itself as potential further reading. You could evaluate them to see whether they are any good as further reading, on that article or otherwise, or even as sources. You do not have to write prose, but I think that you are in a good position to evaluate the relevance of some books as selected reading materials.
    • The second best thing that you can do is cite biographies of yourself or academic reviews of your works by other people in the field, if you know of any. Author autobiographical blurbs from books do not help, but a proper fully independent biography would. See User talk:Drmies#English Professor Vacuum for one recent example of a subject where there are sources from which to work for both the life and the works for a person. Yes, sometimes one has to wait until one is dead. ☺
  • Uncle G (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to Uncle G and to Drmies for your advice and good humour; I will endeavour to follow both. I'm grateful for your oversight work, which clears up some of the mess I unwittingly created. Phenomenologuy (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Words of truth, from when dr. de Gaynesford and I were deciding on academic career paths. Drmies (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I am happy to work at the best thing Uncle G and will look first at the article you have directed me to,Talk:pragmatic maxim. As regards the second best thing, I have added (a) selected academic reviews and (b) some biographical information from other sources to the Talk page for Maximilian de Gaynesford, with the request that some kind editor add this material to the article. And I'm grateful to Drmies for the timely reminder!

Phenomenologuy (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Phenomenologuy (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Autoliv

According to https://www.autoliv.com/news-and-media/press-contacts this user may be linked to the object of the article mentioned above. DoebLoggs (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Yes I am head of communications but I am merely updating numbers to 2018 data from 2017. Is this not as it should be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stina Thorman (talk • contribs)
@Stina Thorman: Please be sure to review Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure policy before making any further changes to this article. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Rappaport

For your perusal. Article (which looked like this prior to AfD tag: [2]) was written by the subject himself (IP from Pittsburgh) and his friends, including this SPA who confirmed that at one point on his userpage [3] and who has uploaded 348 of Rappaport's paintings to Commons. Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Softlavender: I'm assuming good faith here, but wanted to point out that this notification might cross the line into WP:CANVASSing (since I think people who follow this board would be very likely to have strong opinions against self-promo articles). creffett (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Creffett: What Softlavender is doing is not canvassing. It's good practice for editors who wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to discussions to place messages at noticeboards such as this one. I agree with you that the editors who follow this board would be very likely to have strong opinions against self-promo. But those aren't self-formed opinions. They are the result of established Wikipedia policy which forbids self promotion in articles. Regards,  Spintendo  15:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Spintendo, fair enough. I wasn't trying to level accusations, just was pointing out how it seemed to me at first glance. Thanks for the clarification. creffett (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Carla Bozulich

The only activity of this user is adding content at Carla Bozulich. The username clearly indicates a possible conflict of interests. DoebLoggs (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Gab (social network) again

A new SPA has appeared Laurirang (talk · contribs) who is intent on insisting that Gab's twitter is a more reliable source than the SPLC. So far they only edit articles related to Gab. They've been asked at user talk whether they have a CoI to declare but have not yet replied. I'm concerned, especially as they've shown willingness to edit-war social media links into the lede over a well regarded WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Quantar Solutions

Could be potential autobio, and COI in this related collection of items. IMO, notability is questionable on all of them. One of the articles was discussed at COIN in 2016: Archive 105 ☆ Bri (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Kristen Millares Young and Red Hen Press authors

User Rhpwikichicken appears to work for Red Hen Press ("Rhp" in username) and appears to currently be focused on author Kristen Millares Young, a page this user recently created. I do believe the author is notable, but I've had to go in and cut down on the promotional sounding language, and the excessive external links. Upon closer look, it appears RHP has also edited articles to improve mentions of Young ([4], [5], [6], [7]). – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 16:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The user's edits predate this particular article. They also made edits to Charles Harper Webb, Ron Carlson, Kate Gale, Louise Wareham Leonard, Amy Uyematsu, Chris Tarry and Colette Inez, all of whom are authors representing by this publishing company: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Since the paid edit policy did not come into effect until 16 June 2014, all edits previous to it are undisclosed COI only. Everything after is undisclosed paid, unless we can determine that the editor is a volunteer. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Discussion on my talk page has revealed that this is a volunteer, but the account has been shared. For now this is a matter for WP:UAA. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I (soft)-blocked the account after reading the admission that its credentials were being shared and passed down through the organisation, and encouraged the users to create their own accounts. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The Stranger (sociology)

User adding references with a links to a book he's author of. --DoebLoggs (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Attila Horváth (discus thrower)

User adding content to a page apparently connected to it's username. DoebLoggs (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Reported to WP:UAA as WP:IMPERSONATE. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Lululemon Athletica

Editor is a principal in CGP, Consumer Growth Partners, in an investment firm in the retail industry, and according to that firm's webpage was involved in the IPO for Lululemon Athletica. [1] She has not disclosed her COI in any way, but has edited articles about this and a number of other firms in this industry which compete with firms her company has a piece of, or which she was involved with herself. Orange Mike | Talk 15:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]
Just noting that User:Liz Dunn CGP edited Orangemike's comment, which I reverted. - MrOllie (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Lululemon, a company whose IPO I worked on 12 years ago at a former employer did not appear to me to be a COI. However I will err on the side of caution the future. I am an expert in the retail industry and so some of my knowledge comes from working with these companies over the last 25 years. I am not editing anything I have a current or recent business interest in or being paid for. Also, I am not a principal at CGP. I was attempting to create an appropriate and accurate COI notice when I edited the post by Orangemike. Apologies for that misstep. I wasn't familiar with the mechanics of adding to a discussion. Liz Dunn CGP (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

CGP's website makes you sound like a big deal there (not that there's anything wrong with that). We genuinely do like input from subject matter experts like yourself, Liz; but the horror stories of people in the corporate sector who think they can use us to pimp for their own interests make fascinating reading in a morbid sort of way. Don't let this little speed bump discourage you. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Pier Paolo Pandolfi

I am looking for assistance with the Wikipedia article Pier Paolo Pandolfi. I have declared I have a conflict of interest and requested changes on the talk page. The previous version of the article was edited by someone in my organization without disclosure which caused a conflict of interest notice to the article. Since then, all of my requests have been to remove anything that does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. Prior to my requests, the article looked like this link. After my requests, an editor implemented some of the edits so it looked like this link. Everything in the current article was reviewed by and implemented by a neutral editor from Wikipedia volunteer community.

I have asked many times to remove the notice at the top of the page but have been met with resistance. I was initially told to reach out to the editor who placed the notice. That editor reached out to another editor who said that it could be removed once there is an agreeable article copy. Then that editor said they were going to edit it. They never edited it so I asked if it was okay to remove and my request was denied as there was not a "consensus" to remove it. If everything in the article was implemented by a neutral editor, why would the notice still need to remain? I read the page that talks about conflict of interest notices and it appears the issue is addressed. Leaving it there seems more like shaming the subject than anything else.

After my final request, an editor removed all of his publications from the page (can be seen here) stating "we don't need these here – a reliable academic database will provide a complete and up-to-date list." I am confused as this seems customary in Wikipedia articles for academic professionals. Just seems like further punishment for a previous editor who did not disclose their connection to the subject.

Can someone please look at the page and tell me what needs to happen for this notice to be removed and if we can add back the publications? I am just confused at this point as I have done everything asked of me and what is stated in Wikipedia rules. --BIHAKen (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I apologize that this may appear to be circular. The discussion that you've mentioned was to determine if the template could be removed. The other editors made some statements, but then no changes were made by them. You then asked me to remove the template again, and my response was that there was no consensus to remove them. That was based on my reading of the conversation and the fact that the other two editors did not remove the templates. The template itself calls attention to the fact that edits were made by an editor who did not disclose. As the other editors have not acted, the only way to remove the template now is to remove the undisclosed edits (or remove them, and then have a neutral editor re-add them). At no time have these undisclosed edits been presented to me, by you, to be removed. That would need to occur for the template to be removed. Regards,  Spintendo  10:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
At this point this looks like a bare-bones uninflated biographical article which, at first glance, does not appear to need such a warning. I'd suggest we remove it unless there are some specific points in the present text which are problematic. Haukur (talk) 10:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
JLAN has taken care of this. My thanks to them for their help.  Spintendo  13:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Ordnance Factory Board

Article seems promotional, with an excessive number of images. This could probably be handled with normal cleanup/editing, but an IP recently added much text of a highly political/advocacy nature (and with a excessive number of citations) and removed COI template. I'm not sure how the various editors are related to each other or to the organization. MB 16:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The username Proffice.ofb (PR Office OFB) seems pretty obvious to me. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I cleaned up the article a bit, and removed the big "Future" section which looked like just a cut and paste of somebody's powerpoint. A lot of the images didn't have proper licensing, so I tagged them on wikimedia. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Matt William Knowles

The continuing promotion of Matt William Knowles.

Articles on this individual have been deleted multiple times. At Matthew Knowles (actor) alone it has been 3 including and afd deletion.

Amongs the accounts creating articles or drafts have been SravaniChalla (blocked sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kspellskarthik)), Lyndasim (blocked for Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes), Pamelasmith102 (SPA, no remaing live edits), Requiem for a Daydream (checkuser blocked), Voleares195 (block sock, Kspellskarthik), Godwinme (3 articles created, all deleted).

The latest draft was created by Ashleyalv who is a declared paid editor for this subject. Since October 2018 it has been heavily editted by Theos1919 who is a single purpose account over the 10 months they have been editing this page. The draft is promotional, amongst other things giving a large focus on "Charity Work" sourced to primary/pr. This draft was "approved" by Frayae (blocked sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver). duffbeerforme (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I created this page as my first (and only) page on wikipedia. I based it off of pages for artists I thought similarly skilled and everything in the article I found reading through news articles about Knowles on google. I had a lot of help on multiple occasions in the help irc channel. I am not connected to Knowles other than my taking interest in him after I saw his film Poppies in a film festival and was surprised he didn’t have a wikipedia. I think I created the page according to the rules of wikipedia. Let me know if you have any other issues. Theos1919 (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Duckhorn Vineyards, etc.

Over more than a hundred small edits during the last few weeks, Liza Zimmerman has been turning Duckhorn Vineyards into an advertisement, with variable subtlety. They disclosed on their userpage that they are paid "by the Duckhorn Winery to correct and amend the winery's content on its Wikipedia page". More recently, they submitted a short draft, now Kosta Browne, on a related topic with AFC and greatly expanded it once it was accepted. User:Railfan23 asked them on their talk page to properly disclose their paid editing in accordance with WP:COI but got no reply. This edit seems to be the only place they have acknowledged being paid for edits to that page. They have also started three other closely related drafts, [15], [16], and [17], with no explicit mention of whether they were paid for those. KSFT (t|c) 19:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The edits include some that are openly promotional and some that are even counterfactual. Both of those examples are after extensive discussions explaining the problem of promotional edits. Having Liza Zimmerman around and editing topics on which she has a conflict of interest means that she requires constant supervision, and the articles constant cleanup. I do not think that's beneficial to the project. And that's not even considering the lackluster disclosure. Huon (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Coupa (again)

Hello! I recently noticed some suspicious edits to Coupa. This editor had made some deleted drafts that I can't see, but all of their remaining edits seem to be to Coupa. This article was earlier brought up in this thread where a disclosed paid editor was trying to get some advice here, however the editor who made that thread seems to no longer edit that article. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the draft they kept trying to make was about Coupa's CEO. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Confirming Coupa hasn't been a client of mine or my employer for more than three years. In early 2016 when I was working with Coupa, I gave my contacts there an overview of Wikipedia guidelines and COI policies, but it's quite possible there's been a lot of institutional turnover since then. I can't speak to any recent edits. Mary Gaulke (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Authentic Brands Group

IP editor 8.140.180.34 (talk · contribs) made broad claims on edits to Authentic Brands Group that are not supported by sources. User Major Matt Mason85 (talk · contribs) has also edited article, and issued a notice on my talk page against the removal of information added by IP editor, with specific use of the word "we" (implying direct association and COI with company). ViperSnake151  Talk  22:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Keith Pickard

Uncle G (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Douglas Vakoch

This is perhaps a case of COI, or something closely related to it - it has been raised unanswered on editor's talk page previously. This editor has also created the METI (associated organisation) article. Whatever the underlying issue is, this BLP is 150,000 bytes long. If I was to prune this article, the entire filmography/radiography(!) etc would go. If we listed every radio appearance by every academic on here.....suffice to say it's more CV/fancruft than encyclopaedic. It is well referenced, and therefore it's difficult for me to tell just what content is notable and what isn't. Editor seems to have a fixation on the subject - other snippets of activity support the argument of COI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Green_Psychotherapy,_PC) Also to note is activity on related articles regarding subject - quite pervasive, best seen https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/CarmenRodriguez91&dir=prev&limit=500&target=CarmenRodriguez91 with example diffs here, here too, three, four. There are multiple examples - over ten - of generously positive Douglas Vakoch content added to related articles by this editor. Rayman60 (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I took a shot at trimming the article down substantially. There's probably more to be done. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Emil Alzamora

DominicPontone's username seems to indicate a clear conflict of interest with the subjects of these articles. Draft:Emil Alzamora (originally created in mainspace as an article; draftified by DGG as undersourced, since CSDed for COPYVIO) was created entirely with content copied from the Pontone Gallery's website, and in this series of diffs, they appear to be writing about themselves and their gallery. They were warned about COI issues on their userpage by Alexf regarding the edits to Albermarle Gallery (which is connected to the Pontone Gallery), but they have made no steps towards the necessary COI declarations, and have since created articles about Emil Alzamora and Iain Faulkner, both artists who exhibit at the Albermarle Gallery, which were both largely COPYVIO, and about which the user has a clear conflict of interest. I am concerned that they are here largely to promote their gallery and the artists who exhibit there - they made a few useful contributions after creating their account, presumably to get autoconfirmed, and then started writing articles in mainspace about subjects they have a commercial connection with, despite being notified of our COI policies. GirthSummit (blether) 22:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Ahmed Moharram

My biggest concern with this editor is this edit on my talk page [18] The editor has been adding unsourced information to the article VVikingTalkEdits 17:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I am Ibrahimsabotaleb120. My page "Ahmed Moharram" is as good as any other wikipedia page. It is about a public figure in Egypt (who is not alive by the way). I am not promoting any products or services. This public figure has distinguished national contributions and earned the highest awards of honor in Egypt. This is clearly reflected in the sources that I included in the page. At some point, I even attached pictures of the certificates of honor that this public figure earned (what more proof do you need than that!!). Despite that, VViking keeps deleting those contributions and honors and claims that they are unsourced (they are sourced! he/she did not read the sources, not my problem). By the way, I wrote more than 12 journal papers in the US and I know clearly how citation and adding sources works. There are many wikipedia pages that have unsourced information, and VViking is ok with them, but is not ok with my sourced page. This is clearly prejudice.

@Ibrahimsabotaleb120: Before we address the content dispute, an important practice on Wikipedia is that we assume good faith of fellow editors. Don't accuse others of harmful motives unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.
Also, to be clear, the article Ahmed Moharram is an article about that person, but it is not your article, even if you created it. No one has any right of ownership or control over an article's content. Anyone can edit an article at any time on Wikipedia.
Disagreements over content should be calmly and rationally discussed on the article talk page, where a process of discussion and compromise should result in consensus. If that does not resolve the disagreement, the steps for dispute resolution should be followed.
Question to VViking, where do you see a potential COI? This looks like more of a content dispute. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
The way the individual is Owning the article appeared to me like a COI editor. There is nothing specific other than the owning and the tone of the article that gave me the feeling this is a COI editor.VVikingTalkEdits 13:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not a COI editor. Do not accuse me of such thing based on your "feeling". This wikipedia page is as good as others which are talking about other public figures. Ibrahimsabotaleb120
{reply to|Viewmont Viking} For what it's worth, I agree that it looked like a COI editor based on the language of the article. If the editor doesn't have a COI, then that's good. I've done some work on removing the excessive titles. I'll try to take a another pass at the article later this week. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 20:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe this wasn't the correct venue to bring this up as I had no 'proof' of a COI, however this editor has indicated ownership over the article. Even after being warned here the editor has continued to remove any tags or edits without discussion. In addition to claiming that I am "clearly prejudice." Against them.VVikingTalkEdits 22:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Eyer: The page as is now is worthless. You or VVking removed all of the pu lic figure's history, contributions, and honors. You converted the page to a page talking about a non-significant person. I would rather delete the page than keeping it that way. When I say I feel the editor has prejudice, I say that with 100% certainty because he/she is totally fine with other wikipedia pages having tons of unsourced information (like a page named osman ahmed osman), but not ok with my page which has sourced information. I know what I am talking about. The references and sources list all of the history and contributions of the public figure that I am talking about. It is not my problem that you did not open the sources. It is also not my problem that you do not understand arabic (some of the sources are in arabic language). I do not have to add a sources after each sentence (is this what you guys want me to do?). This is not how wikipedia works. The sources have all information. I will find ways to further raise this to the attention of wikipedia, because what VVking is doing is harrassment, totally unprofessional.

@Ibrahimsabotaleb120: If you wish to take it further, you will have to engage the other editors on the talkpage first, where they are trying to discuss improving the article. They have laid out what they find problematic about the sourcing. You have 10 references; 5 of them are to the company the subject was CEO of,(not independent) and one is to wikipedia itself.(not reliable) and the section "Leadership and membership of committees and scientific societies" has no references at all. So their concerns about sourcing are well justified. Just because some other articles in Wikipedia aren't very good is no excuse to add more bad ones!
If you could remember sign your posts with 4 tildes ~ which will leave your name and date stamp your posts, it makes it easier for others to see who is typing what. Curdle (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I have sources but in hard copy format. These sources are snippets from Egyptian newspapers from several years ago. They list the honors of the public figure and his political history and accomplishments. These newspapers were not online back then. Only available in hard copies and I have them scanned. Should I upload them in the article? @Eyer: I trust your judgment. Please take a look at the article and tell me what needs to be done. I listed all the online sources that I could get. I can upload the scanned newspaper articles if you want. They are in Arabic. Someone said that one of the sources is the website of the company founded by Ahmed Moharram, and it is not a good source. I understand that. But this is not a normal company. This is the largest consulting firm in Egypt. It is the Republic's consultant, and for sure, any incorrect information would be detected by the government.Ibrahimsabotaleb120 (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ibrahimsabotaleb120: Printed sources can be used, and so can Arabic-language sources, if they are considered reliable. Have a look at {{cite news}} - there are many examples of how to format references to a printed newspaper. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

TalentSprint‎

Article is recent recipient of large edit from SPA that inserted much content matching WP:Identifying PR, including list of products, funding history, partnerships, list of officers, list of awards. Having done a bunch of cleanup on these issues before, I'd appreciate another pair of eyes on this one. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Rashmi Ranjan Parida

This user has created a likely autobio and his other edits seem to have some COI. I would also say that he is borderline notable, I would lean towards, non-notable. Daiyusha (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Manpreet Johal

This appears to be an undisclosed paid editor per their profile on LinkedIn, created Manpreet Johal and companies that Johal founded and repeatedly uploading copyrighted images. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Parmindersinghbawa first denied, then disclosed his paid status and constantly moving his incomplete draft to main. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Mandy Barnett

2601:482:457F:C66B:C4F0:2399:FD97:CB2A (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Cmzbnash (talk · contribs) are constantly adding Mandy Barnett in the "associated acts" column of various artists who have no clear connection to Barnett whatsoever. I suspect that this is COI. Most of the edits to Mandy Barnett proper seem to be in good faith, but the spamming of "associated acts" suggests otherwise. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Mandy Barnett played Patsy Cline in Always Patsy Cline, there is a huge association between the two. Alison Krauss has recorded with Mandy Barnett as well, and she regularly performs with BJ Thomas. That is why they were added. To be honest, I thought I added it incorrectly previously and that's why it wasnt there, definitely not spamming. Also not sure why links to her official pages were removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmzbnash (talk • contribs)
  • @Cmzbnash: One-time collaborations are not what the "associated_acts" field is used for. It should be for groups of which the individual artist is a member, or frequent collaborators. Barnett never worked with Cline proper, so neither is an associated act of the other. For instance, "Union Station" is an acceptable "associated act" of Alison Krauss since she is a member of that band. Sammy Kershaw is a valid associated act for Lorrie Morgan since the two recorded multiple collaborations. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) ah, I see, thank you for clarifying that! One thing however, Patsy Cline has been listed as an associated act on her wiki page for years, before I ever edited anything. Look at the artist's listed as associated acts on Patsy's page, most of them werent even alive when Patsy was around. Why are they (Leeann Rimes, Pam Tillis) allowed to be associated with her but Mandy isnt? Im not being snarky, I genuinely dont understand!

EFounders

Requesting more eyes on this. Apparent UPE by recent editor(s), off-wiki stuff I don't want to get into here. It has been discussed here before – see Archive 88. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Harcourt Butler Technical University

This IP has been adding several edits of unsourced information that is purely original research. It is likely that the IP is associated with the school. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  • It's not original research. It's a straight copy and paste of this promotional brochure, which is of course not free content. There are people in the world who use wholesale plagiarism of other people's writing as a substitute for not themselves being able to write. Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Felix Velarde

This user has been trying to update the article with promotional material. It seems to be the same sentence all the time that they are trying to enter. They have stated that they are not being paid, but several attempts to add the same content bely that statement. I think at the very least the editor has a coi. The sentence he/she want to add is Velarde specialises in implementing frameworks to drive scaleup companies to double or triple their revenue. They're adding other content which is generally ok, well referenced and could go back in, but some stuff and sections was unsourced and their was an attempt to link Velarde to a famous architect without providing evidence. scope_creepTalk 11:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  • That wording seems to be a red flag. I can only find it being said, over and over, by the article subject, in autobiographies such as on the subject's own WWW site and in interviews. As far as I can tell, no-one else makes these claims. I am concerned by the account talking of xyrself in the first person plural, too.

    In fact, is this subject even notable? All of the sources in the article for the past 12 years are either advertising (such as a 2016 advertisement for a forthcoming conference, including how to buy a ticket, being used to support a statement that it cannot possibly support, since the advertisement was published before the claimed event actually happened) or autobiography, sometimes interviews and more often with the subject xyrself in the byline. Do independent sources other than advertisements and autobiographies even exist?

    Uncle G (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The subject is notable. It went to Afd, and a BBC produced video surfaced of him from YouTube, detailing him and his web design agency in 1994. It was clear keep. It was one of the earliest web companies. I went through several copy-edits, it was huge article before and that was what was consensus was agreed. It was spam target that went on and on for months, until there was several blocks and then it was quiet for more than a year, now it back on for some reason. scope_creepTalk 01:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm the subject, not sure if I am allowed to comment. I have never paid anyone to do anything here. Some updates were done a few years ago by an ex-colleague after we stopped working together and (I thought) had lost contact. I'd rather you took down the page than had anything up that suggests in any way I'm unethical, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixVelarde (talk • contribs) 11:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Anti-suicide advocacy

Not sure if this is the correct forum for this. There is a discussion [the Suicide methods] article. There have been numerous attempt to throw in disclaimers and warnings etc on the article. The current discussion relates to a hat note which may be used in a manner to promote a personal agenda. If this isn't the right place for this please direct me to a noticeboard that is more appropriate. Shabidoo | Talk 17:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Sameerbhosle9/sandbox

Sameerbhosle9 was requested by Robert McClenon on July 8th to read COI and PAID and make the appropriate disclosures about paid editing. This was requested at User:Sameerbhosle9/sandbox which Samerbhosle9 had subitted to AfC for review. No disclosure was made and the draft was resubmitted on July 13th and then declined by me on the 24th. Sameerbhosle then leaves a message on my talk page stating "I need to know, why my client's page was rejected." This indicates undisclosed paid editing and despite being told to make the declaration, user has failed to do so. Would recommend a review of their edits and a block based on WP:NOTHERE. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Noting Shweta Rohira was repeatedly recreated, and is currently salted. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Pending at WP:MFD. I recommend a review of all of the recently created articles by this editor to see whether COI appears probable. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I was going to do an overall cleanup but I was pretty hot when I read "my client's page" so through best to back away and let others handle. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Despite not addressing the COI issue raised on their talk page and here, editor has returned to remove a prod notice from Shobhana Desai.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Listed more stuff this editor has created, since they have basically self-disclosed they are a film industry promoter. Nominated Shobhana Desai at AfD. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Sumonrahman II

There was a previous COIN thread from 2017 on this UPE. He is confirmed to Oebsite who has uploaded images at Commons to help promote Sharmin Sultana Upoma and I have deleted Draft:Sharmin Sultana Upoma.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

HackForums

I would like to report COI editing on the Wikipedia entry page for a website that I own (HackForums.net). Recently the creator of the page was banned from my site for violating policies then threatened to alter the Wikipedia page unless unbanned and then went ahead with his threats by doing so. He has removed some positive statements and added many negatives statements including directly into the header which now gets displayed on the Google results page. I believe he has also done edits under different accounts all from Pakistan IP's which is also their location. These edits are COI because of our external relationship and it has added opinion-based negative statements about my business causing me financial and reputation harm. It's intentionally malicuous and I'm looking for guidance from Wikipedia on best method to handle it. I've already spent many hours reading various pages to try to understand how I can get this resolved. Please advise. Gotchynow (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what your problem is here. You continue to edit the Wikipedia's page for your website even when you are told not to. You claim I removed postive statments and added negative when clearly it's not me adding/removing anything. Also Wikipedia is not meant to show positive/negative image for your website, the article is supposed to be neutral in tone (which it is as far as I know). You call me malicious user when you were the one threatening to take legal actions against me. And after you are unbanned, you continue to make a drama out of this. Here is my advice for you: if you have a problem with any edits/reverts, you are more than welcome to discuss it with the editors on the talk page. Also, I don't see how the article can have any financial impact over your business even when you have an increasing traffic to your website (according to Alexa).
Please do not associate me with every single editor that makes any change to the article, I am NOT doing them. And stop mentioning me on users' talk pages for hurting your feelings, I have nothing personal against you or your business. AvalerionV 08:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The quote is not neutral in tone. If you believe in neutrality then you should remove the quote yourself. I understand I can't edit my own Wikipedia page but it's providing me great stress, financial loss and business reputation harm. It's not a neutral statement and should be altered or removed. The quote is biased and yet was added and has not been removed. The CyberScoop quote used is hearsay, untrue, and malicious. How is that neutral? And in good-faith I'll believe you when you say you didn't make the edit. That's policy of WP. You created the page. If you care about the integrity of WP then fix that edit. Gotchynow (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

User Colonestarrice contributions

During my regular categories maintenance job I stumbled on several articles on Australian politicians related to the Austrian People's Party. They were all added by the above mentioned user. Having checked other contributions of this user, I think that they have a strong connections to the above mentioned political party. Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't. With all honesty, I created the above mentioned articles to link them with Sebastian Kurz (edit), so that his article looks more stuffed. Just to "demonstrate" my neutrality regarding politics on WP: I created 8 articles about politicians of the People's Party (centre-right), 7 of the Social Democratic Party (centre-left), 2 of the Green Party (centre-left), 1 of the Freedom Party (right to far-right), and 1 of the NEOS (centre). Furthermore, I think it's worth mentioning that the People's Party was the senior cabinet party for 1/2 years until March that year, and its leader (Kurz) was chancellor for that time and will likely get reelected in September, hence I'm still actively working on his article. And generally, why would I suddenly start making extensive advertisement (with the creation of articles about primarily former politicians nobody knows) for the People's Party, after two years of politically unobtrusive conduct on the English Wikipedia? Colonestarrice (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC) (PS: they're Austrian and not Australian politicians.)

Cocomelon – Nursery Rhymes

The response to a COI warning template at User talk:2yechan seems like a non-answer. I think it's rather disingenuous for a company whose only claim to fame is having a lot of subscribers to their YouTube channel to claim that they "lack presence on the Internet" (and if they want to create additional "presence", Wikipedia is not the place to start). XOR'easter (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. XOR'easter (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Habib Kavuma

Clear COI from this named account making multiple unconstructive edits to the article. Winder input welcome. GiantSnowman 12:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Six edits, all from this year, all quite constructively (apart from a lack of knowledge of markup) giving the height of the player as 5′9″, the fact that xe is now playing for SC Villa, and noting that xe is a defender. All reverted not because they were inaccurate, but because people saw the name on the account and declared it a ″COI″. Ironically, you yourself put in the exact same information (except with the height in metric and still missing that xe is a centre back not a midfielder) at Special:Diff/910484840. Conflict of interest, or Wikipedia editors making a byzantine maze for (assuming this in good faith) article subjects who only want Wikipedia to get right the name of the team that they have played for since 2018, and their position? Uncle G (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Mr. Kavuma already appears to be blocked, so I don't see the point of carrying this out more; if he tries any sockpuppetry that's another issue, but I think it's safe to close this for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Guy Denning

Users named Guydenning and Denningimages have, over a period of years, been uploading photos of works by artist Guy Denning to Commons, followed in each case by Guydenning, Andyourpoint, or an IP user adding them within a couple of hours to Guy Denning.

Essentially, it appears that the artist is using the Wikipedia article about himself as a personal exhibition space, in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Largoplazo (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, I just noticed "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period." Sorry. My intent was to get up-front consensus for removing the images. I'm just going to do that anyway, because of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Largoplazo (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Guydenning and Andyourpoint accounts were created within hours of each other, and there's some obvious name similarity with Denningimages. I've left {{uw-agf-sock}} messages on all three. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Bae Beom-geun

Obvious connection between article subject and username. It has been a couple of months since the user last edited, but their editing history indicates that they may very well come back. Lepricavark (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked by The Blade of the Northern Lights for WP:IMPERSONATE. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Bar-B-Cutie SmokeHouse

The user is related to the owners of the company. Clearly trying to advertise as well due to promotional, original content. AmericanAir88(talk) 14:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Dancing Queen (American TV series)

Not a huge deal, but I noticed this edit was made by someone with a username similar to the name of someone on the show. Possible COI at play here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

John Walsh (filmmaker)

The first user is an WP:SPA that only edits and creates articles linked to John Walsh for nearly 5 years now. I asked him about his relationship with Walsh and he replied that he had met him a couple of times but had no other link to him. [22]. He continued his promotional editing and I challenged him again about a COI but he did not reply. User_talk:RichardLyons74#Conflict_of_interest. Other editors have reverted what they consider as his addition of puffery. User talk:RichardLyons74#Your revert of 21 February 2019. The second account is possibly a sock as he comes along to remove COI tags. For me this are clearly UPE as per WP:DUCK. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Piskacek

Now indef blocked by User:JzG for content blanking and not engaging in dialog. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2019 (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.

This user's primary purpose here seems to be to cite work byu someone called Piskacek. I am not a big believer in coincidence. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I am not that worried by Dr. Martin Piskáček writing on the subject of molecular biology citing xyr publications in journals like Molecular Omics (as it is now named). That seems to be a subject expert doing what we tell subject experts to do: write up stuff once you've first got it properly published in academic journals and the like, and cite the academic publications. Some of the writing needs cleanup, true. That new article needs an introduction with context, for a start. But people have been cleaning it up (example) and building upon it since 2009 without apparent fuss; and needing cleanup is not a conflict of interest. Uncle G (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    • We do, but we also tell the not to add their own work directly to articles. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I first bumped into Piskáček's stuff with GAL4, and TBH i am fine with the part of writing stuff on what he do. But adding 10 citations to his own primary-source articles for a single sentence is a pretty bad thing, and I honestly am tired of those table/alignment-as-image submissions to Commons. --Artoria2e5 🌉 01:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
      • That is not what Wikipedia:Expert editors and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest tell people. Uncle G (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I think my thoughts are still pretty much along the lines that I expressed 9 years ago, if not even more so now. {{Uw-refspam}} applies. Furthermore, the replication crisis in biomedical sciences makes secondary sourcing essential. Boghog (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Obviously we can deal with secondary sourcing by including later papers cited his work. There would in my opinion be no problem with adding the references once. But they have in the examples above been added several times in the same article. And, fwiw, by our usual standards for biomedicine his citation record and position of Assistant Professor would be marginal for notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Three citations is usually the limit, at least for me. More than three citations destroys the readability for readers. Guidelines should not allow editors to add 5 or more citations after each sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Bump

I need some assistance with this please. We have the well-understood academic's misapprehension of Wikipedia, plus some language issues, plus repeated emails instead of engaging on talk at all, plus blanking of articles Because Wrong. I'd love to help this chap contribute tot he encyclopaedia, he undoubtedly has knowledge to contribute, but I am simply not getting through. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The user Piskacek (talk · contribs) now claims to be leaving Wikipedia. Sadly, this is just as well because otherwise an admin should consider blocking or warning him for the revert warring on Transactivation domain. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2019 (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.

Ken Fortenberry

Indef blocked because "the username, Kenfortenberry, matches the name of a well-known living person". EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2019 (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.

Primary interest appears to be promotion of forthcoming book. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Note Gave 'm a Famous User block.-- Dlohcierekim 05:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Dlohcierekim. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2019 (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.

BAND_(software)

I am currently an employee of BAND and have been requested by my employer to update our company's Wikipedia page with new information.

In an effort to curb any potential conflicts of interest, I would like to ask for more insight into how I can adhere to the rules and guidelines of the Wikipedia community while respecting my employer's request.

Thank you for your patience & understanding!

Here is a basic guide for dealing with conflict of interest situations. For a basic simplification: don't do the edits yourself. Post requested/suggested edits at Talk:BAND_(software), and let the other editors judge and, if they deem appropriate, include them --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Dancloud724: So far, you're doing everything right. I would add a variation of the {{paid}} template to your userpage (User:dancloud724) and wait for responses to your post at Talk:BAND (software). Good luck. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Fucoidan

Since March 2018, Is mise neo has been adding references to papers by a Marcos Garcia-Vaquero regardless of the relevance to the statements in the article. This repeating behavior suggests a COI. -Mys_721tx (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Such behaviors also exist on Spanish and Galician Wikipedia. -Mys_721tx (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I have warned the user of a potential block. Please let me know if the apparently self-promotional edits continue. I was especially struck by his adding his own work to the lead of Autoclave. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

CRON Systems

User:CRONSystems has been indef blocked for username. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2019 (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.

Its literaly in the name IsraeliIdan (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Zvikorn: You can report occurrences like this to WP:UAA instead. Account names that resemble companies or organizations, and are editing about said company, violate the username policy (see WP:CORPNAME). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2019 (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.

Michele Pagano

Since March 2018, all of Ztj0420's contributions consist of adding to various Wikipedia articles content which is always referenced to the publications of Michele Pagano. More recently, Ztj0420 created Michele Pagano (biochemist). It appears to me that Ztj0420 is a single-purpose account here solely for the promotion (self-promotion?) of this individual's research. Peacock (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Eyes on Ava Eagle Brown

Ava Eagle Brown was created several weeks ago. Its creator initially denied on their talk page that they had any COI/Paid relation but were blocked due to off-wiki evidence. Recently they returned and "admitted" they were paid, so the UDP template on the article was swapped out with a paid contributions template. More recently, several new ips have removed the paid contributions tag from the article, with one ip removing [23] the template less than an hour after the paid editing was admitted. More eyes on the article would be welcome.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Article is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ava Eagle Brown.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, article creator has been blocked and CU confirms sockpuppetry. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Jonathan Ingram

I've been reverted at Jonathan Ingram (by the page creator), and would like to get others involved in determining whether e.g. primary sourced patent info should be retained. P.S. the article is tagged {{cleanup rewrite}} and {{refimprove}} ☆ Bri (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Massimo Boninsegni

User in question is a significant contributor (though not the original creator) to the article about himself. He has repeatedly removed the COI tag from the article. I've undone that removal twice now (with what I consider to be a reasonably well-explained rationale) and posted a tdel notice (with personalized additional explanation), but the article subject continues to remove the tag. I feel like the author is selectively ignoring my arguments, but I'd like more eyes on this in case I'm being unreasonable. If I'm justified in my actions so far I'd appreciate someone else jumping in since I'm tired of making the same arguments to no avail. creffett (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  • "Significant contributor"? Yes, I suppose, though it seems a silly characterization, considering that the entry is very short and it contains mainly biographical information. This is an entry about me that was not created by me. It initially stated that I was named a fellow of the American Physical Society, and essentially nothing else. All I did was add date and place of birth, where I did my studies, what my research area is, and provided some minimal context for the nomination. I added references and links to everything I included. Not a single statement in there is subjective, laudatory, controversial or debatable. I was simply trying to make an entry accurate and useful. There is nothing "selective" about anything. I understand what Conflict of interest is, and I think this is a case of overreaching interpretation by an editor of Wikipedia's policy. The idea that readers should be warned about possible "conflict of interest" just because information on my date of birth and where I did my PhD comes from me is, in my opinion, ridiculous. I am disappointed and puzzled by their utter refusal to consider my reasons. Massimods (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi All,

I am a part of a Communication team of Digic Pictures company, and we would like to edit it's wikipedia page of course within the borders of the terms and conditions of Wikipedia. We've been advised that we will have to mark our user accounts ad paid contributors however I would have a couple of questions:

First of all, could you please confirm that when we mark our user account as a Paid contributor we will be able to edit the Digic Pictures page?

Could you help me with the code that needs to be inserted to indicate that we are paid contributors. I've found this code: {{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Eszter079|U1-employer=Digic Pictures|U1-client= Digic Pictures}} Is it the right one? If so:

I am not sure where exactly should I copy this at the Talk part of my account. Is it "New section" or "edit the source"? Do I also have to copy it to my profile? So clicking to my profile name and then "Create"? And do I also have to insert this code after every chapter that I edit or the bottom of an edited page?

And last, about the list of our current projects. Klaus (member of Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team) has mentioned that it might have been deleted because there weren't enough references. Is it enough to reference all the trailer videos that are mentioned in the list from youtube? If we list the link of the trailers, shorts, intros, etc then that qualifies as a good reference?

Thank you for your help, MagillaJ (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


MagillaJ, here's what you need to do to disclose:

1. On your own User Page, you need to add the {{paid}} template, using the form {{paid|employer=Digic Pictures|article=Digic Pictures}} ETA: Since you were asking how to do this above, I went ahead and added it to your userpage.
2. For the Digic Pictures talk page, you should add the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template, using the code {{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=MagillaJ|U1-employer=Digic Pictures}} ETA it appears this has already been taken care of by another user.

That said, a couple of things to consider:

1. In the code you cited, you mention Eszter079, but this comment was posted by MagillaJ. Is Eszter079 a colleague of yours? If so, they need to put the {{paid|employer=Digic Pictures|article=Digic Pictures}} disclosure on their User Page as well.
2. You should NOT be editing the Digic Pictures article yourself. Instead, you should post your suggested edits to the article Talk page, and let other editors who don't have a conflict of interest decide if and how to implement them.

There's more material on how to approach being a paid editor here, and information on disclosure here.

Best, BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

MagillaJ, one further addition: the article has no references to reliable sources, which are independent third parties (newspapers, magazines, books, etc.) that talk about the topic. Just to use an example, if there was an article about the company in the Financial Times, that would definitely qualify as a reliable source (for more, see here. So, links to YouTube videos wouldn't be helpful in establishing Digic's notability and justifying its inclusion in Wikipedia. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

John Mark Dougan

The subject of conflict of interest and promotional work has been quietly bubbling for 2 AFD discussions on Wikipedia and a deletion discussion on Commons, now. Uncle G (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

WION (TV channel)

The editor says they are "an authorized representative for WION." Chris Troutman (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  • That does not excuse a lack of verifiability, or peacock terms such as "insightful", or addressing the reader in the second person; all of which that content had. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I trimmed a lot of the non-NPOV material out. Will keep an eye. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Just so that you know, David Jason Coutinho (talk · contribs) is the name of a marketing person for WION at Zee Media. Uncle G (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

WBNewman1 contributions

Several articles created by this blocked users look suspicious. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Who is the blocked user? EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, WBNewman1 here. So I lived in Norfolk where Waldo is a bigwig, go to a school he does things with, and he handled a case for my dad and I, so I gained a fondness for him and his firm then, but I'm not on his payroll. I'm not sure if that makes for a conflict of interest or just an interest. Also, what am I blocked from? --WBNewman1 (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
In this instance your role as a Wikipedia editor may come into conflict with your role as an acquaintance and former client of Waldo's ("he handled a case for my dad and I") so just to be safe it might be best to limit your involvement with those articles to making suggestions for changes on their talk pages using the {{request edit}} template. It appears that your block 5 months ago was related to your use of a proxy which has since been resolved and appears to be unrelated to Bbarmadillo's post. Regards,  Spintendo  15:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

"The Digital SEO"

These people advertise their professional Wikispamming services but I can find no accounts associated with any of these example articles they brag about which have disclosed their paid editing status. Orange Mike | Talk 20:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I trimmed the Liberty General Insurance article, and removed a bunch of the promotional material. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There are several other falsehoods in the bragging, which I won't give away, that suggest that the list of claimed created articles may too be false. Uncle G (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Created WP:List of paid editing companies#The Digital SEO ☆ Bri (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Anderson University (South Carolina)

In this edit, this editor explicitly identified as a "rep of AU." However, despite warnings and requests he or she has not complied with our paid editing requirements or any Talk page discussions at all. ElKevbo (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ensaf Haidar

Ensaf Haidar has edited her own article 12 times since she started to edit her own article in 2017, and has been warned in 2018 by another user on her talk page that it is a violation of Wikipedia's policies to do so, yet did not respond to their message and has refused to stop. She is essentially creating an autobiography of herself by doing such. In addition, she has edited her husband Raif Badawi's article 65 times since she first started to in 2014, and edited her sister in law Samar Badawi's article once in 2015. The vast majority of her edits have either been on her own page or her husband's page, which is a clear violation of WP:COIEDIT, WP:EXTERNALREL, and WP:COISELF. Chickensarebleepssorryuncle (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Review of Yum China CEO page

Hello! My name is Monica and I work for Yum China. I found a link to this noticeboard at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and I am looking for editors to review the page for Yum China's CEO Joey Wat. More specifically, I am asking editors to review the article's text and help me understand why the tag saying "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" must be kept or how I can help make sure the page is compliant with Wikipedia rules.

As explanation: I created a Wikipedia account to suggest improvements to articles related to the company and Joey Wat. In the past, we at Yum China weren't aware we needed to explain our conflict of interest. We have since learned about the site's policies and I have disclosed my connection and my colleague's past involvement at Talk:Joey Wat. There were two tags on the article added following edits made by my colleague before we were aware of the rules. The editor who accepted submission at Articles for Creation has removed the undisclosed payments tag, but the COI tag remains. The editor who added the COI tag seems to think I offer paid Wikipedia-editing services, which is not true, I am only here from Yum China. If there is any problematic content, I would like to take steps to help address. Can someone look at the article and share any concerns, or explain what's needed to remove the tag? There is further discussion at Talk:Joey Wat. Thanks, MX Yum China (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link to a previous discussion: Talk:Joey Wat#Removal of warning banners. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

SGInnovate

While this editor did not create the article, they have added substantially to it (new account with no edits to other articles) and removed COI template twice. The article is very promotional. MB 13:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I've swung the axe on a fair amount of the promotional content, although the article could no doubt benefit from some independent sourcing and rewriting. Melcous (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Joey Cavaccini

According to the lede, the subject of this article is running for a political office in November. Two users seem particularly invested. Entire article seems to be campaign literature. Otherwise woefully non-notable. Manannan67 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion as it doesn't seem to me to meet our notability criteria. Melcous (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

John Cole (choreographer)

Mostly self-promotion, apparently an alternate to a recently blocked account. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I've remove a bunch of unsourced, resume-like content from the article. Melcous (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Melcous. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiqueen012019

I blocked Wikiqueen012019 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) following a request they made at WP:REFUND. The user has 2 deleted drafts about a website called Talent Recap, and all mainspace edits add links to that site. Some of the links may still be extant and require review. I also welcome feedback on the veracity of my block. --kingboyk (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kingboyk: Looks like a good decision to me. SmartSE (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Complex adaptive leadership

Would someone take a look at the above article? It is being edited by what appears to be a set of SP accounts to inflate unsourced claims - the book referenced is the basis of a consultancy business. Also elsewhere, I just reverted this. However this is a field in which I work, and I know the author of the book, so a neutral eye or two would be appreciated. -----Snowded TALK 18:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

COI and voting

The guideline doesn't have anything to say about !votes in venues like Afd, Rfcs, and so on. I recently asked a user on their Talk page about possible COI regarding articles they wrote about hymns sung by a chorus they are a member of, as an unpaid volunteer. One of the articles is now under discussion at Afd (nominated by me), and the user voted, undisclosed. There was never any question of paid COI, but shouldn't any COI be disclosed, even the unpaid variety, in a voting situation? To promote transparency, it seems to me that we should we add something to the guideline about COI and voting. Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I have notified the subject of this discussion since Mathglot has failed to do so. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    That was intentional; I am interested in whether the guideline should be changed, since it fails to give any guidance, or whether it was intentionally left out. There was no reason to name or link the specific Afd case, as anything that happens here is extremely unlikely to affect that Afd, and it would merely be a distraction to the question about what the COI guideline should say, if anything. There is already a discussion about the Afd at another venue--the Afd itself--no reason to drag another venue into it. Hopefully we can keep this conversation on track, and not have it be a clone, or sub-conversation, of another one elsewhere. But it looks like it may already be too late for that. Mathglot (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
They talk about me, and I already made my "keep" vote a "comment", although there's no conflict of interest just interest. Choirs sing hundreds of hymns and other pieces, it's their interest. I write about them, with interest, here and in the press, but without conflict, and on independent sources. Vespro della Beata Vergine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • And to clarify, Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. So good faith remains, as does the understanding that, apropos financial interestss, they do not need to exist for a COI to exist. Hope that clarifies. ——SerialNumber54129 09:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Serial Number 54129: Thanks, but that wasn't exactly my question. Please see below. Mathglot (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

arbitrary break

What I'm concerned with, is whether we should add some verbiage to the WP:COI guideline to say something about voting, to cover a case like this. When I came here to consult WP:COI for guidance, there was nothing. Is that intentional? If not, what about adding something like the following, to be added to section "Why is conflict of interest a problem?" after the current paragraph:

In addition, editors with a conflict of interest who take part in a consensus-seeking decision process such as an Afd or an Rfc may be influenced by their own interests over the interests of the project in their comments. Further, if their conflict is undisclosed, this may make it harder for a closer to properly evaluate and weigh their comments during the close process.

Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Why is there an arbitrary break in this discussion already? There’ve barely been any comments. I can’t even tell why this merited a noticeboard thread in the first place, but even if it did there was an abject failure to follow the instructions of the board to notify the other party. As to the suggested change, I oppose it as scope creep patently designed to address what appears to be a one-off disagreement. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) The reason for the arbitrary break, was to try to get this back on track after a derail so I could ask my question (again), but that seems increasingly unlikely to happen, now. This is the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. This seems like an excellent place to attract the attention of those interested in the wording of the Confict of Interest policy, in order to discuss changes or improvements to the guideline, and that is what I am doing.
    Had I intended to discuss a specific COI situation, I would have used the standard format for that, which is to have a brief bullet list of items, starting with the {{la}} template to list the article name, followed by the {{userlinks}} template to list the user (or users) involved, followed by a brief exposition of what the issue was. And I would have named the section after a user, and linked them.
    But, I didn't do any of that, because that's not what this is about. This should have been obvious from the section name, the formatting and the intro sentence, which spoke only about the guideline content. There is no "other party", other than every party interested in COI, and your comments about "abject failure" leave me speechless. You were the one that came here, linked the conversation and the user, and started the derail. After I added a section break to recover and try and repose my question, you've now done it again, so I guess it's hopeless to get back on track, now. So, I give up. Mathglot (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    And regarding your comment,

    ...patently designed to address what appears to be a one-off disagreement.

    What utter nonsense; where's your assumption of good faith? The chances that any discussion here about changing the content of a major guideline would take place fast enough to affect an Afd is zero; with the most likely outcome by far being no change at all. Where is this coming from? Mathglot (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • We have hundreds of editors who are specialists in some field and they contribute productively to related articles. We should be thankful for that. As for "interest": I would hope that every contributor has an interest in the subject of the articles they're editing. Such interest ought not to bar them from participating in community discussions. Requiring a declaration of interest in these cases is stifling and unnecessary. "You will know them by their fruits." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • A discussion about the guideline would be at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest rather than on the noticeboard for specific cases. Uncle G (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

David Gerard's contributions

No COI. While some crypto "experts" do indeed have a COI because they are promoting a specific coin, David Gerard is an independent expert. There's no evidence he has promoted his book, his blog or anything else here. The OP calls some suspicion on himself and is counselled to make a full declaration of any interest and to use their regular account, if any, in the subject if making any subsequent reports. I have semiprotected InterPlanetary File System due to what appears to me to be spamming. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

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

I am not the first person to bring this up[1], but I figured it was time to make it official.

Editor David Gerard has financial and ideological connections to subjects such as cryptocurrency, blockchains and peer-to-peer software such as IPFS which he frequently edits. He is a member of the cryptocurrency task force and does not diclose a COI.

He is selling a book titled "Attack of the 50 foot blockchains"[2] and is working on another book called "World's Worst ICOs".[3] On his RationalWiki user page, he says "my book about why Bitcoin is stupid has turned into a second job."[4] His first book offers a negative picture of cryptocurrencies and blockchains but approaches the topics with apparent neutrality. For a more unfiltered picture of David Gerard's ideological stances on the matter, I cite the original draft of the Bitcoin article on RationalWiki, which David Gerard authored all the way back in 2011.[5] Select quotation:

The mathematics is robust, so overprivileged nerds and internet libertarians think this is all that is needed, because they don't understand people and don't know anything about economics or history. - David Gerard, 2011

And another, from a later revision:

There are Bitcoin advocates who are not annoying libertoonian fools, but you'll find them few and far between. - David Gerard, 2011[6]

He also runs what he calls his "blockchain blog"[7] where he advertises his book as well as his Patreon account related to his blockchain writings[8]. As of this writing he is earning $255/month from 64 patrons.

From this it is without a doubt that David Gerard has well-documented financial interests and exhibits a strong ideological bias with regard to the subject matter at hand. So, would this constitute a conflict of interest?

Let's review what WP:COINOTBIAS has to say about the matter in full:

Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity. A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict. (emphasis added)

Now, David Gerard has spent years criticizing these topics - long before most people had even heard of Bitcoin or blockchains. He also makes money doing it and doesn't seem to have much notability for anything else. Would it fair to suggest that by corollary, those relationships influence his editing, that they would lead him to promote his own ideological interest over the neutrality of Wikipedia? I think the answer is obvious but I am obliged to post a particular instance for reference. In this edit [24], Gerard restored a criticism of IPFS cited to someone's personal blog which is a blatant WP:RSSELF violation. Considering he has been editing Wikipedia for over a decade, he should know better. He also tweeted out the blog post in question on Twitter which was not disclosed in his edit.[9] 23.241.127.109 (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I can't see any evidence you have presented that shows a COI for David. Have you got anything to show COI editing. If not, go away. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, see this bit about Twitter. He restored a blog citation without disclosing that he had an external relationship with the post in question as per WP:EXTERNALREL. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry (not really) but that is nothing like evidence of COI. In fact, you continue to just make unsubstantiated accusations of ... something that isn't clear and so far unrelated to wikipedia.-Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, I went above and beyond with the citations on this post. If the allegations are unclear, I will summarize them here. 1. David Gerard has an undeclared financial conflict of interest which he refers to as his "second job". 2. He has engaged in edits without disclosing his external relationship to the sources. Is that not sufficient? 23.241.127.109 (talk) 07:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm honestly on the verge of simply deleting your report and blocking you for acting in bad faith. So what is your real username? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Can you show I am acting in bad faith as per WP:AOBF? And for the record I have no user account but have edited Wikipedia previously under other IP addresses, which are periodically changed by my ISP. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The only thing you have done is present evidence that David writes about a subject on more than just Wikipedia, and that he has a certain point of view. You have presented no evidence that he is promoting himself, or doing anything that might be construed as advocating in his own self interest. "promote his own ideological interest over the neutrality of Wikipedia" is simply a word salad that distills to "bias". The only on-wiki evidence you have presented at all is an isolated content dispute. The prior COI complaints were from crypto shills whining about their content being deleted. David does not become an editor in ill repute simply because he doesn't hide his real life identity or his prior opinions. You, on the other hand, become innately suspicious for being obviously familiar with Wikipedia, but refusing to be upfront about who you are. If you think you understand the COI guideline, the fact you chose to post this speaks to either incompetence or malice. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I am going to assume good faith here. I pointed out how David has a financial conflict of interest - which he refers to as his "second job". So far, this point has not been addressed. As for the words "promote his own ideological interest over the neutrality of Wikipedia", they are paraphrased from the essay "WP:Wikipedia:An interest is not a conflict of interest". As for my identity or lack thereof, it is not relevant. Wikipedia allows IP editing for a reason and all editors should be treated fairly and equally. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not interested in your real life identity - I'm interested in your past Wikipedia identities. Editing from a new account or while logged out to avoid scrutiny or evade a block/sanction is a policy violation. As for David's second job, it does not need to be addressed. There is no inherent conflict of interest in a subject matter expert editing articles within his field of expertise. Even if David's writing is his primary source of income, you have offering nothing in the way of evidence that David is somehow promoting that interest. There is a very dramatic difference between a person who earns money from the subject of an article, and someone who earns money writing about the subject of an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The editor in question has successfully shown I'm a respected subject matter expert. I also frequently appear in the press and media talking about cryptocurrency and blockchain related subjects, including citations in academic work.
More broadly - this is the sort of "COI" complaint where a WP:FRINGE editor passionately believes that not sharing their ideology constitutes bias and hence a COI.
FWIW, I think I show my working in my article space editing. If I express an experience-based opinion, it'll be on talk pages and in policy discussions.
Well done on being the very first person to bother making a full WP:COIN report claiming this constitutes a COI though, even if your claim has no substance whatsoever. - David Gerard (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The editor looks very like a long-experienced Wikipedia editor going stealth to promote their things though. I've added a request for a COI declaration to their talk page accordingly - David Gerard (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "David Gerard User Talk Page". Wikipedia. Retrieved 1 September 2019.
  2. ^ "Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchains". Amazon.
  3. ^ "David Gerard". Foreign Policy.
  4. ^ "David Gerard User Page - RationalWiki".
  5. ^ "Bitcoin as of 12:04, 25 June 2011". RationalWiki.
  6. ^ "Bitcoin as of 17:29, 25 June 2011". RationalWIki.
  7. ^ "David Gerard's Blog". Retrieved 1 September 2019.
  8. ^ "David Gerard's Patreon Account". Patreon. Retrieved 1 September 2019.
  9. ^ "David Gerard's Twitter". Twitter.
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.

Draft:Abelstedt

The article was created by Ojcapital, whose edits on English and Danish Wikipedia have all related to Abelstedt. The article needs review as its tone resembles a press release. The Danish article on Abelstedt has been deleted as an "autobiographic add for a non notable company" by Danish admin @KnudW:, who has tagged the English draft for conflict of interest. Ojcapital denied having a conflict of interest in a helpdesk discussion: Help Publishing a Translation. TSventon (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

They might well if and when they return to Wikipedia. All their (undeleted) edits are dated 19 August and their Articles for Creation submission was rejected on 30 August. TSventon (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

John Walsh (filmmaker)

The first user is an WP:SPA that only edits and creates articles linked to John Walsh for nearly 5 years now. I asked him about his relationship with Walsh and he replied that he had met him a couple of times but had no other link to him. [25]. He continued his promotional editing and I challenged him again about a COI but he did not reply. User_talk:RichardLyons74#Conflict_of_interest. Other editors have reverted what they consider as his addition of puffery. User talk:RichardLyons74#Your revert of 21 February 2019. The second account is possibly a sock as he comes along to remove COI tags. For me this are clearly UPE . Dom from Paris (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed about 5K of CV-type and off-topic promotional items.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

StemRad

It looked to me like a string of COI editors and anons from near this company's headquarters have been active here. Asking for more input/cleanup/whatever. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I rolled back their recent additions via Twinkle and have watched the page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Tanec

No COI issue brought by filing party ☆ Bri (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2019 (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.

Repeated use of copyright, same ip account adding same info and very close coi to subject.. IsraeliIdan (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I gave it a trim and some copyedits. There was one claim that was sourced something like 20 times in a row! Worst case of WP:OVERLINK I have ever seen. Haven't checked the copyright yet but will give it a shot now.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Zvikorn:, could you point out the copyvio? When I ran it through Earwig's copyvio detector, there is indeed a lot of copied material. But it seems to me that almost all of it is in the form of quotes, accompanied by good sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Ahh so that's what it was. Didn't do that much deep digging. Also, check this usr and the other user with a lot of edits. I'm 50% sure its sockpuppet. IsraeliIdan (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Unless you can point out some COI issues, I think this item could be closed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2019 (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.

Rossy Evelin Lima

Resolved: user blocked by Berean Hunter ☆ Bri (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2019 (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.

Two very proficient SPA editors adding material to one after another (5 minutes apart). Has all the hallmarks of Undisclosed paid editing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: Both of the above-mentioned accounts have been blocked for sockpuppeting.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2019 (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.

User:Pray4america has a COI on Ellen Lee Zhou and previously lied about it

Resolved: user blocked by David Gerard ☆ Bri (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2019 (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.

User:Pray4america has an undisclosed conflict of interest on the article Ellen Lee Zhou; they are either Zhou herself, or, most likely working for her campaign. These are the facts:

As User:Pray4america is a WP:SPA with an obvious WP:COI and likely paid editor, all of which they have lied about, I ask that they be blocked from editing idefinitely. It is likely Ellen Lee Zhou will be deleted; that's unfortunate for me as I have argued for it to be kept, but I plan to recreate it after the election when new sources emerge and have already copied it back to my userspace. Unlike User:Pray4america, my time on Wikipedia is not spent advancing a single cause. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Psiĥedelisto: You are being ridiculous, I have to say. The fact that I can contact Ellen Lee Zhou from the email she shared in her public platform, doesn't necessarily mean that I work for her. I had to contact her to ask for her permission of using that picture on Wikipedia. Actually, if you want to contact her, you can do the same thing! Anybody who can use internet could have contacted Ellen Lee Zhou herself, the same way I had. If you keep destroying Mrs. Ellen Lee Zhou with your leftist tricks, I would rather see this page be deleted. And I vote for it to be deleted! Pray4america (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia works based on WP:CONSENSUS, not voting. If the vote of a SPA, not backed up with any policy-based arguments, meant anything, I could just create a few to save the article. So feel free to vote however you want. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Blocked as combative promotional SPA - David Gerard (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2019 (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.

Most Venerable Yotkham Bhaddarakesi (Dr. Damrong Phimmajak)

Resolved: user blocked by RHaworth ☆ Bri (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2019 (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.

Editor is continually creating self-promotional content on numerous pages. Lupin VII (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Blocked for incompetence as much as for self-promotion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:42, 19 September 2019 (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.

Sean Buckley (entrepreneur)

his business

(previous version from MrSilvers deleted as copyvio)

marketing manager at Ultra Tune

Buckley's horse racing interests

Ultra Tune models

afd1 afd2 afd3

sponsored by Ultra Tune, trained by Ultra Tune's marketing manager

trained by Ultra Tune's marketing manager

works with Buckley

other PR


Kelmoo clearly has a conflict of interest re Buckley, given other promotional articles it's most likely UPE.

Some things worth noting:

Pure spam [28]

MrSilvers was linkspamming Nick Davies and reputationstation.com.au [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. Kelmoo used as a reference an article quoting "online reputation expert Nick Davies from reputationstation.com.au." [35].

[36] States it's not copyright because "the website linked to is the property of Sean Buckley and Ultra Tune who sponsor the boxer."

Persistent spamming of Parnia Porsche. Kelmoo has repeatedly recreated this article. After that was salted Kelmoo was aware of the restriction and after being advised not to recreate the article posted it at Parnia porsche (small p on surname) in a bad faith avoidance of the salt.

duffbeerforme (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I do no have a conflict of interest in Buckley, actually I found his ads and thought they were hilarious and didn't realise it was the same person who owns Shamus Award (I love horse racing!). When looking him up online I couldn't believe he had no Wikipedia page and so set out to make one. Surely that is the point of Wikipedia? Regarding Parnia Porsche, when this page was deleted i asked those who sanctioned the page if I could resubmit it with new info and got no response so tried to do so again in order to re-engage those who deleted it as they weren't responding to me. I am no expert here so not always sure of editing rules but I am learning and I do enjoy it. You cannot say putting Hurley Palmer Flatt on Wikipedia is PR. They worked on the libraries at Oxford University which were nominated for the Stirling prize. My interests in editing on Wikipedia are wide, just like many other people here. Kelmoo (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

"i asked those who sanctioned the page if I could resubmit it with new info and got no response" User talk:Barkeep49/Archives/2#Talkback shows a response. User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2019/July#Reinstate a revised page for Paria Porsche? shows a response. User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2019/March#/* Talkback */ Reinstate page for Parnia Porsche shows a response. What they do not show is you addressing their reply. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Raquel Rabinovich

I'm getting a little tired of reverting the unsourced additions, source removals and general advocacy editing by the SPA User:Whitloe (to Raquel Rabinovich). It strikes me as either autobiography or paid editing, especially the latter. If there is an admin lurking here, I believe a block is warranted given the repeated addition of unsourced material (#1 and #2 today), which usually involves removing sources. Multiple warnings have been given on their talk page. No clear answer on TP about COI. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Joel Gilbert

There appears to be coordinated editing on the Joel Gilbert article. New accounts have been removing the "conspiracy theory" descriptor from the article and adding promotional content sourced to deprecated sources including Daily Mail (RSP entry) and WorldNetDaily (RSP entry).

I've started a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sweethominy. — Newslinger talk 23:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Watched and reverted. Looks like a concerted effort by multiple editors, as you say. All of the user accounts are recent with the ten edits needed to get to autoconfirmed followed by Joel Gilbert edits. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

/e/_(operating_system)

BLP noticeboard suggested going here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ga%C3%ABl_Duval). Users User:Indidea (coincidentally similar to indidea.org, Gael Duval's personal website, and now blocked) and User:Caliwing seem very familiar with details of Duval's history, seem focused on Wikipedia pages involving Duval's history, and are very defensive of the articles (i.e. trying to maintain an advertising tone), but have not declared any conflicts of interest. I'd appreciate independent review of the edit histories, particularly related to including non-notable details and referencing primarily primary sources, published by Duval. I note that User Indidea's earliest edits were for Ulteo Desktop, a Duval project, and they seem very familiar with and focused on other Duval projects, including Mandriva, and /e/ operating system. User Caliwing has edited primarily the Gael Duval article and the /e/ operating system article, with very promotional type edits, with little regard for sourcing requirements, or for proper conduct including assuming good faith. User Mnair69 has acknowledged having close ties and refrained from editing, but there is an appearance of coordinated activity (refraining from using the P words) including at the eOS AfD discussion. Thank you. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


Good to have a COI discussion on the edits being made to the /e/ OS page. I would like to suggest that user Yae4 's COI violation be checked. Since joining wiki on Aug 28 (as per his talk page) the user has only focused on this one page and edits have been highly critical of /e/. That looks like a dedicated smear campaign against the project. Mnair69 (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't actually read the new draft MicroG article I created, with a sentence neutrally referring to e's efforts: "Refurbished phones have been sold with microG pre-installed.[11][12]":
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:MicroG&oldid=913211359
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:/e/_(operating_system)#Draft:MicroG_for_improvement,_if_interested
Unfortunately those 2 sources are marginal - parroting e's blog press releases, but it demonstrates your statements are ... mistaken. Also, I improved sourcing for LineageOS mention of e's fork:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LineageOS&diff=prev&oldid=914001628
As for your promotional COI history at Wikipedia, it is self-evident, but can be more fully documented if needed. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I've asked for sockpuppet investigation for Caliwing/Indidea here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Indidea -- Yae4 (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_148&oldid=1214730092"