Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LetUsNotLoseHeart (talk | contribs) at 18:25, 26 April 2020 (→TAI Hürjet: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • 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.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:Bashir Al-Hashimi
    Talk:Alameda Belt Line
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive)
    Talk:Cinq Music Group
    Talk:Clover Health
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Sonalde Desai
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:The Donkey Sanctuary
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Darnell Edge
    Talk:Empire (magazine)
    Talk:Energy Capital Partners
    Talk:Etraveli Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Global Citizen Awards
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Grayscale Investments
    Talk:Greystar
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Hannover Re
    Talk:Harsco
    Talk:List of Harvard University people
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Huron Consulting Group
    Talk:Illa del Rei
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Christian Kälin
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:Kennedy Center Honors
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:Kathleen Kingsbury
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Labcorp
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Leviton
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MongoDB Inc.
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:One Energy
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
    Talk:Pallywood
    Talk:V Pappas
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Research Corporation
    Talk:Reworld
    Talk:Rivulis
    Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Steve Tappin
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Martha G. Welch
    Talk:Wingtech
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation
    Talk:Zyn

    Sam Ayoub

    I believe this user (Kirsh80) to be the individual this page is about (Sam Ayoub), or someone working for them. The page is about a rugby league manager. Every edit made by this user has been to update pages to include hyperlinks to the individuals personal linkedin page and the individuals personal business website. This is clearly promotional. The users most recent edit is predominantly self promotional of Sam Ayoub, and describes the individuals personal business and its practices, while also linking to the personal website again. It provided no citation

    Chow Tai Fook

    Clearly a PR employee of Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group that ignoring uw-paid3 warning as well as tag herself with paid editing disclosure. Matthew hk (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, should be blocked for failure to engage in reasonable attempts to get them to disclose a COI. — Bilorv (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway the editor is stale after 2 weeks. Seem somewhat more active in zh-wiki. Matthew hk (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Joshua Moody / College Church

    A draft of Joshua Moody, who is connected to "College Church," was created by "Juliacollegechurch" on March 30 and rejected at AfC. This editor was issued a COI warning around the same time.

    Today, a mainspace article for this subject was created by another user. It was then further modified by "Juliacollegechurch" without addressing their CoI warning.

    This editor also took interest in Zach Fallon, another subject with connections to "College Church," which they had edited in concurrence with the creator of the new Joshua Moody article ([1] [2]), who also has interest in subjects related to "College Church." (However, that user had not been served a CoI notice until now.) Cryptic Canadian 02:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If we expect people to reply to {{uw-coi}}, then the template's contents should tell them to do so. Otherwise, it's unreasonable to expect people to reply to boilerplate message with "Nope, I'm just a student at Wheaton, writing about my college, and I'm not getting paid by anybody".
    User:Juliacollegechurch, if you happen to see this message, please consider expanding College Church before trying to write separate articles about its current and former pastors. Adding information from the local newspapers (I'll bet they ran some history pieces around the time of its 150th anniversary) would be very useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Return of promotional editing at Faisal Farooqui

    Refer to WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 110#Promotional startup articles and their SPA creators for background. Asking for more eyes on Faisal Farooqui. I’ve done cleanup on this, but an aggressive effort seems to be underway to restore promotion of a businessperson. I’ve warned the other editor but they are continuing. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I trimmed some unsubstantiated claims and reorderd some material to make it less puffy.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Which editor? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    PotW/Andy: As listed above. This article has clearly been target of promotion for years. "Faisal's management and leadership at Mouthshut.com has given rise to multi-faceted innovative approach to many aspects of consumer review community with social networks. His thoughts on integrating consumer-generated content with mobile phone and social media has been well recognized at international conferences." – Checkseems123, 2008 [3]; "included in a list of Entrepreneurs who have created History" for an op-ed index – Tailsmarcy1, 2019 [4] (note speedy deletion of Demi Rose by same editor as product typical of UPE); and now Amanverma121 with borderline editwarring to include stuff like an unreferenced "completed an internship with Morgan Stanely [sic]", auto-cited awards, and YouTube sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pigsonthewing: I need to dis-engage from this. I’ve now been accused of racism for challenging sources, and reverted yet again. Looks like edit warring from where I am. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Racism thing continues at ANI ☆ Bri (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bri, for what it's worth, I don't think you're at fault here - there's no doubt that there are racial disparity issues on Wikipedia, but from where I'm sitting it looks like it's being invoked as a smokescreen to distract from the promotion issues rather than being raised as a good-faith concern. creffett (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like WP:ASPERSIONS. Of course Bri is not at fault here. This behavior from the reported editor would even merit a block. --MarioGom (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm shocked, just shocked, to report that new checkuser evidence shows that this article has been dominated by a sockfarm since its inception in 2007 up through the recent wonderful ad hominem. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Metropolitan District of Connecticut

    Seems pretty self explanatory based on the name and edit history so far. Looks like someone from the MDC is trying to scrub the MDC’s page of all controversies etc. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. Username is a WP:ORGNAME violation and there's a clear undisclosed COI here. — Bilorv (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nisith Pramanik

    Account with the same name as Indian politician Nisith Pramanik continues to add unreferenced, non-NPOV biography to the article. Ignored COI warning given on the 9th. Cryptic Canadian 08:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at this, looks like a case of WP:CIR too. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Red X Blocked as violation of username policy (WP:REALNAME). — Newslinger talk 11:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cameron Whitten

    This editor is updating the Cameron Whitten article on Whitten's behalf, per this edit summary. I invite editors to review recent changes to article. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Terminus Technologies

    Declared COI on userpage, then proceeded to game the system by creating a draft, omitting the review templates and moving it to main article space. Claims to have understood what the problem is, but actions indicate they have not. Kleuske (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zebuready and Draft:A2Hosting

    This editor is repeatedly submitting drafts on A2Hosting from their sandbox, and is blanking and resubmitting when the drafts are declined or rejected. This appears to be an attempt to game the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Robert McClenon: i am not a owner, staff, affiliate or client with A2hosting, i want to create a new article myself that the reason i chosen a random topic & popular brand. Zebuready (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zebuready: That is pretty hard to believe. Are you working for, or being paid by, A2Hosting?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatMontrealIP: i don't know what make you feel i am working for A2hosting, as i mentioned i have chosen a random topic and popular brand which article is not available in Wikipedia and tried myself creating a article. I'm not experienced writer, editor or blogger even my writing skill is not enough good for someone to hire me and write a article for brand in wikipedia. Hope this make sense Zebuready (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only speak for myself, but my reason is that you are being tendentious and sneaky like you are are doing undisclosed paid editing for A2Hosting. You did two things that look to me like gaming the system, requesting deletion of a draft so as to create the draft again after it was declined, and blanking a sandbox so as to clear out the rejection tag. If you aren't working for them, move on to some other random brand that may also be rejected. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: Again, First stop blaming me without any evidence, i already cleared i am not getting paid from anyone for writing article in wikipedia, i have also cleared why i have submitted the article again in sandbox here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk and for clearing the draft, i got a message on my talk page explaining how to delete the draft as i dont see re-submission option i thought keep the draft is no use so i used the deletion code "{{Db-g7}}" from my talk page and re-submitted the article in sandbox. Zebuready (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The (Fake) Manufactured Museum of Digital Art


    This involves straight up fabrication of articles for days-old organizations, as well as general promotion, and the user above needs to be blocked.

    The problem list:

    • Manufactured Museum of Digital Art: I ran a whois on the domain name (mmoda.org)that this article is about. The domain name is freely published in the article, so I figured it would be ok to check it. It appears to have been a few days old when the article was created.
    So here we have an article that is about an organization that is less than a week old, meaning this is fake, or fabricated for Wikipedia promotion.
    • The artists represented by the "Manufactured Museum of Digital Art" (list, archive URL) are the same ones the above editor is interested in, per their contributions.

    I'm a little bit disgusted by how brazen the falsehoods are here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    Please note that I first started with the Contemporary and Digital Art Fair. This led me to the digital art museums which one has been requested for speedy deletion because I made an honest mistake. The draft article for Elena of CaDAF was moved to draft because it wasn’t notable. The artist I found on MMoDA website and had decent links on their webpages. I started with one article and began expanding down that rabbit hole. I was trying to make decent contributions to Wikipedia. I have corrected mistakes in the past on here including the deletion of bad articles. I found MMoDA on Instagram and made them a page. Once a few articles were tagged with not notable I started trying to improve them all. MMoDA was a low priority but I have sources for MoCDA. I apologize for my mistake. I did not know this would cause such a large issue on my end. UndyingCarrot (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    People who make Wikipedia pages for organizations the same day the organisaiton comes into being are part of a clear promotional effort. You register the website, you make the fake web site, you make the fake Wikipedia page. Not an innocent business.ThatMontrealIP (talk)
    I understand why this is a conflict of interest and I seriously did not know I was making an error. I had several articles marked as not notable and started working on them. They are all connected because I started with one (CaDAF) that led me to the others. I have taken full responsibility for MMoDA and I understand that it is not in my favor that the website was created days before the article. Their Instagram(where I found out about the museum) dates back several months. I figured even tho they were new they were legit because even CaDAF was created last year and has contributed heavily to digital art within the past year. I had the article deleted but I have made and corrected errors before on Wikipedia and again I apologize for this one. Please take into consideration the I did also create The Other Art Fair and it is well cited and notable. UndyingCarrot (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How did MMODA.org and Manufactured Museum of Digital Art end up getting created on the same day? They called you, you called them? The organizaitons was invented the same day they got a wiki page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, it is a known fact that news hits Wikipedia within seconds of making headlines. Just look at a recent death and compare the flurry of edits to the news reports. It is not at all far-fetched that a press release could instantly trigger someone attempting to create an article. Elizium23 (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elizium23: the user has already admitted to creating the article based on some kind of conflict. The coincidence here is not about a press release, as the orgnizaiton's web site did not exist the day before. The domain name mmoda.org for the "organization" and the corresponding wiki article were both created within hours of eachother on the same day. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought this sounded familiar. UndyingCarrot has been blocked as a sock. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice catch!! @SpicyMilkBoy: I send you many thanks from my COVID isolation pod.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good detective work everyone, I've speedied all the articles. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Miltenberg

    I'm concerned that the main contributor to Andrew Miltenberg, Jeanettenj11, is an editor with an undisclosed conflict of interest. I'd like an editor with more COI experience to weigh in. The user's first edit was in 2016 to create the overtly promotional first draft of the article on Miltenberg, and they have had a sustained interest in the article over 4 years. Other than this the editor's only main contributions have been the creation of Campus assault due process, an article which mentions Miltenberg and could have been created to bolster the ostensible area Miltenberg specialises in, "campus assault due process" (a euphemism for "defending students who have been alleged to commit sexual assault"). Another edit was to Columbia University rape controversy, in order to add mention of Miltenberg. Jeanettenj11 has also edited Joe Kyrillos and Paul Matey, people perhaps related to Miltenberg or perhaps unrelated. I can't see why the editor would have such a limited and persistent focus and immediate expertise in the use of referencing and wikitext unless there's an undisclosed COI, a POV to push or sockpuppetry. — Bilorv (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur that Jeanettenj11 is very likely UPE on behalf of Miltenberg and Kyrillos. Unclear connection to Matey. Usual drill: suspicions are based on off-wiki evidence, will email explanation to an admin upon request. creffett (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I too have discovered off-wiki that the person I believe Jeanettenj11 is claims to be a "public affairs consultant" and "Public Affairs Pro." I have also found a direct contact between Miltenberg and Jeanettenj11. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked them for UPE. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the work done by both of you. Do we think Andrew Miltenberg is eligible for WP:G5 or another CSD criterion? There have been no substantial contributions by anyone other than Jeanettenj11 and an IP editor (who edited the page while it was a draft—either another COI editor or the same person logged out)? — Bilorv (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't qualify for G5 because "To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked." I think PROD or AfD might be best as I don't think it's promotional enough for G11. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    PRODded it is, and I'll take it to AfD if it's contested by a non-sock. — Bilorv (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also fair game to move likely UPE to draftspace to prevent it from being indexed by search engines. creffett (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Papa John's Pizza

    A few days ago, on April 1st, there was a vandalization of Papa John's Pizza. It purported that the company was playing a prank by saying they would offer free pizzas to commentators on social media. A few hours after this post user:Papa John's International posted saying they were the official account tried to remove it. Both edit attempts were held up by the pending changes.

    The second user with the name of the company, was promptly banned for multiple violations of Wikipedia tos with undisclosed COI and an account representing an organization. However, the other user, by user:Paulobrien92 appears to also hold a undisclosed COI.

    Evidence: (Redacted)

    His prose and style of wording is very formal and extremely similar to the PapajohnInternational user. Both are new accounts. It appears to be sockpuppetry. Who ever did the COI on the PapajohnInt guy, likely didn't see the other user.

    - AH (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • No action taken. User:Papa John's International and User:Paulobrien92 each made one edit, on April 1st, which is more than two weeks ago. The edits consisted of removing a blatantly false and damaging statement asserting that the Papa John's company had been the perpetrator, rather than the victim, of an April Fool's joke that if taken seriously could have cost the company tens of thousands of dollars. There was nothing wrong with either of these edits. It might have been better form for these editors to have made edit requests on the talkpage given the COI issue, but I readily understand that new editors (1) would not know that this is the preference under our COI policies, and (2) would have considered it time-sensitive to delete the false information immediately rather than wait in an edit-request queue, potentially for days. I would not have blocked User:Papa John's Pizza under these circumstances; at most I would have given them a polite explanation of our COI policies and perhaps suggested a username change. (Although even that would have been ironic: We ask editors connected with an article subject to disclose the connection, but when an editor makes the most prominent disclosure possible—right in the username—we block them for it.) Equally I see no reason for any action against Paulobrien92 for his single, completely appropriate edit. And I certainly have no idea why this is being brought here now, some two weeks after the fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hypebeast

    Could an administrator determine if Hypebeast Ltd. is a recreation of Hypebeast, which would be circumventing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypebeast (2nd nomination)? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you filled the username parameter? You mean user:PorcSharpQuills or someone else? Since no such user was called "username". Matthew hk (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t want to point fingers if it is a GF creation and truly new. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not pointing fingers at all, IMHO. And it's sort of a requirement here that we list and notify the editors involved, so that here can be a discussion. Not doing so makes it into a bit of a secret investigation. I've added the user and will notify them.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, now that they have been notified, I will say that I find this to be an unlikely action of a "new" editor on their second day. Error-free complete article including infobox, formatting templates, section wikilinks, etc. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is quite clear it is something fishy and resemble to UPE. BTW wiki code can be learned from editing gamepedia or fandom, but the knowledge of using Template:Infobox company seem alarming. Matthew hk (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Russian billionaire

    According to evidence added to an SPI, it seems very likely that topics related to Russian billionaire Ruslan Baisarov could have paid edits. I think the bio could use some scrutiny maybe starting with the claim of holding a doctorate. Also a bit odd that it doesn't mention his Chechen Muslim heritage although it is documented by Sputnik news agency, Moscow Times [5], UCL Press [6], and others.

    More activities of sockfarm noted at WP:PAIDLIST#Percepto and was discussed at this noticeboard, now archive 157 ☆ Bri (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    George D. Lundberg

    Appears to be a paid editor basing most of the article on unpublished interviews. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 04:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have previously discussed this matter on my talk page with this user who has admitted she is editing on behalf of Lundberg. I thought we were making progress in that she would request changes but today's large edit of the article indicates otherwise. Greyjoy talk 05:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy link to discussion on my talk page. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 05:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Debora Holmes: It would be best if you could respond here to keep the conversation in one place. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 06:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You mean here? Also, please don't twist my words and intent. I fully intend to do what it takes to get this article up within Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you. And to whom should I show my final product? Shall we work on one paragraph at a time? Debora Holmes (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Also, let me make it very clear that Dr. Lundberg did not instruct me as to what to write. When we say "behalf", I want to make it clear that concern is over the current inaccuracy that he noticed many years ago. Thanks.Debora Holmes (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Debora Holmes: when you say that the concern is over the current inaccuracy that he noticed many years ago, you are confirming that you're in touch with the article subject and undertaking edits on their behalf. In order to preserve neutrality of our articles, we don't do that. We stay independent of our subjects. A selection of the problems with your recent edits (which boil down to a non-neutral approach) is as follows:
    • "continues his valuable work" (puffery)
    • "in 1982, he received an offer that propelled him in a new direction, one that led him to a new kind of medical pioneering." (more non-neutral puffery)
    • "By 1981, however, the American Medical Association wanted a new editor-in-chief, and Lundberg was their first choice."
    • "Lundberg invented the concurrent triple medium (“read, listen, watch, all on the same page”) video editorial, and continues to publish such regularly.[1]" (promotion, original research)
    • "Although Lundberg stated that “the Army treated me very well,” he and his wife had three young children and “they kept making me move around,” In 1969, Lundberg placed computers into the clinical laboratory while concurrently abolishing the “ration stamp” approach to controlling excess lab test use.[2] (trivia sourced by personal interview, which is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH.
    • "using a modified Delphi approach, implementing it in less than one year, with student achievement outcome measures set and accomplished.[3]" (more puffery, sourced by original research)
    • "He has 5 children, 11 grandchildren, and 2 great-grandchildren. When not working, Lundberg reads, hikes, cooks, swims, and is an enthusiast of the visual and performing arts and Alabama football.[4]" (trivia sourced by Original research)
    The proper way to handle your interest in the article is to suggest edits on the talk page, using the request edit template. There is no doubt that the subject is notable and the article could be expanded, but you are way too close to this subject to be editing the page. Please allow other neutral editors to undertake that task. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Lundberg, George. Interviews by Debora Holmes. Email correspondence. June 2019–January 2020.
    2. ^ Lundberg, George. Interviews by Debora Holmes. Email correspondence. June 2019–January 2020.
    3. ^ Lundberg, George. Interviews by Debora Holmes. Email correspondence. June 2019–January 2020.
    4. ^ Lundberg, George. Interviews by Debora Holmes. Email correspondence. June 2019–January 2020.

    Thank you VERY much for this specific feedback, ThatMontrealIP. As I've mentioned, I'm new to doing this and eager to learn. I think I understand what it is you want to see now, but please, please, gently guide me if I err. Also, if you got the impression that I've known Dr. Lundberg for years, that is absolutely not the case. It was only through a fellow academic a few months ago that I became aware of the issues with his page, and I had never exchanged a single email with him (let alone met him or worked with him etc.) until then. I'm going to suggest the first addition on the Talk page in the next hour. Will someone be able to comment fairly soon? Debora Holmes (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Debora Holmes, can't speak for commenting/suggested additions, but here's a bit of advice - if the only source for something is the subject of a page (in this case, a personal correspondence, but subject websites, self-published blogs, etc. also count) and there's no reliable source with that information, it probably does not belong on the page. There are times when it's okay per our self-published biography rules, but generally it should only be used for basic biographical facts (and nothing that ThatMontrealIP referred to above as "trivia"). So the subject's place of birth, cited to the subject and not found elsewhere? Probably fine. The fact that the subject was the first to do something? Probably not okay. In fact, as much as possible, don't use the personal correspondence, and stick to material published in independent reliable sources. creffett (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To follow up on what creffett is saying, secondary sources are are how the Wiki has been built. Relying only on secondary sources means anyone can edit a page by following what the secondary material says about someone.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to both of you for your valuable comments. This is exactly the kind of advice I've been looking for! Debora Holmes (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC) I've just posted a proposal for the first section at this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_D._Lundberg#First_proposed_addition_to_Lundberg_article . I'm not sure if I posted the references/footnotes in the proper format for this talk page (I've been working in Virtual Mode so not too familiar with the usual Wiki mode), but it's evident at least where each of the 19 footnotes belong. In addition, there's 27 links, but not sure those show up. Let me know what you think. Debora Holmes (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Debora Holmes: You need to tag your request with {{request edit}} to activate it. The advice on how to request edits is at Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. TSventon (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    [User:TSventon|TSventon], thanks so very much for the guidance -- I will try doing that now! Also, I hope I entered your name right so that you get this...Debora Holmes (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Judi Rever

    Draftified article - was originally in mainspace, I moved it to draft based on my suspicions of UPE or undisclosed COI. Article has strong indications of COI/UPE - see my note on the draft's talk page, but basically it is going out of its way to support the article's subject's claims and specifically counter controversies in a way that goes beyond "bias" and into "intentional promotion." Additional evidence which I can't share because of outing concerns, as usual will provide to admins privately on request. creffett (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft has been deleted at the author's request, this can be archived. creffett (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible paid editing by Aarmeen123

    Single-purpose account, only edits are creating and promoting Ahmad Massoud. The account was created in 2016, and since then made no major edits outside this one article. On April 14th, he uploaded two images (with metadata) of Massoud as his own work on commons-wiki and I'm unable to locate those images online so this strongly implies a close connection with the subject. Can someone please take a look if the subject is even notable? Thank you. GSS 💬 17:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    GSS, I would say probably notable (appears to meet GNG, though some of the news coverage, such as the Yahoo! News source, is...pretty flowery). Definite tone/neutrality issues, I'll do a little cleanup later today if nobody gets there first. creffett (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Yahoo! piece is an interview and I don't think we use interviews to establish notability, but anyways thanks for looking at it. GSS 💬 18:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're correct that it doesn't establish notability, but I'd say that at the minimum the CBC piece looks to me like actual news coverage instead of an interview. I'll do some more looking later, it's possible that not all of these are reliable sources or enough to establish notability, but my first glance read is that the subject probably will meet GNG. creffett (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Daily Cyprus

    According to [7]: "...Founded in 2020 by Malik Nomi, Daily Cyprus has come a long way from its beginnings in Limassol...". NomiWrites added links to Daily Cyprus in various Cyprus related articles. Cinadon36 18:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cinadon36, reminder: per the big warning at the top of the page, you need to notify other editors when posting about them here. I will take care of it for you this time, but please remember to do so in the future. creffett (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My wrong, sorry! Cinadon36 19:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Das osmnezz and UPE on footballers and football manager

    The user seem a undisclosed paid editor that keep on gaming the draft system to spam re-submission for borderline notable to clear cut non-notable biographical draft. Any chance to deal with this ? Matthew hk (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty sure they're just a football fan with borderline CIR issues. They create thousands of few line stubs and are subject to editing restrictions (cannot create straight in article space), but having had their talkpage on my watchlist for years, I think it's football fandom and obsession rather than COI. Although I don't think many of their articles are worth it, even if they meet WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Matthew hk:, I redirected my rejected drafts to my user page. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Das osmnezz, please don't redirect drafts to your user page. If you want your drafts deleted you may add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. creffett (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:By no Means (film)

    Username is the same as the film that they appear to be promoting here. Despite being notified here, they still submitted a draft article on the topic. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ...And its been completely blanked as it was a direct copyvio from IMDB. Curdle (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about where to draw the COI line

    Hi all, I'm here to ask a question for myself, actually. I was thinking about working on a couple articles about United Methodist Church history, but I am a member of the denomination and occasional volunteer (though any editing I will do is purely on my own initiative and is not in any way asked or required of me). I plan to work on history only, and I feel that I can write about it neutrally, but I recognize that I've reported plenty of COI editors here who have said the exact same thing. My question is basically "does that seem like enough of a relationship that I should be making edit requests?" I will declare the COI on my COI list, and if people feel it's appropriate I can mark myself as a connected contributor and/or do edit requests, but I feel like it's a fairly weak COI (I don't hold any official positions or anything) so I wanted to ask here for feedback before doing anything. creffett (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Creffett, shouldn't be a problem. Just defer to any challenges and take them to Talk - which you would anyway, if I know you at all. Guy (help!) 18:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reported? Really? At any rate, general membership in such large organizations is not per se a conflict (if you are an officer that would be another matter) but as with every article stay away if you can't fulfill editing obligations, and if you feel someone else should look at any particular edits just ask. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Alanscottwalker, JzG, thank you both, that agrees with my interpretation of the policy. Just wanted to make sure before I did anything. creffett (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cars

    Some COI-related info regarding Carmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was posted at WP:ARC, after which an Arb suggested this may rather be handled by COIN than ArbCom. So here we are. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do I not have a coin-notice on my page? Secondly, I am not even paid to edit on Wikipedia. That's a hobby from adolescence (including unreg. IPs), slowly to present as an engineer. I have always stated who I work for to be transparent and it never became an issue, until a user brought it up in an AN/I (I created) migrating it to ArbCom.--Carmaker1 (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is transpiring regarding this matter of COI? Have I been determined to be guilty of dubiously editing automotive articles per COI for personal gain and has evidence been provided to support such an assertion? The party who requested this has left the discussion, so I am just checking in at this point.--Carmaker1 (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Notification done – sorry for the delay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, okay thanks.--Carmaker1 (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is perceptions of bias, not biased editing. Step back and look at this like a user of Wikipedia, not an editor. We have an editor here that is making an issue of his expertise at ANI. ANI, the place the media looks for leads to write articles slamming our accuracy. He has stated directly that he is employed in a key position by a particular automaker. A position that usually incudes some profit based compensation. So ask yourself, as I did: knowing that a very active editor across a broad selection of automotive articles gets part of his income based on the profits of a particular automaker, does that make you more or less confident of their accuracy? The only possible answer is less. If you want to assess the quality of a specific product, would you look to the company's website or a neutral source like Consumer's Report? Being so overly focused on one topic area and so unaware of other facets of our project (like its survival or the public's perception) that you can make such potentially destructive statements in such a visible place just cannot be tolerated. Whether or not his specific individual edits show bias or not isn't relevant. To the general public, a person in a key position at a particular automaker isn't capable of being unbiased regarding that company, that company's products nor the same regarding competition. Is it more important for a particular individual to be allowed freedom to edit without restrictions or for the project to maintain its credibility? I'm a devout Christian, but I stay away from editing articles about religion because I'm not certain I can be unbiased (faith is the exact opposite of verifiability), and because other's perceptions of my edits, given my very public affirmations of my faith, would be they are biased. I gave up trying to edit in areas related to my expertise (hotel management) because the public's and virtually all editors here perception of the hotel business is very incorrect. If I was still working in the hotel business, I'd not edit articles about it, as perception would be one of bias. Wikipedia started out as somewhat a lark. I doubt even Jimbo envisioned Wikipedia being what it is today. We are the world's #1 source of information. Period. That means we as editors have a responsibility to give the public accurate information and we must proactively prevent things that defile our reputation. Having a connected editor editing as extensively in the area of his connection as Carmaker does creates a negative impression. When the editor brought that on himself by his own words, how do we not act? Although comparatively to other instances, Pete Rose's bad acts were probably not too big a deal, they banned him for life from baseball for bringing negative perceptions by openly gambling on baseball. Baseball couldn't afford negative perceptions and neither can we. John from Idegon (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not make accusations without proof provided, per your line "Being so overly focused on one topic area and so unaware of other facets of our project". For many years and to present, I have edited across multiple articles related to music, television, etc. Ask folks in music and they'd recognize the name. I don't even log in as much. Ford stock is in the dumps and Wikipedia has no benefit to it and never will, simple as that. If it did and I had a factor, James Hackett would be jobless and then we'd really have problem with COI across multiple automakers, if that boosted profitability. Plenty of great evidence here with my topic interests: [8][9][10][11]. I stepped back from editing music, because of issues with finding good links and citations on 1970s to 2000s material.

    I expect full objectivity and not the tone of editors, clouding cases being made against me. The automotive media gladly borrows from Wikipedia, per lazy journalists or criticizes credibility in most cases, due to vandalism or unchecked edits, hurting accuracy. In a twisted sense, they favor professional involvement here (friends with quite a few) to assuage concerns. Problem with that is WP:EXPERT. I'm not a cheerleader nor an apologist for anyone, so I welcome anyone thoroughly objective to make their observations on this.--Carmaker1 (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @John from Idegon: I'm afraid you'd need to be a bit more specific before this can be properly handled at this noticeboard. Carmaker1 self-disclosed their employer (if I understand correctly), thus two questions:
    • Did Carmaker1 edit any articles connected to their employer? If so, which ones, and please provide some diffs that corroborate?
    • Did Carmaker1 edit any articles connected to competitors of their employer? If so, similarly, which ones, and please provide some diffs that corroborate?
    Having some professional expertise on a topic does not a priori exclude the person with that expertise from editing articles on that topic: so you'd need to illustrate with diffs (see WP:DIFF#Linking to a diff) that something untoward would be going on. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Francis Schonken, Carmaker hasn't denied editing articles about automobiles and I am not claiming his edits are per se biased. I'm saying that openly stating you are employed in a key position by one player in a wide interrelated field creates a perception of bias, which can and should be avoided. I really cannot understand why that isn't an issue? Will we make it an issue if the media picks up on this? That's pretty hypocritical in my book. I think we can all agree Bill Gates is an authority on computers. But would we welcome him coming here to edit articles on Windows or Linux? Doubtful, as he clearly cannot be neutral due to the huge profit motivation. The value of experts here is their ability to locate sources that mere mortals cannot easily find. That value doesn't decrease with a restriction to talk pages. They can still provide those sources, and argue for their inclusion and how to weigh them. If restricted to talk, there can be no public perception of bias. The question isn't whether his edits improve the encyclopedia. The question is does it make Wikipedia a more accurate and dependable source in the world's view. We make a product here too. An encyclopedia. It's free. Profit isn't a motivation for accuracy here. The only thing that gives us our place in the world's culture is the public's perception of our accuracy. And having people editing about a field in which they make their living, that have the ability to increase their personal income by spinning articles, is going to create a negative perception, whether they are actually doing it or not. No-one is suggesting stifling his viewpoint. Just his ability to directly edit articles. The trade-off simply isn't worth it. John from Idegon (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    [H]aving people editing about a field in which they make their living. By that logic, DocJames, for example, would not be allowed to write about medicine because he makes his living as a doctor. El_C 17:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) John, I work at a hospital. I would agree, I shouldn't edit the Wikipedia article for my hospital without disclosure, as that could give the impression of a COI. However, your argument is effectively that I could not edit any hospital's article, as that would involve... well, I'm not sure how it would be a conflict, but you apparently think it is. Suffice to say, I find your interpretation of COI so overly-broad as to effectively ban many people from ever editing articles of interest to their profession. Further, comparing Carmaker to Bill Gates is laughable. If Carmaker were perhaps a former-CEO of Ford, it might apply, but otherwise it's ludicrous to make such a comparison. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    HandThatFeeds, El_C, I think that part of the difference is the economics in play - you have a lot fewer choices of hospital than car. If you edited about your hospital, that would be a COI, and if you edited about a local competitor hospital (is that a thing?), that would look like a COI, but if you edited about a hospital a thousand miles away, that would not really be a COI (since there's no competition). However, at least in the US, most car manufacturers are in competition with each other in some way, which triggers the appearance of COI. Note that this is not a judgment either way on the merits of the case, just a comment on the analogy. creffett (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a follow-up, I work for a company that (in part) produces software. I agree that I shouldn't be banned from writing about software, but I wouldn't edit the pages on my company, its competitors, or either of their software products. creffett (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that claiming a COI from all modern cars is just overly broad. That's what we're saying when we are talking about barring Carmaker from any "competitors" articles. This is a case where I think strictly adhering to COI would be a detriment to the encyclopedia. If specific issues with Carmaker's edits come up, sure, then we can revisit this. But I don't think throwing out the baby with the bathwater is appropriate here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty clearly, my thinking doesn't match up with the community's, so consider this dropped on this end. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there is one other thing that should be considered here: whether or not Carmaker1 is lying about his credentials. S/he's just recently disclosed who they are, but having edited the field of motor vehicles for so long it is not out of the realm of possibility that they could be lying about who they are. If so, that could broadly be construed as butting against the terms of use section 4) Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive; and Engaging in fraud. If you're back was against the wall and you attempted to rally on the strength of who you are/were, it wouldn't be totally out of the realm of possibility that you could find a name affiliated with your area of interest and claim to be that person. Edits from alleged experts on subject matter here have leaked in before - notably in the case Essjay, whose edits credentials with regards to his edits ultimately sparked the Essjay controversy. The catch here though is that there is no way to independently confirm who s/he claims to be, so it would boil down to whether we feel s/he's trustworthy enough to be taken at face value or whether we feel that playing safe be following this through under the COI umbrella is the better option. This is also a higher standard since you'd need to find actual evidence that the credentials were used to intentionally justify having edits remain in articles. In the case of Carmaker1, we have the attitude, but no evidence that the expertise card was knowingly or intentionally played specifically to retain edits in articles, which would make proving this line of thought very difficulty. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have any specific reason to suspect a dishonesty from a co-editor, or are this just wild WP:ASPERSIONs in an attempt to damage? Nor WP:COIN, nor any other page, would be admissible to start a fishing expedition, in the hope that something would turn up, eventually. That's not how it works. This noticeboard is not for gratuitously entering a co-editor's privacy. If you have suspect diffs to show, please list them, but general unsubstantiated philosophies of what could have gone wrong, comparisons with cases that may or may not have some similarities (without anything actually being demonstrated), etc, generally reflect rather poorly on the poster (WP:NOTBLOG and all that). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm of the mind to take Mario's advice here, but to close this by answering your question above, no, nothing specifically. That being said, admins need to keep an open mind, and our editor here has been swinging wild the last few days like a fish on a line. I have uranium pellets insofar as I can prove edits to car pages, but do I have enough for a self sustaining reaction? Nothing I've seen in my admittedly limited look through suggests the answer to my hypothesis above is anywhere near yes - at least not yet. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I would suggest leaving the outing discussion at ArbCom, hatting the above discussion here, and start from scratch: adding a well-formed report with list of relevant articles, user, diffs and a concise explanation of the issue. If there are still outing issues, it may be better to wait for ArbCom resolution or email evidence to paid-en-wp@. --MarioGom (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Citing myself

    I decided to expand the article the book Good Faith Collaboration and as it happens one of the RS is a book review written by me ([12]). Is it ok for me to use it as one of the sources for the article? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Piotrus, probably best to make an edit request on the talk page just to make sure there's no question of neutrality. creffett (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I will quote WP:EXPERT'S guidance which echoes creffett's advice and which I think is strong Expert editors are cautioned to be mindful of the potential conflict of interest that may arise if editing articles which concern an expert's own research, writings, discoveries, or the article about herself/himself. Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy does allow an editor to include information from his or her own publications in Wikipedia articles and to cite them. This may only be done when the editors are sure that the Wikipedia article maintains a neutral point of view and their material has been published in a reliable source by a third party. If the neutrality or reliability are questioned, it is Wikipedia consensus, rather than the expert editor, that decides what is to be done. When in doubt, it is good practice for a person who may have a conflict of interest to disclose it on the relevant article's talk page and to suggest changes there rather than in the article. Transparency is essential to the workings of Wikipedia.. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Creffett and Barkeep49: Thank you for your comments. I invite scrutiny of my edit at [13]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan

    I was searching for recent updates about the group, when I saw an article published by Al-Monitor[1] referring to a contract between the organization mentioned above and the DC law firm Cogent Law Group, to "develop Wikipedia page" (this Short Form Registration Statement contains the service). The news website also says that the organization wants its communist ideology kept out of sight, because it wants to seek support in the United States. I am not going to point fingers at anyone, but I noticed that in the infobox "Social-democracy" had replaced commnism. For the time being, I added a reliable source to restore that certain part, however, I am writing this if any further action should be done. Pahlevun (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pahlevun, nice catch! I think this warrants inclusion of Cogent Law Group at Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies. Note that this document is proof of an agreement for paid editing, but it doesn't seem to proof that the project already started. So I would be careful before turning to any specific editor. I'll give it a shot at looking for more info. --MarioGom (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My thoughts exactly. Please keep me informed. Pahlevun (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Schaffer, Aaron (5 February 2020), "Iranian Kurdish rebels hire law firm to lobby Trump administration", Al-Monitor, archived from the original on 6 February 2020, retrieved 20 April 2020

    Philip Sheffield

    Article Philip Sheffield created by Heliumsop in 2009 without any sources. Unsourced edits in 2012 from Durham University ip 129.234.78.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seem primary sourced. Recent unsourced edits from Helium soprano suggest COI. All three seem SPA connected to Philip Sheffield. --OrestesLebt (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Almost certain from the usernames that Heliumsop and Helium soprano are the same person, but Heliumsop hasn't edited since 2009 and the IP hasn't since 2012 so this isn't a bad-faith sockpuppetry case (presumably either forgot about the previous account or lost the password). Definitely looks like an autobiography to me. Didn't turn up any significant coverage, so I'll go ahead and PROD the article (and if necessary take it to AfD). creffett (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, creffett. I came to similar conclusions, but couldn't present the best evidence for COI since it would out the editors. --OrestesLebt (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    72.83.15.95/scrc.gmu.edu

    (prefatory declaration: I am COI with respect to the school in question as a former student/employee, so I'm probably taking it a little too easy on the editor I'm reporting)

    IP editor 72.83.15.95 has been adding a lot of links to scrc.gmu.edu to a large number of pages, to the point that I am very confident that the IP editor is connected to it in some way. It's a legitimate GLAM site (if I understand correctly, it's George Mason University's "rare documents" archive), and it's presumably well-intentioned. The problem here is that they're not declaring that connection - I left a COI template on their talk page last week and added a personal note encouraging them to declare their connection and to register an account, but they have continued editing the past couple days without response to the COI warning, so I'm bringing it here. creffett (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I did 3 IP looks ups. [14] [15] [16] all show the IP adderess located in the state of Virginia. Oh hey, George Mason University is located in Virginia. It's a high change of a COI. It could also be some random person in Virginia wanting to spam links to a university they live close to. So it could be a COI, but this is certainly WP:LINKSPAM. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 22:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Juniatta (Iranian Monarchist Party)

    Article name is same as username. Idan (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Lol, I saw this too and messaged them (Juniatta) directly on Instagram and they said that they had absolutely nothing to do with the article. Vika messaged me back and said that it was probably her social media manager since they knew about the book and other insider things on the organization so it wasn’t a conflict of interest on the founder’s part but it was someone close to the organization — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.125.81 (talk • contribs)

    Either way, it's looks like it's a conflict of interest, at the very least, and possibly paid editing, as well. I have placed the appropriate notices on the user's talk page, so let's see what their response is. In the mean time, they are to refrain from editing the article the draft, but may still edit the article draft talk page, while this remains outstanding. El_C 22:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I overlooked the username. I softblocked the user indefinitely pending a WP:RENAME. El_C 23:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The stuff is accurate though, I don’t think that there is a conflict of interest...I talked to the guy and he was genuinely confused. Thought that you needed your username to be the same name as the article you were writing...he seems so confused right now to be honest

    Idk who wrote the above comment as they didn't sign it. Reminder: sign with 4 of these (~). Anyway, while it does have sources, how notable is it for wikipedia? Idan (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I mean it is fairly accurate as far as I can see, their resources seem good for the information that they have Tilly (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

    OpIndia

    In Talk:OpIndia § Is this a coordinated Hit Job on Opindia?, 58.182.176.169 posted an extremely long statement that reads as if it were written by OpIndia's legal advisor. They claim "NO COI", but I am having a very hard time believing them considering the personal attacks and demands in the statement.

    In case you are not familiar with the background, OpIndia was blacklisted from Wikipedia after the editor of OpIndia doxed a Wikipedia editor in early March in retaliation for their edits on a political topic, forcing them to vanish for safety reasons. The community showed consensus to deprecate OpIndia in a noticeboard discussion, and the resulting perennial sources list entry is at WP:OPINDIA. — Newslinger talk 12:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No idea if that was written by a legal advisor, but...wow, that was indeed quite a read. I'm going to have to agree with you, this is pretty loudly saying COI to me. But maybe I'm just one of the cartelized wolves packing order. creffett (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Newslinger and Creffett, I am reading this this and still laughing hard, specially the "by OpIndia's legal advisor" is very funny, "wow, you overestimate my law skills a lot". Since you made efforts to make this post, let me address each concern.

    1. I have nothing to do with law profession or journalism.

    2. I know Opindia as source only recently. No loyalty of any kind. I do not care about them or their staff.

    3. I have explained in my OP how I arrived at that article, then google search took me to couple of Opindia article, I do not know the people involved in those articles (journalists/writers, and other parties, nor I specifically recall having come across any of those journalists and editors during my editing on wikipedia). These are all strangers to me, beyond basic human compassion I have no love or hate for them.

    4. I have not personally named or attacked anyone. How can I attack when I do not even know the people or the background. All I have done is I articulated my concerns after incidentally coming across Opindia wikipedia article and subsequently articles written by Opindia regarding some wikipdia malpartices,. In my OP, I copied and pasted the heading of the first article on google search as an example post written by Opindia staff. Thats it. It neither means I agree or know the facts/truth. But it raised my concerns. I can not recall who the people are in those articles as I have not come across them on wikipedia. I really have nothing to go on against any individuals. I have no agenda, no paid/unpaid mission, no axes to grind. I am not stupid to lose my peace of mind by picking useless wikipedia fights with strangers. I have no intentions to get into personal issues of historical tussles behind the issue.

    5. After reading Opindia talk page (which I felt was too messy for me to comment, I did not participate in any ongoing discussion) and after reading couple articles written by Opindia, I was certainly alarmed. I listed my concerns on the talk page in the hope there is some centralised effort to look at the issues in holistic unbiased manner if there is something wrong going on. There is nothing more to it.

    6. Are you two in anyway involved with this issue? If so, apologies guys if you felt my post was personal. Seems you feel passionately about the topic and very sensitive about it? I do not have any professional, legal, personal attachment to the issue really, I have nothing against you or anyone else. My post is meant to be "non-personal post" about resolving the bigger structural flaws in wikipedia process and how things work. Please focus on the concerns/issues, about the people I am not concerned because I do not know who is right or wrong in their past edit/block wars.

    7. My post is not about the individuals (they come and go), but about the wider concepts/concerns of fairness, transparency, democratisation of power on wikipedia. If wrong things are happening at wikipedia at a larger scale, then it will slowly kill the wikipedia. Imagine all my and every body else's contribution being wasted if wikipedia is replaced by major nations by something else like China did. Wikipedia thrives only due to google search engine algorithm. The day its gone, our contributions will not appear in google search and all the effort will be wasted. After reading the articles, I have genuine concern about wiki becoming personal hegemony of select few and then being chocked to death. Let me know/assure me those concerns are either unfounded or if there is a mechanism to proactively identify and fix those issues.

    8. I do not know if it puts your heart at ease, I do not really know what more to say, because your concerns of me being linked/COI to any of the parties are completely unfounded. Be assured.

    9. My post is out of curiosity, not OCI/malice/game. Each point can be answered by posting a link to some thread where those discussions have already taken place. I do not think my concerns are invalid in anyway. I want to ask two questions: (a) are my concerns in the OP invalid? (b) I do not have any COI, but hypothetically if someone with COI raised the same concerns would not those still be valid. My focus is on issues, not individuals involved. I do not know any of them, I do not want to make it my personal mess either, I completely want to stay out of that aspect of the discussion.

    10. Sorry, I am still laughing, I find this post strange and funny, because in every sense of the word I am far far far away from Opindia or other people involved with the issue.

    11. I still thank you, because of you I got to know how this noticeboard works. Please feel free to voice more concerns if you have any, I will try to answer. Wiki being anonymous, I do not really have any means of meeting or showing I am not involved/related to Opindia, etc. I find it super funny though. I hope this puts your heart at ease. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please, note that COI or not, the IP makes extensive use of the OpIndia rhetoric against Wikipedia editors. This is a red flag, given the ongoing incident of doxxing and harassment of Wikipedia editors by OpIndia, which gives credibility and "real world" risk to any veiled threat. The IP seems to have a lot of concerns about the future of Wikipedia as a whole, but this looks to me like the extension of a harassment campaign (regardless of COI) that has nothing to do with Wikipedia as a whole. --MarioGom (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is anything actionable here, for the purpose of WP:COIN. --MarioGom (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, it's probably not a conflict of interest. The initial message took was phrased and toned like a cease and desist letter, but it was most likely just a red herring. — Newslinger talk 09:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Avram Mlotek

    The page was created by a username that contains the last name of the page subject. Additionally, numerous editors on the page appear to be linked to the subject, having only edited this page in their wiki history. A quick Google search was able to further link editors to the subject. | MK17b | (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Listed Mlotekfamily at WP:UAA for a clear violation of WP:ISU. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You beat me to it by two minutes. creffett (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Red X Blocked as a username implying shared use. They are free to change their username and request an unblock, provided that the account is used by one person. — Newslinger talk 13:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wickety Wak

    Hi! I was doing some cleanup of the Wickety Wak page. Despite it being factually correct, it does not comply with Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. Any attempts by myself and other editors to maintain or expand article to compliance keep getting reverted by authors who have close connection to subject material, including removal of User:Talk entries and tags.

    The authors have expressed defensive behaviour over these edits on my talk page, and use various different IPs to revert our edits.

    We've had this article submitted for peer review, who have recommended we take this to WP:SPI We also suspect COI. Could we get some assistance in resolving this issue please? --LoofNeZorf (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This particular account should have been blocked for WP:ORGNAME years ago. Reported to WP:UAA. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Red X Blocked as a promotional username. They are free to change their username and request an unblock. — Newslinger talk 09:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Who is AJ Britz

    Draft name is same as username. Non notable article and username policy. Idan (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am having a problem linking the correct user. IDK why Idan (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zvikorn: You don't need to include "User:" in the {{userlinks}} template. I took it out and it links properly now.
    Jimfbleak has already deleted the draft as WP:G11. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Kobe (artist)

    Promotional editing and COI issues. Editor says " am Albin Saelens, son of the deceased sculptor, artist Kobe (artistic alias of Jacques Saelens) and manage the website 'www.foundationkobe.com' (link). I would really love to keep this English Wikipedia page about my father" at the AfD for the page. Hasn't disclosed per terms of use at their user page. Continues to massively rewrite the page. Has been warned once, twice to steer clear. No reply on talk page. their edits have definitely improved the page, but that's not the point neutrality-wise. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    For me it is not clear where to respond to the "conflict of interest". I have no experience with "talk page requests" (I have no clue where I can find that). Please give me all the necessary info of what I need to do. What do you mean with 'You need to declare your conflict on your user page'? AlbinS (talk)
    I have changed my user page 'AlbinS' with information that I declare to have a conflict of interest with the page 'Kobe (artist)'. Is this sufficient so that the page about Kobe will not be removed? AlbinS (talk)
    AlbinS, the deletion discussion always continues for one week. This ia about the fact that you continue to edit the page. You need to stop editing the page, as you are not a neutral editor, as you are a representative of an organization that promotes the subject. Do you understand?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    COI is disclosed correctly now. No further direct edits to the article since this report was filed. I guess there is nothing else to do here. --MarioGom (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Château de Montbrun

    User appears to be owner of property. User has edited page over at least a couple of years - attempts to engage user have been unsuccessful. Tacyarg (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hem Chandra Chowdhury

    Wikiu08372 says she is a grandchild of the subject, describes herself as a mother in her 70s, and is very upset because we won't let her post a lot of personal information about the subject's non-notable descendants, their trials and tribulations. I advised her to concentrate on improving the article itself; she accuses me of cultural bias. It is also possible that others are using the same account. Orange Mike | Talk 17:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Healthfitns

    Username of article editing article Idan (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the user, as the draft was promotional and the username also. Bishonen | tålk 20:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    TAI Hürjet

    Username matches most edited article. Apparently, all edits to other articles have also been about Hurjet. LetUsNotLoseHearT 18:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=953303270"