From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

COI clarification (HGO Trust)

I am the Chair of this organization which is a charitable trust. I act as a volunteer and receive no remuneration. I have in the past updated the article with information which is is confirmed by third-party citation (newspapers etc.). I have stated my connection on the article talk page. An editor has taken exception to this (see the talk page) and in response I have desisted from updating the article. The consequence is that the article is now out of date. I would be very grateful if someone could let me know to what extent I am able (or not able) to edit the article under WP standards. Smerus ( talk) 15:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

By using Template:Request_edit to submit suggestions for other uninvolved editors at random to work on it. Direct or directly delegated public relations and reputation management editing is STRONGLY discouraged. By the way, what I said also applies to biography of people associated with this organization, its subsidiaries, parent company, and so on and on. Graywalls ( talk) 21:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this, I will use it. But just to clarify, this is a charity. It has no subsidiaries, parent company or employees. Nor have I proposed using professional editors or PR companies (even if HGO could afford them, which it can't). -- Smerus ( talk) 11:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Smerus: Whether you're compensated or whether the organisation makes a profit doesn't materially change the fact that you have a strong conflict of interest. –  Joe ( talk) 14:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Joe Roe: I of course accept that (as you can see from the page history), I was just rather amused that Graywalls seemed to think we were a mighty corporation. -- Smerus ( talk) 14:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Smerus:, what I am saying is that foundations, projects, brands, movements, and what not of charities are viewed the same as profit corporations brands, subsidiaries and products. A board member would rank very high in the level of COI, paid or not. Graywalls ( talk) 21:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Graywalls:, thanks for this, I absolutely accept this, which is why of course I came to this page for advice. I will be using Template:Request_edit for the future. Best, -- Smerus ( talk) 07:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Smerus:, by the way, even if you're a COI, making edits that would amount to acceptable under WP:MINOR is usually ok if you indicate clearly with something like "COI/U, spelling fix" in summary but copyediting that affects the tone is strongly discouraged as it can induce implicit bias. Graywalls ( talk) 05:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Smerus:, this set of edit, by the way, are quite clearly beyond minor edits, by the meaning of WP:MINOR that could not be considered uncontroversial. I did not say suggest that contents related disagreement/sourcing matters is "minor". The edit summary wasn't necessarily meant for you. Did you consider that query for "HGO trust" "Così fan tutte" returned no result before you accuse the Nutrition Facts like listing was so "peremptory" removed? Things should have been cited in the first place. COI/U shouldn't be getting into contents related disagreements directly on the article. Graywalls ( talk) 13:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Graywalls:, I think you need to make it clear in what way these edits are not minor. In fact you deleted a large block of text which has been in the article from long before my connection with HGO on the grounds that there was no citation. I reinstituted it verbatim and provided the citation. I also change the tense of one item from future to past (as the event had taken place). If you wish to edit the article (and of course there is no reason why you should not) you should do so with the sensitivity expected of any WP editor. Had you taken the trouble to read the article, by the way, you would have realized that at the time of the production, HGO was caled 'Hampstead Garden Opera', and you would have found numerus references to 'Hampstead Garden Opera Cosi fan tutte' (or any of the other operas concerned) on Google or other search engines. Can I just ask you to recall that I came to this page page for advice, not for confrontation? Sincerely, -- Smerus ( talk) 13:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Alissa Anderegg

Draft bio of a model/brand ambassador and (from off-wiki evidence) social media marketing manager seems to be in preparation. It appears to have some neutrality and fact issues, such as claimed coauthorship of a book. The creator has uploaded a professional-looking image of the subject that I've tagged for copyvio [1]. UPE, neutrality, and even autobio concerns. ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a good catch. It looks as though the photo has been removed and the editor has canceled their account. This is a pretty clear indication that the concerns raised by @ Bri are legit. Keep an eye on this draft article. Go4thProsper ( talk) 17:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Bri Hi Bri. Thank you for clarification. I'm new to Wikipedia so a bit confused on the uw-paid template. To clarify, I'm not being paid or affiliated with any pages I'm editing, just a fan who watched the pageants. Do I still need to add a paid template if I'm not being paid? Or add about my employer? missworldpageantfan2020 ( talk) 09:46, 27 October 2020 (EST)

Beauty pageant draft

I delivered this user the uw-paid template that requests they answer whether they edit for pay before proceeding. They have continued to edit the draft and I'm afraid I don't see a clear yes or no in what they posted on my user talkpage. ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Bri Hi Bri. Thank you for clarification. I'm new to Wikipedia so a bit confused. To clarify, I'm not being paid or affiliated with any pages I'm editing, just a fan who watched the pageants missworldpageantfan2020 ( talk) 09:34, 27 October 2020 (EST)

@ Missworldpageantfan2020, to notify @ Bri you need to sign the post where you mention them, as I have done here, TSventon ( talk) 14:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Curtis Richa

Obvious COI (see the recent Commons upload) which needs dealing with, but it also needs someone with interest/knowledge in the subject to determine notability. A quick online search doesn't reveal much. I alerted the user about COI back in 2016 but there's just been another huge addition of unverified content to the article. Sorry I don't have the time to look into this.  — SMALL JIM  11:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for spotting this Smalljim. An admittedly quick WP:BEFORE attempt to look into notability turns up a whole stack of links back to this wiki page and seemingly not much else. For someone who has supposedly worked with some very famous artists, one link to an out of date myspace page and a reference to an archived self-promotional website is pretty woeful. Am I missing something? Melcous ( talk) 11:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, Smalljim, you should have left a notice of this discussion on the user's talk page as required (in red at the top of this page). I have just done this. Melcous ( talk) 11:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Oops, thanks for doing that. Apologies for the oversight - I shouldn't have posted while in a rush. There does seem to be a disconnect between the extravagant claims made in the article and the available evidence.  — SMALL JIM  13:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree on both counts. The COI account is obvious and not even attempting to disguise the intent. The claim to notability seems a stretch given the sparse RS mentions. Go4thProsper ( talk) 03:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The article is used like it's another website or a social media page. I'm not seeing enough coverage in reliable sources. Is he verifiably influential? If he does not possess the necessary coverage to be considered notable under WP:GNG or one of the SNGs, AfD is in order. Graywalls ( talk) 13:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion. GeneralNotability ( talk) 18:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Dilip Ghosh (politician)

The editor seems to be having a clear conflict of interest (COI) evident from contributions till date. See Special:Contributions/ତୁମ୍ଭର_ପିତା_ଓ_ରାଜା and edits make it suspicious to be a WP:SPA. The editor till date has edited only on Dilip Ghosh (politician) 42.110.204.193 ( talk) 05:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This section was opened at the same time, by the same editor, as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:ତୁମ୍ଭର ପିତା ଓ ରାଜା. ତୁମ୍ଭର ପିତା ଓ ରାଜା first edited on 11 October, and has only nine edits in total, so only editing one article is hardly surprising. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The editor in question does seem to have an axe to grind with Dilip Ghosh (and overcoverage per WP:CSECTION), but I'm not sure this rises to "conflict of interest." GeneralNotability ( talk) 19:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

EditorMax of RichmondFR|richmondfed.org Econ Focus

Edit requests they've made since July 18, 2020

I have recently started expanding my activities to responding to Edit Requests and started noticing a pattern of requests for addition of one particular source. The whole picture wouldn't be obviously to obvious to someone just responding to one request. I believe this is a good example of abusing the process to advance their own agenda of promoting their own sources by shoehorning their Econ Focus contents into Wikipedia articles by proxy through unsuspecting good faith editors after they've been told they can't do it directly. The overwhelming majority of their edits have to do with trying to get richmondfed.org into numerous articles while making negligible improvements to those articles, if at all. Graywalls ( talk) 19:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this comment. One point of clarification: Looking only at my edit requests on Talk pages would leave a skewed picture of my activities because I use the edit request mechanism only in cases where I have a potential COI.
My intention is for every one of my editing activities here to provide a service to the Wikipedia community. In the past three months, I have made direct (non-COI) edits to four articles and edit requests to six articles. For my direct edits, none of them referencing my institution’s content, see [2], [3], [4], and [5]. For my edit requests, I’ve selected the references to my institution’s research content -- together with expository text, when appropriate – with a lot of care to aid readers. Of the six edit requests, five have been adopted in whole or in part by an editor. Most of the requests were adopted without comment, but one editor was kind enough to say, “Sounds cool! I added it to the Wikipedia article. Solid writing!!”
I’m grateful to receive any guidance here or on my Talk page as to the appropriate or desired mix of direct (non-COI) edits and non-COI talk page comments vs. COI edit requests or as to any other subject. In addition to giving me the chance to learn, a discussion like this one is a good reminder to me to stay focused on adding value for Wikipedia users.

EditorMax of RichmondFR ( talk) 19:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't have any issue with EditorMax's edit requests. (Disclosure: I reviewed the edit request for Anderson (automobile)). The publication they have cited, Econ Focus, appears to be a reliable source. It has editorial oversight, its director of research has a PhD in economics, and its articles cite their sources. The Richmond Federal Reserve's expertise is in economics and monetary policy, exactly the subject of Econ Focus' articles. Furthermore, EditorMax has followed the correct process for edit requests since they were unblocked. As for the concern that their edit requests are hoodwinking reviewers, I can't speak for the diligence of all reviewers, but I can attest I review requests very carefully, and that the request on Talk:Rural Electrification Act was approved by an admin known for their strict disposition of arbitration enforcement requests.
Finding quality sources for inadequately-referenced articles is a core component of keeping Wikipedia functioning. Suggesting sources on talk pages is more than a negligible improvement. It helps editors who may eventually use those sources to expand the article, and while a paid editor could go wrong by suggesting biased, unreliable, or fringe sources, or unduly weighting an article towards one source, EditorMax has performed none of those transgressions. Just because they have an ulterior motive doesn't mean the source itself is untrustworthy. My guidance to EditorMax is to ensure their suggestions don't detour into WP:COATRACK territory, but on balance, I have found their edit requests a net positive for the wiki. Altamel ( talk) 01:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
It isn't the matter of quality. It is of requesting for "self-citation" that I see as excessive and appears to be the primary purpose based on the contribution pattern. Wikipedia:Attribution#Citing_yourself is what I am referring to. Graywalls ( talk) 01:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I disagree – quality does matter. WP:CITESPAM, the guideline you cited in your comment below, has a section on source solicitations. The reliability of the source and whether it is commercial are both relevant factors, along with (as you pointed out) whether the suggestion has been made across an excessive number of talk pages. Nothing in the guideline suggests that the intent of the editor takes all precedence over the quality of the sources. Altamel ( talk) 01:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Altamel: The quality of RichmondFR's sources isn't the cause behind the concern anyways. I believe what I see as a concern here is perfectly within the context of WP:CITESPAM, which concerns with academics which means things like scholars and publishers trying to increase the citation of their scholarly journals which are often high quality sources. Graywalls ( talk) 20:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@ EditorMax of RichmondFR:, Request edit is generally used for articles about people, products, companies and organization by people who have personal or professional connections to avoid making edits about themselves. For example, you requesting changes to Richmond Federal Reserve's article page or their executives article page. The request edit list is sorted chronologically and lists the article names. Many editors only work on one or two every once in a while, so they often have no awareness about a pattern. When I saw have seen your request the second time around and I recalled it was of the same nature, I reviewed your contribution history and the vast majority of them suggests your purpose is inserting your Econ Focus publication as sources into numerous different articles. Editing/suggesting your own sources repeatedly into places where they can fit would be promotional editing. For example, if you are the author(or their publisher's rep) of a really good academic journal that shares the average lifespan of different animals, adding, or suggesting the addition of that particular source into cat, dog, horse, rabbit, elk, moose, cow, elephant and deer and any other articles where you could your connected source one at a time would be seen as WP:CITESPAM. Same would apply if an account representing a newspaper with an apparent intent of getting their articles cited was suggesting numerous articles of theirs into numerous articles even if the quality is good. Graywalls ( talk) 01:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

COI Disclosure

Hi, I am Steve and I work for Wiki Ethicists. It is a Wikipedia-related wing of a marketing agency. We had quite a few clients who wanted us to work on Wikipedia articles, so we created this brand to direct them towards ethical publishing/contributions on Wikipedia. I have personally spent the last few months reading and researching Wikipedia guidelines about notability, manual of style, policies regarding paid editing, among other important things.

We work with independent clients and other marketing agencies as a B2B service provider, so we will have clients from both sources. I shall disclose their details as and when we receive work from them.

I was hoping to officially disclose my status as a paid editor to the administrators. I have added the disclosures to my user page and on the talk page of an article I have submitted for review, here Draft:Spaghetti donut. I am trying to follow the example of User:WWB Too and associates, User:Joanna Biddolph, and User:Renzoy16. I hope I am in compliance with Wikipedia policies regarding paid editing. If, in case, there is an issue with anything, please let me know. Thank you. W-Eth-Viet ( talk) 00:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Simenona Martinez

The BLP is written and maintained by the subject and fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines. Major edits are all done by single purpose accounts with similar sentence structures as the subject's press releases/ website bio.

All internet 'articles' on this person are from press releases from the 'Media Contact' of this person by the name of Stacy Harris and there are no third party independent journalistic sources talking about this person.

Examples: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/inventor-simenona-martinez-releases-new-scientific-research-book-the-studies--innovations-of-simenona-martinez-301091140.html https://menafn.com/1100155221/Seth-MacFarlane-and-Girlfriend-Simenona-Martinez-Have-Reportedly-Split-After-4-Years-of-Dating https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/anchor-podcasts/the-anonemis-mind/e/64853302 NoCringe ( talk) 08:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@ NoCringe I see that the article has been deleted. If you want to start a discussion here, please follow the notices at the head of this page: "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.", and in red "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion." TSventon ( talk) 18:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

F5 Networks

I don't know if this is the right place for this but it seems that this company is active in editing its page without disclosing it as seen in this reddit thread: [REDACTED] Cakelot1 ( talk) 08:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Cakelot1: Included at the head of this page are two notices: "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.", and in red "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion..." Have you done these things? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

David Ryu

Hi, I'm a volunteer with the Nithya campaign, so I wanted to disclose that conflict right off the bat. Nithya and Ryu are in electoral contest in Los Angeles. Some folks have recently made what appear to be self-serving edits to David Ryu's page and defamatory edits to Nithya Raman's page. I'm not going to edit it since I'm involved but I wanted to let someone take a look at it and hopefully make an independent judgment.

Thank you all for your time. Loxbart ( talk) 02:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Gateway of India

Looks like a clear case of refspam; user has inserted references to books (including a thesis) [6] written by the same person several times. [7]. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Ohnoitsjamie: Included at the head of this page are two notices: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue...", and in red "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion..." While you have, strictly speaking, done those things, the gap between them of just nine minutes - during which time Yalescholar did not edit - is hardly adequate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Beauty pageant sockfarms: new bundled AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Kalousová (2nd nomination) is waiting for input, if people here have opinions about beauty pageant creations, especially where sockfarms are concerned. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Limmy

The newly uploaded photo seems to indicate subject is involved. William Avery ( talk) 07:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The Limmy123 account, now deleted, is an obvious single subject COI account. I placed a COI maintenance template in the article. Interested editors are encouraged to review and improve the article, with special attention to WP:NEUTRAL, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:PUFFERY concerns. Go4thProsper ( talk) 14:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Go4thProsper: The template with which you tagged the article, {{ COI}}, has this (empahsis in original) in its documentation:

Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning.

Would you like to do that now, or to remove the template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Andy Mabbett: Thank you for your help. I have alerted the talk page per your suggestion and made reference to the NPOV issues. Go4thProsper ( talk) 13:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

For the interested

Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The patch ads link to wikicontributors.net: that is a brand used by Get Wikified ( paidlist) and they are community banned. I'll contact WMF Legal later today about it, maybe they can ask Patch not to host this. One of them also infringes on the puzzle globe trademark logo, which Legal is definitely interested in stopping. Bri.public ( talk) 17:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

School of Advanced Studies

Case: "An apparent COI exists when there is reason to believe that an editor has a COI.": Another party of an edit war admits Conflict of Interest in Talk page; most likely a former employee or a close friend of a former employee. The dispute was not solved through "Talk"; the user insists keeping their biased version and not providing proper citations or using neutral language.

Furthermore, the account in question seems to be a single-purpose account: "Accounts that appear to be single-purpose, existing for the sole or primary purpose of promotion or denigration of a person, company, product, service, website, organization, etc., and whose postings are in apparent violation of this guideline, should be made aware of this guideline and warned not to continue their problematic editing. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked."

The talk page where CoI is admitted and consensus not reached: User talk:Jacquelin5624

Latest differences: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=School_of_Advanced_Studies&type=revision&diff=986484146&oldid=986437377 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquelin5624 ( talk • contribs) 04:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Jacquelin5624: Where on that page do you believe "CoI is admitted"? In the edit where you notify the IP user of this discussion, you refer to "a suspected conflict of interest". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Pigsonthewing: For example here: "People who contributed to this article know it because they were involved in SAS and in the many social media conversations around it over the past five years." Jacquelin5624 ( talk) 21:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
That is not an admission of COI by the editor concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: The article was protected by User:Materialscientist after an edit war in which both of the above editors were involved. Neither of them appears to have edited any other article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Possible COI editing by User:Cx5778

Looking at the account creation time and edits this user has made, appears they are trying to link their business (Rosotics) to many of these areas, furthermore, they don't have any demonstrations of their technology available, nor patents or other material indicating they actually have the capabilities to do what they say. Seems like a heavy COI to advertise for something that doesn't exist. Haydeneditor ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

IP number scrubbing Arizona state legislator pages

The IP numbers 184.182.32.239 [8] and 2600:1011:B125:57F4:304A:B3C1:7FCD:5B6F [9] are scrubbing the pages of various Arizona state legislature persons with deceptive edit summaries. The IP address should be blocked (at least until November 4). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Warned user one last time. Firestar464 ( talk) 02:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Willie Wilcox

User frequently adds unreferenced WP:BROCHURE-like WP:PROMOTIONal content to this article (diff from today) and edits few other articles. COI warning at user talk page in August. -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 04:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Iran politics

is this breach of COI he is deleting text left and right from Iran pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Triple powers (Iran)&diff=next&oldid=975762066 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran&diff=prev&oldid=986841274 Baratiiman ( talk) 16:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be a forum shop from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#is this vandalism; again, the user whose edit is discussed has not been notified, and the other requirement of this page ("This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue...") is not met.
See also prior discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 163#Pahlevun and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 164#Economy of Iran. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Voluntarily creating an article for a previous client

Is it considered a COI if I voluntarily create articles for a past client (or a current one for that matter) for which I don't get paid for (or get asked by them to do the article creation)? I have created some paid articles for Late Night Tales/ Night Time Stories, however, I have an admiration for their output and may create unpaid articles out of my own will in the future. Any advice on this? Thanks! -- Λeternus (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Have you read WP:COI? It's hard to say without having the context of nature of your relationship. Someone who works for a staffing agency who sends them to work in a Nike warehouse editing Nike page on their own time wouldn't really be a COI issue compared to an unpaid "volunteer board member" or a major shareholder editing about their philanthropy. If you're highly passionate about the article subject's output, knowledgeable editing is good, but you must be careful to avoid drifting into WP:FANPOV. If you look at train car related pages, you'll see a lot of problems with things written from railfan POV. Graywalls ( talk) 03:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Graywalls I have edited/created countless articles related to music in Wikipedia since 2006 so I am very familiar with its guidelines. However, I created my first paid articles in 2020. I read COI guidelines extensively but I couldn't manage to find relevant information on my issue. I was contacted by Night Time Stories to write some paid articles for them after they saw my work on Mark Speer (which I created voluntarily). I don't have a personal connection to them or know them in any other way than this. They will release a new album under their sister label, Late Night Tales, for which I'm planning to create a new article. So my question is, does my past commercial involvement with them pose a COI when creating future articles for them voluntarily? -- Λeternus (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I looked at some of your paid articles and to me they essentially border a catalog entry. Given the very type and semi current business to client relationship of paid editor and their client, I'd have to say that is within the purview of COI/paid editing. They know what you edit under, and how you do this editing clearly affects your future business relationship. If you run a coffee shop which gives 11th drink for "free" with the purchase of 10th drink and each drink is $5, you're getting a quantity based price tier discount of 9%. The big picture is that it's not "free". Broadly construed, this is part of your business relationship, thus it should be declared. "paid editing" is not a matter of piecewise payment for that specific article. Graywalls ( talk) 18:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok, since I'm obviously not being paid to write future articles for them, I'm going to use a standard COI template as a disclaimer for my past relationship but not a "paid article" one. I understand your analogy with a coffee shop, but to continue it, if I decided to give only free drinks from now on, what I'm offering is a free service, with no expectation of monetary compensation. Anyone at any moment (even a new client) can appreciate my free service and decide to pay me for some of it in the future. I would then declare a paid editing again, appropriately. -- Λeternus (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Aeternus: Best practice is to maintain separate accounts for paid and volunteer editing, especially if in your case you intersperse the two activities in articles in the same subject matter area and potentially in the same article. I strongly recommend you do this right away. This is allowed under WP:Alternate account policy. - Bri.public ( talk) 16:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

TVChurch at Scott Atlas

The editor "TVChurch" edits as if they have a COI with Scott Atlas and Hoover Institution. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Snooganssnoogans: Included at the head of this page are two notices: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue...", and in red "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion..." While you have, strictly speaking, done those things, the gap between them of just four minutes - during which time TVChurch did not edit - is hardly adequate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup needed for two and a half years of UPE

blocked editor
possibly related

The account that created these articles was recently blocked for long-term undeclared paid editing (UPE). ☆ Bri ( talk) 04:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Some more articles are listed above which have similarities including topic (Ghana pop music) and behavioral similarities (creation style). This other editor came up as an "obvious sock" in a 2018 COIN thread about FFHypeTeam / Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr sockfarm - Bri.public ( talk) 22:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Erin McKenney

I tagged this page for COI (and notability, since it's borderline) based on the username of its creator and the fact they described themselves on their user page as an activist, and gave them a {{ uw-coi}} warning. They removed the tags from the page and replied to the warning I met the subject of that page briefly through a BBC connection, but I don't know her., and updated their user page to include the first name Emily. However, the history of their user page shows that they used to identify themselves as McKenney. {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 21:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this works so I don't know if I'm supposed to reply here? This is a misunderstanding. So I met Ms. McKenney at BBC event, shortly after I'd learned to do Wiki edits through a school program. I think I worked with her to create pages like for a scientist (Iacovino maybe? idk). I must have put her info in this account and got mixed up. That's it though. You're welcome to delete my account though, I have no problem with that. I just feel bad that I accidentally made a whole mess here. I'm really sorry about that. Like I've said, I don't edit much and I"m not a pro -Emily — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.24.122.63 ( talk) 22:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
@ E m 001: The page you created the was Kayla Iacovino - thank you for doing so. Please don't forget to sign in, before editing or making comments! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The history of the user page does not "show that they used to identify themselves] as McKenney"; many editors use their user page as a sandbox, or for lists of articles they work on. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, I'd find that plausible if they hadn't used the edit summary less personal info when changing their user page from Erin McKenney - Gold Award winner, one of BBC's 100 Women in 2016 to Activist. They did so two minutes before contesting the speedy deletion tag that was initially added to Erin McKenney after it was created, which makes it pretty clear that, even if we believe that McKenney is not controlling the account now, they were when they created the autobiography. This is about as red-handed as it gets. {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 17:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
You also neglect to mention the reply which E m 001 left you on their talk page just over an hour before you posted here: "I think there's been a mistake? I met the subject of that page briefly through a BBC connection, but I don't know her. I wouldn't describe it as a conflict of interest. ". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, um, I literally quoted that reply. {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 17:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Apologies; I misread. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Person is only on Wikipedia to promote Academies at Englewood

Blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pmmp1234. –  Joe ( talk) 21:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

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

This person has done nothing but promote Academies at Englewood at Academies at Englewood and Bergen County Academies plus delete references from Bergen County Academies as "minor". Their user page looks like a wall of warning. Very inappropriate use of Wikipedia. 171.66.187.186 ( talk) 22:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

They are doing the same thing again with a new account Aminsi22. Is that allowed?
I cannot open multiple account investigations. Can somebody do it? 171.66.22.15 ( talk) 02:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Added above, but you should notify them that you are discussing them here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amy Shark

Using WP to advertise an online magazine, Wall of Sound, owned, edited and written by the first user. The problem at Amy Shark was discussed at its talkpage with that user but they continued to add similar material. I have recently removed it from that article. The first user has contributed to numerous other articles and almost invariably adds links to their website. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 17:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this still an issue? It looks like their editing at the article stopped two weeks ago. — MarkH21 talk 18:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The first editor has a history of several edits over a short time (3-4 days) followed by pauses; sometimes for months. I don't see a particular problem at Amy Shark at the moment: I removed those edits after deciding they were promotionalism. However, should anything be done their other edits on wp articles where they cited the same website? The user has admitted to using wp to build up the profile of their website and by extension themselves as a writer. Should those edits be left in wp? shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 03:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Their COI doesn't necessitate reverts but it means that they should be treated with caution and reviewed. You can review their edits and revert them if their additions do not have due weight or are not cited to reliable sources (I don't know how reliable this particular magazine is). — MarkH21 talk 04:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm assuming you read Talk:Amy Shark where the first user explains the use of their website. I don't have the time to check and assess every single edit by that user but from my sampling of ten or so there were no edits made without citing Wall of Sound, and attributing to its chief editor/writer when presenting information about artists, releases or performances. The website does not have independent editorial supervision and this user appears to be pursuing a strategy of gaining greater notoriety by advertising in wp articles. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 06:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Ali-Han Ibragimov

The same user is the only significant editor on all of the above articles. Their username strongly suggests that they have a close connection with all of these subjects. Spiderone 18:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Spiderone: Included at the head of this page is a notice: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue...". Please can you link to such a dicussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Forgive me, I've never had a COI case like this before. Is there a standard template/structure that I should follow when approaching another user about COI or WP:AUTO issues? I am aware that I have no proof that he is actually Ali-Han himself any more than I am Spider One himself. Spiderone 21:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

TamilMirchi

For everyone's awareness, I have blocked TamilMirchi due to an OTRS ticket with convincing evidence that they are a prolific undisclosed paid editor. A separate tip led me to check their interactions with Editor 2050, and the editor interaction analyzer shows a truly astounding amount of overlap (though I have not dug deeply enough into this to say for sure that they're the same person). Reporting here for community awareness; they've created a lot of articles, and I can't say for sure what they have or have not been paid for. GeneralNotability ( talk) 15:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I was emailed by User:TamilMirchi, presumably as I helped with a draft earlier this year (see User talk:Fences and windows#Kartikeya Gummakonda and Ramya Pandian). They said to me they were recently deleting a lot of their older creations after they realised there were notability issues, which is inconsistent with paid editing. Further, they had nominated over 20 of Editor 2050's creations for deletion since the start of September [10] and in August TamilMirchi suggested User:Neutral Fan was Editor 2050 at SPI [11]. Later that month, User:Umakant Bhalerao asked Neutral Fan if they were a paid editor [12]. Neutral Fan has opposed some of TamilMirchi's deletions of his own creations, e.g. see the latest at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamakiki. An overlap in editing with Editor 2050 is potentially explicable by a focus on Tamil film. I've not seen the private evidence, GeneralNotability, but perhaps this should go to ANI to get a more thorough assessment? Fences& Windows 21:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Fences and windows, the evidence is fairly strong - a company wrote in to ask where a bunch of articles they'd paid for went, the articles I checked on that list were either written by or substantially contributed to by TamilMirchi, and the nature of the email does not suggest a joe job. My hypothesis regarding the article deletions is that something went wrong in the paid relationship and TamilMirchi retaliated by deleting the articles. This is purely speculation and I have no evidence to prove that. Regarding Editor 2050 - that's why I said I haven't dug deeply enough to know for sure if they're a sock. You have to admit, though, that's a HUGE overlap. I have never seen two editors have that much overlap in article space in my months working SPI. If you think this belongs at AN/I, I will not object to you moving this discussion there. GeneralNotability ( talk) 21:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
When TamilMirchi started the mass AfDs of their own articles a few months ago I smelled a rat. One of their nominations claimed that there were ‘no sources’ for an article and when I challenged this I got an evasive answer. After that I never voted in any AfD they nominated because I thought they were all dubious. It seemed to me that the least likely explanation was that they were making a good faith attempt to clear up their own poor article creation. The more likely explanations were: 1. Falling out with a paying client and revenge-nominating articles created for them 2. Seeking to establish good standing with the community of editors so they could later get those editors to vote delete in nominations of articles by other editors (i.e. deliberately sacrificing some of their own work to lay the ground for later attacking articles by other COI editors, so as to establish themselves as the king of COI in the market when prospective clients were deciding which editor to pay). I’ve no idea whether there’s any truth in either of these scenarios, but I’m not surprised to see them blocked now. Mccapra ( talk) 04:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Mccapra: Genuinely surprised people would go to that length to hide their COI and paid editing. Also how big is this paid editing racket nowadays and any resources/significant past cases on WP for this? Gotitbro ( talk) 18:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Who knows? Your guess is as good as mine. Mccapra ( talk) 19:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Samata (fashion entrepreneur)

The article has been edited by a number of single purpose accounts for a number of years and has a COI banner. User:PoetAudio has stated on their talk page that they are the subject ( diff) and has asked if promotional content and the banner can be removed ( diff). The conversation has been moved to the article talk page. Would anyone be willing to help by removing the promotional material from the article? I don't usually edit fashion articles so I don't know what is reasonable for the sector. TSventon ( talk) 14:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

With this sort of ref-bombed article, it is hard to tell if someone is actually notable enough to merit an article, especially in such a subjective field. At the very least, it is very promotional, and I have at least trimmed and toned down the lead. Edwardx ( talk) 14:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Harding University

This editor has been making repeated edits to the Harding University article that remove well-sourced statements regarding the history of the school as related to segregation and LGBTQ students. They have disclosed in edit summaries that they are an employee of the university, however they have continued to make these edits despite discussions on their talk page informing them of the issues surrounding their COI and requests to take action such as using the request edit template. I've now reverted their edits 3 times now, and am not 100% confident that continuing to revert would be an exception to WP:3RR. Any support would be greatly appreciated! TheMrP ( talk) 04:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Not full disclosure

shaykea disclose only only one paid entry, but in fact all his editing are paid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.231.109 ( talk) 17:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

this is a paid entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.218.134 ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Mongoose (web server)

This editor and other editors seem to have a COI for one side or another on an article. The jist of this is that there is a web server product and there is an infrequent apparent edit war going on between cesanta-related editors (the creator of the web server product) and occasional neutral contributors.

This "Sergey.lyubka" user seems to be the most recent, reverting edits from an account that has only been used to remove critical information of the web server: /info/en/?search=User_talk:Sergey.lyubka#July_2014. I started a discussion about this seeming edit war that transferred to my talk page but became inactive: /info/en/?search=User_talk:DannyDouble. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyDouble ( talk • contribs)

DannyDouble, two things. First, please do not post information here that falls afoul of WP:OUTING (including linking to real-life identities if they have not publicly made that link on-wiki). I have removed that information and had it suppressed. Second, you are required to notify someone when you post about them here; I will take care of that for you, but please remember it in the future. GeneralNotability ( talk) 01:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I've stubified the article, removed the COI tag because of the stubification, and have it on my watchlist in case the cruft comes back. I've also dropped a {{ uw-coi}} on Sergey.lyubka. GeneralNotability ( talk) 02:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah sorry didn't know that wasn't allowed, just found because he was listed as cto of cesanta and author of the product. Thanks for the changes :), should I remove this noticeboard section now? DannyDouble ( talk) 19:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Shabahat Ali Shah

The article went into article space on 7 November. Also on 7 November it was draftified as a spam-like article, with the comment "Rewrite needed". The author was also notified by an administrator of the conflict of interest policy. The article has been moved back into article space on 16 November. There has not been any COI disclosure. It is my opinion that the article has only been tweaked and not rewritten, but that is a content issue to be addressed elsewhere. It is also my opinion that the article is non-neutral and was written to praise the subject, but that is a content issue. What is relevant here is that the article contains an image of the subject with the notation: 'this Pic Was Taken by My Self in The Officia Of The Syed Shabahat Ali Shah' That appears to be a statement that the author was in the office of the subject. The author is probably an employee or publicist for the subject. This appears to be undisclosed conflict of interest. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Article Should not be deleted please remove the tag all sources where linked with the information and there is no close conection pleas if i am doing anymisstake let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrXhadow ( talk • contribs) 05:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Electra Meccanica

Single article edited by user. Tried talk page, no response. Don't want to out or harass, but it's fairly easy to check user's affiliation to said company. Ben Stone 03:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Benstown: You wrote on Danielmansour's talk page "...it is extremely important that you properly disclose your affiliation with Electra Meccanica, otherwise you will be banned from editing. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure for detailed info.". We do not "ban" people for such. That was on 3 November; Danielmansour last edited on 1 November. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Pigsonthewing: CoI is not my expertise, and I don't know the exact consequences. That wasn't meant as a warning, it was primarily to do with the logo on the article. Still, it's not too much to ask that PR people put the bare minimum effort to conform. -- Ben Stone 23:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Benstown, I think Pigsonthewing is mostly referring to the difference between bans and blocks; but we absolutely do block people for paid editing without disclosure. Best, Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

WIKI's edits smelled a bit promotional, and the suspicion of socking was borne out real quick; both are now CU-blocked. Checking the histories will show overlap, and of course the exact same user page. This is unproblematic, but I am posting here to ping a couple of editors who have had suspicions here, and who might know of more such articles made by similar accounts--on Indian films and technology, for instance. So, here we go: Yamaguchi先生, Praxidicae, Passengerpigeon, Cabayi, Jimfbleak, Timtrent, Liz. I see now there was an SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ASIA TOURIST/Archive, but the CU evidence right now leaves no doubt. Drmies ( talk) 14:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the BolsaOObsequios abuse pattern. MER-C 18:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Drmies, Thank you for the ping. Real life has interfered with my being online here much. I am here casually right now rather than solidly Fiddle Faddle 22:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Timtrent, thanks for coming by and all the best to you. Drmies ( talk) 23:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

CHUM (AM)

"TSNMacDonald" has edited only CHUM (AM) (also called "TSN") and OverDrive (radio show), a show on TSN. All edits are unsourced, and TSNMacDonald has started edit warring to add non-notable, unsourced names to the "notable staff" list (what this editor calls a "talent list"). Removed this criticism of the radio station, and removed a different negative comment about the station four times: [13] [14] [15] [16]. Left this message on my talk page saying: "I am not paid for my editing. Erroneous information and unnecessary edits to the page have been put in place. Cease and desist on what you're doing." Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 16:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Good point--thank you. The user may explain on their talk page whether they see any way forward here. I blocked not just because of the pretty blatant COI, but also for their edit warring, uncollegiality, inclusion of unverified information (including BLP information), and whitewashing of critical content. Drmies ( talk) 17:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Another spam solicitation

I received another spam email today asserting that I was "Now Eligible for Wikipedia Profile". I didn't click the link, but the root domain is http://us21.besteml.com/, although this appears to be a parking spot. The email was signed (obviously facetiously):

Edward Snowden
Wikipedia Consultant
9049 Hilpert Stream Lake
Deshawnbury, GA

There doesn't appear to be a Deshawnbury, GA, so the trail runs cold there. BD2412 T 21:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"Hilpert Stream Lake" is obviously not a real street address, either. Probably expecting the mark to mentally autocorrect? — A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 03:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Connected contributor: Br Ibrahim john

  • Br Ibrahim john ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • This user has disclosed his membership in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, and evidence indicates that he is a monk or member of the clergy in this church. The Indian Orthodox/Catholic Churches have been ground zero for a good deal of disruption, partisanship, and especially WP:COI with some seminary professors and perhaps even a few bishops getting involved in their own topic areas.
  • Question: if he is a professed religious or cleric, is he considered a "paid contributor"?
  • Appeal: More eyeballs, opinions, and admonishments are welcome according to the needs of this situation. It is rather lonely sometimes in this topic area, against the sockpuppets. Elizium23 ( talk) 16:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
    • CU speaking here; can't judge any other issues now. They are also on a range that Callanecc blocked in May for disruptive editing, but I don't see much evidence of socking here. I know you weren't asking about that anyway, Elizium, but it was something that I thought might make sense in this area. Drmies ( talk) 17:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I am not a Religious brother or cleric in any religious institution. Br Ibrahim john ( talk) 1:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hayford Peirce

Hayford Peirce ie. User:Hayford Peirce ( newly deceased) also wrote the articles Napoleon Disentimed, Dinosaur Park (novel) ie. books by Hayford Peirce. There could more to it as they were an active 16 year editor with proficiency in multiple languages. -- Green C 16:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Cardano (cryptocurrency platform)

Talk:Cardano_(cryptocurrency_platform)#Removing_'exaggeration' - I would like another admin to see if I am correct in my statements here, that IOHKwriter needs to make a COI declaration and pick a non-corporate name pronto. (IOHK is the company that runs the Cardano blockchain and its ADA cryptocurrency.) Their editing is undeclared paid COI editing. The editor has received notice that WP:GS/Crypto applies, and so should be assumed aware of the penalties available under it - David Gerard ( talk) 14:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

'Their editing is undeclared paid COI editing'. My role is declared in the following places: On my user page; in what was probably my first Cardano-related post in January 2019; to the Numismatics group; on the WikiProject Cryptocurrency page; in conversations with Џ , David Gerard, the MagikCow, and various others. IOHKwriter ( talk) 17:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The IOHKwriter name was chosen as a way of making it clear where I was coming from. On several occasions I have declared the concerns of potential bias on the English language version of Wikipedia, and the deletion of the Cardano page after discussion among a very small group, that led to this work. IOHKwriter ( talk) 17:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
You are not correct. From WP:ISU: "...usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", "WidgetFan87", etc.". Since January 2019, the user's user-page has said "I am a writer working for IOHK, a blockchain development company", which meets our requirements for declaring both COI and paid editing. Their only edit predating that declaration seems unrelated to IOHK. I'm not an admin, but you don't need to be one to see these things. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi @ Pigsonthewing: I posted this on the Cardano page and saw David had dragged this to the admin page so will comment here as well. I say the following as a casual observer of the Cardano page (as recent admin changes are prohibitive to any edits). In all fairness, surely David could also be perceived as having a conflict of interest. I couldn't help but notice David* has written a book against cryptocurrencies/blochains? Surely this is a conflict of interest when editing cryptocurrency pages? As long as IOHK is factual with good referencing, honest and doesn't push false information it doesn't seem to be an issue... Blockchainus Maximus ( talk) 16:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
If you think you can make an edits-based case based on WP:COI, then go for it - David Gerard ( talk) 18:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
(repost of my comment on the Cardano page) No, not at all - I think your edits are reasonable and useful so I sincerely thank you for that. Was merely pointing out that you seem to be in a similar situation to IOHK from a purely objective perspective that is all. IOHK should be judged upon their edits and merit - so far I can only see a well balanced attempt to remain objective and impartial having read some of IOHKs suggestions as sources are always provided. Blockchainus Maximus ( talk) 16:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Peralta Community College District

Jmlatimer has admitted to being employed by the subject, specifically in communication multiple times. He or she has been asked to not edit the article but continues to do so by adding material that appears to promote the subject. ElKevbo ( talk) 23:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Admitted"? Or do you mean "openly declared, in accordance with our policies"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
This user has disclosed their COI, but continues to edit the article extensively, well beyond what is considered appropriate under WP:COI editing. The editor should cease direct edits to the page and use COI edit requests through the article talk page. Other interested editors should also review the user’s recent edits to the article, which stray into the territory of WP:Puffery, WP:DUE, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:NPOV concerns. Go4thProsper ( talk) 22:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"Edits not authorised by company owner"

Edit summaries and lack of response to October COI notice slightly concerning. I would've reverted some of the edits but some of the content before also seems problematic, though some of the removals are as well (removing critical language). A lot of it is also unsourced, before and after. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 09:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits and tagged the artcile as needing more sources. I've also reverted the blanking of talk page discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
And I have blocked WCPWowner from editing the article (not from the talkpage, but that may follow if they continue to disrupt it). I have told the user they may be unblocked once they comply with the terms of use. Bishonen | tålk 11:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC).

Moriah Films

All pages created and edited by the user are related to the Simon Wiesenthal Center and/or its staff. These pages may also be covered by the WP:ARBPIA thing. ImTheIP ( talk) 20:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

User:ImTheIP - Moriah Films was properly submitted through AFC and was reviewed by multiple neutral reviewers. The revewers concurred both that the subject satisfies notability as a producer of documentary films and that the article was neutrally worded. No comment on any other articles or editors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Robert McClenon: Dbernwies has since extended the article significantly. A lot of the material is quite poorly sourced. This seem to me to be a problem but I don't know. ImTheIP ( talk) 19:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreeing with User:ImTheIP: User:Dbernwies has made a poorly formatted conflict of interest disclosure on their talk page, which should be treated as a conflict of interest disclosure. An editor who has a conflict of interest should not be editing an article about which they have a conflict of interest. Moriah Films was properly accepted by neutral reviewers, and is now being edited by an editor who is not neutral. I suggest that we move this discussion to WP:ANI and request a partial block. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll take a look at it. scope_creep Talk 12:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
It looks fine. The references for the most part are decent. He has declared correctly on his user page. The draft has no chance being passed. I can't see what the problem is? scope_creep Talk 13:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Tedder

Looks like Tedder is a paid editor and has a vendetta against a company Tedder is attacking due to a non-payment to Tedder for paid edits to their page that is up for deletion. It was written about on their website warning others about Tedder's paid service: https://profiledefenders.com/blog/that-time-wikipedia-editor-tedder-offered-us-paid-wikipedia-editing-services/. Eric Carr ( talk) 01:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

You They could have at least _pretended_ to have some proof. That's some piss-poor blogging. Can I suggest centralizing this discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jilljoejack? tedder ( talk) 02:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
You could at least pretend not to be a paid editor geesh If you're going to send out emails offering to make wikipedia pages and edits for people you shouldn't be here. Go fish elsewhere Trumper Eric Carr ( talk) 04:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Go ahead, publish your proof. There isn't any now. tedder ( talk) 07:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ruth Williams Cupp

User:Amakuru suggested I post here (after User:Yoninah suggested I talk with Amakuru) on Conflict of Interest issue. I created the article Ruth Williams Cupp and I am trying to get the article up to DYK status to be posted on December 16. However, I have a conflict of interest on the article since I knew the subject and her family. I wanted to clean up any COI issues before the DYK date (if that is possible). If you have any advice or suggestions regarding how to resolve this issue, I would love to hear them. Remember ( talk) 21:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

MWellmann

Editor User:MWellmann has created multiple articles on swimmers associated with the New York Breakers team in the International Swimming League. These articles have been tagged for A7 by User:John B123 and other reviewers. MWellmann has then replied: 'I don't quite understand why it should be deleted. The International Swimming League requests Wikipedia pages for every athlete on the league. The athletes are named on their Wikipedia Page and I just created one for Matthew Richards with a reference to the ISL Global page. Best, Maike' (and mutatis mutandis . This is not how Wikipedia works, and appears to be a statement of a conflict of interest, but not in the proper form.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon: Included at the head of this page is the notice: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue". Please can you link to the relevant discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

National Pension System

It appears that the editor linked above is inserting links to a company they may be associated with. They were warned and edits were reverted in the past but the action persists with their latest edits Vikram Vincent 11:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Vincentvikram, it looks kind of suspicious to me too (though Google indicates that the website they're replacing rebranded or something). I've asked them very directly on their talk page, please let me know if they keep editing without answering. GeneralNotability ( talk) 23:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Neste

A paid editor have made massive edits in last weeks. While some of edits are useful, some others are clearly promotional and also some critical information was removed. Therefore those edits needs checking for neutrality. Beagel ( talk) 19:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The red-texted header at the top of this page (and when you're editing it) says that you must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion here. I have done so for you. - DoubleCross ( ‡) 19:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I've edited the Neste article in Finnish which was then translated to English and I've added the text here and I'm happy to get improvement ideas or feedback about the page. Should we discuss about the edits here or on the article's talk page? I've removed stuff from Neste's own releases, and replaced links to WWF's and Greenpeace's releases and added a media source instead of them. It was a bit hard to edit the page as Beagel kept removing stuff before I had had time to make the whole picture clear. So the article is not what I had in mind in the first place. See the Finnish article [17] with help of translator and see if it is ok or not. I've used mainly notable media sources on the article. Jjanhone ( talk) 20:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Jjanhone, if you're being paid to edit you generally should make specific edit requests on the article's talk page using the {{ request edit}} template (and disclosing that you are paid to edit the article). GeneralNotability ( talk) 23:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
See my talk page for a long discussion we had about my paid editing on October 2020 on admins' noticeboard. I think I got permission to continue editing then. I added 33,854 characters to Neste's article so if I proceeded with request edits it would be very complicated IMHO. If you know a good process who to do it please tell me! 16,161 characters (about 48 %) are still live. The content is translated from the Finnish Wikipedia article and as we've been using notable media sources it should be ok so I see no reason why they would not be ok for English Wikipedia as well. Jjanhone ( talk) 05:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jjanhone. It might be a good idea for you to replace the AN comments you copied and pasted onto your talk page with a link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive325#Blocking a paid Wikipedia editor or maybe clarify things a bit by using a template such as {{ talk quote}}. The way you added that content makes it seem (at least at first glance) that each one of those editors posted their comment on your user talk page and not as part of a discussion on some other page. This is a bit misleading and might even be a problem per WP:CWW.
As for WP:PAID, each Wikipedia project is different with their own respective communities. Perhaps the Finnish Wikipedia community is a bit more tolerant of PAID editing, but many on English Wikipedia are quite suspicious of it. That's probably why PAID editors on English Wikipedia are encouraged to use article talk pages to make WP:ERs except for really uncontroversial edits. In principle, a PAID editor should be OK as long as they adhere to relevant policies and guidelines even when they directly edit articles themselves, but big changes or additions tend to be seen (perhaps unfairly) by many as not a good thing. Have you tried following WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement? Perhaps that would be one way to gain the trust of others. If you can establish to others that your edits are not a problem because you're PAID, then perhaps they might be willing to cut you some more slack after a little time has passed. Is there some reason why you need to be the one who makes the changes you want to make? Are you working under some kind of time constraints that make edit requests not very practical? While it's true that WP:SILENCE applies to us all, even someone without a COI or PAID issue would be expected to use the talk page if someone at some point felt discussion was warranted and challenged the edits that were made. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly and thank you for your answer, tips and ideas! Seems that I keep learning new things after over 10 years of active editing and over 15,000 edits. :) I've now corrected the link to the Admins' board archive and added talk quotes. I'm a soloentrepreneur so my time is very limited, and that's why I'm selling editing services based on time. If I started charging about the discussions with other Wikipedia editors that would be out of the understanding of my customers and also difficult to measure. If I needed to wait for answers for months it would just not work – as Wikipedians are volunteers I cannot push them answer right away. I try to start proper discussions on Neste's Talk page soon about the content that should be changed so I'm thankful if some of the people following this board would come and evaluate the situation. Jjanhone ( talk) 08:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Evelyn Knight (singer)

This account (formerly User:KnightFamily) is the self-declared offspring of 40s-era songstress Evelyn Knight. They are protective and a bit belligerent, with quite a lot of ownership in the mom's article. Orange Mike | Talk 03:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Orangemike: Included at the head of this page is the notice: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue". Please can you link to the relevant discussion? Also, I note that 40serasongstress is currently blocked; by you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The name-block has been removed. The relevant discussions can be found at User talk:40serasongstress, at Talk:Evelyn Knight, and at Talk:Evelyn Knight (singer). -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Orangemike: Not so. There are no discussions on either of the latter two pages. On the other hand, there are seventeen discussion sections on the former page. Please be explicit, and link to the specific discussions which meet the above criterion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Try User talk:40serasongstress#Your edits on Evelyn Knight should have been made at Evelyn Knight(singer) and User talk:40serasongstress#File:Evelyn knight & friends.jpg listed for discussion. -- Orange Mike | Talk 22:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Orangemike: Neither of those sections in any way constitutes an "attempt... to resolve the issue". So I ask again: please link to where such disucussion took place. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, I'm not sure what the point of this side-discussion is. Orangemike has opened this thread in good faith and notified the user in question. Many discussions will benefit from outside input. I don't see a need for anyone to guard the gates of COIN, so to speak: If those who are interested in discussing the substance of cases brought here feel that they are premature, they will say so. Blablubbs| talk 23:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
In other circumstances, it would be amusing to be told, on the page where Wikipedia's most vociferous gatekeepers gather, that gatekeeping is not necessary. I think my questions - far from being a "side-discussion" - are both clear and relevant, and that the page's requirements which I quoted are equally if not more clear. Also clear is the fact that I am interested in discussing the substance of cases brought here and that I feel that it has become apparent that this one is premature. Your apparent assumption that COIN is a venue which a novice user might find a congenial place to discuss their edits is a massive one, and at best naive; I imagine most people brought here without knowledge of Wikipedia would run a mile, once they see the hostile tone often displayed. But in this case this is academic, as one again the relative of an article subject is blocked, without there being any apparent attempt to welcome and discuss matters with them in a collegial and good-faith-assuming manner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing,
  1. Nobody else here seems to think this is premature
  2. It's not a block, its a page block. They cannot edit those specific pages. They are free to continue the discussion if they're genuinely interested.
  3. As per Blablubbs, you don't need to guard the gates of COIN. Other users are interested in continuing the conversation without you if that's how you wish to handle things.
  4. This was an editor that admitted to SEO. There's a point at which their edits are no longer in good faith, and violate our trust. That is, in fact, what this notice board is for. — moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 11:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
And there's the problem in a nutshell; you bandy about a trigger phrase like "SEO", as though a family member trying to ensure the legacy of their mother is acknowledged is the same as a black-hat agency trying to manipulate Google on behalf of a nefarious client. And if you look at the suposed SEO edit, its not SEO related at all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, I am aware of the contents of the edit. I'm not stupid. I understand their intent, it's never-the-less content for this noticeboard, worthy of discussion, and also good use of a pblock. The editor should be using edit requests and talking with us as is standard. This has been an ongoing issue for several years, admitted COI, and stuff like this is rather problematic.
I don't see any issue with this thread, and at some point we need to enforce standard channels.
And again, admitting to SEO is not exactly a great look. The point is the edit description, not the contents of it. — moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 13:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Orangemike, after looking at their history (thirteen years of this!), I've pblocked them from Evelyn Knight (singer) (and Evelyn Knight for good measure) due to their ongoing COI editing, ownership, and the fact that their recent edit summaries outright admit that they're trying to SEO. GeneralNotability ( talk) 00:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

G Fuel

On the article G Fuel a new account with 'GFUEL' in its username removed the word 'caffeinated' from two sentences. There seems to be some controversy(?) over said caffeination. This seems suspicious, though there's not enough evidence to say that they're definitively paid. What do you guys think? MuBoSko ( talk) 03:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

MuBoSko I'm just curious that your account was created 8 hours ago and you are already reporting COI. That's fast learning :-) Vikram Vincent 04:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Vincentvikram I actually have another account, but even that one is relatively new- I just use the name of my other account elsewhere, so I wanted to make a 'safe' account for reverting vandalism in case I get anyone mad at me and they want to follow me off the site. That's pretty off-topic, though. I hope I replied to this correctly, it's my first time using a talk page. MuBoSko ( talk) 04:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
MuBoSko Oh cool! I assume you are already familiar with Template:User_alternative_account_name but sharing it if you are not. Best! Vikram Vincent 04:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Vincentvikram Thanks, I haven't seen that specific userbox before (or maybe I have and I just don't remember it). That said, I think putting the name of the main account on this one's userpage would sort of defeat the purpose of having this one, but I found a similar box that I'll be using now. Thank you, and if you want to reply to this it's better to do it on my talk page. Additional edit: if necessary I can contact a checkuser and verify the other account? MuBoSko ( talk) 05:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
So I've put a uw-coi msg on the user talk page. I suppose if they continue editing the article then the matter could be escalated. PS: MuBoSko When you create a report on any of the discussion forums, it is important to notify the said editor(which I have done now). Vikram Vincent 10:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Vincentvikram Thank you, I’ll do that in the future. Is there a template I could/should copy and paste, or will anything letting them know work? MuBoSko ( talk) 15:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
MuBoSko Have a look at Category:Wikipedia_behavioral_guidelines. Each category will link to specific templates. Best! Vikram Vincent 16:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Jeffrey Zients

Discussion of interest to page watchers of this noticeboard here. Sam-2727 ( talk) 23:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

How Do You Know?

User admitted to me on my talk page ( see) that they were a conflict of interest on several hip-hop/R&B music-related articles, after they were caught deliberately falsifying information regarding commercial success. Carbrera ( talk) 01:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

User has started undoing some of their errors ( see). Carbrera ( talk) 01:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC).

Voluntary Agency Network of Korea

I was googling some VANK stuff after talking (@kowiki) about Leemsj2075's VANK-like editing practices.

I found a news article, saying:

Original: 이 책자는 반크 청년 리더인 [REDACTED] 씨가 만들었다. 그는 전 세계 위키피디아에 울릉도와 동해 관련 정보를 올리고 있다. 반크는 이 책자를 전국의 1만 초·중·고교 교사와 학생에게 배포할 계획이다.
Translation: This booklet (about how to use Wikipedia as "Public Relations Platform", see below) was created by [REDACTED - realname], member of VANK intern. He is uploading information about Ulleungdo and Dokdo on various language edition of Wikipedia. VANK is planning to distribute the booklet to various K-12 schools in Korea.

This "Booklet" was discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Archive 16#FYI: VANK trying to manipulate Wikipedia. I found a screenshot at the news, caption saying "Wikipedia article he/she created". From there, I was able to identify Hamster0639 as the editor in question.

He has edits like Special:Diff/992063090, Special:Diff/992063476, and Special:Diff/992063732 which was reverted as WP:PROMO which shows sign of COI editing. Any opinions? — regards, Revi 13:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit: I originally thought the "반크 청년 리더" (the original word, underlined now) was some VANK slang for volunteers, but after further research I think it's their slang for... "intern". their official blog "작지만 의미있게 세계의 변화를 이끌어내고자 노력하는 반크청년리더!-글로벌 한국알리기를 실천하는 반크인턴 3인방 소개!" title starts with "반크 청년 리더" then use "인턴" (intern). So he or she was VANK intern in 2019, but I assume they are not now. — regards, Revi 15:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
That's troubling. Hamster0639, do you have a response? GeneralNotability ( talk) 14:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Extensive COI edits by Cf2022

Cf2022 has a paid editing disclosure on his or her User page stating that he or she works for the Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries at the Boston University School of Law. However, I am very concerned that he or she has made edits to many articles that (a) add only references to material published by his or her employer without adding any new text or (b) awkwardly wedge in brief quotes from material published by his or her employer. In other words, these edits appear to be primarily or exclusively promotional. I appreciate this editor making the required paid editing disclosure but the subsequent editing seems to be a gross violation of our norms and expectations for COI editors. I'd appreciate some additional input on this and, if necessary, help cleaning up these edits. Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 07:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it's pretty unambiguous paid promotional editing counter to the goals of Wikipedia. "The goal of our ongoing WIkipedia Editing project is to help create increased exposure to faculty work and scholarship." In other words, pure marketing. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I naturally expect a paid editor to have some kind of slant towards their employer's interests, which (at least per current consensus standards) may not be problematic in and of itself. However, spamming the links of the employer in articles and adding nothing else obviously has no encyclopaedic purpose at all. Their quote addition to Special:Diff/992405689, whilst its inclusion can be debated, obviously the context it was added in it doesn't make sense and was just some quick addition of employer's work. Similar for Special:Diff/992427948, and most of the recent editing history really. Editing timestamps speak for themselves, too. So, all-in-all, this just looks like spam to me. If the editing can be rectified into more thoughtful additions of employer's citations (along with some useful prose, which is in context, and a helpful addition to the article), that may be more acceptable. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 16:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
That having been said, at a broader look of contribs I think this kind of subtle lead spamming on a mass-scale is a time-sink for volunteers to clean up, and does a disservice to readers by degrading the quality/relevance of the article. If it's just a ref not so problematic, but it's also inserting useless content to justify the ref. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 16:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm really sorry. I only started using Wikipedia to edit sources this year, and I wasn't aware that I was violating any standards by adding primary references that expanded on points if I had declared a COI. I thought if it was a declared COI it would be okay. I am not attempting to participate in any spamming. I truly wasn't aware it was an issue. From now on I'll either add more thoughtful additions (as was nicely suggested by ProcrastinatingReader) or just suggest the addition of a reference on a talk page (as was suggested by ElKevbo). Do you have any additional suggestions to make sure I don't violate any more rules? cf2022 ( talk)

Having a wikipedia article is now a criterion for Twitter verification

New Twitter verification policy here it looks like Wikipedia is now a factor in establishing notability for twitter profiles, especially those of "Companies, brands, and organizations", as well as "Activists, organizers, and other influential individuals" I would expect more undisclosed promotional editing as a result of this. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

This was brought up earlier today at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Oh,_boy (and I pointed to that discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) to try to keep discussions in one place but still let interested watchers know). Schazjmd  (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
There was nobody discussing this on the RSN at the time of posting or when you made your comment, and the RSN is not the relevant place to bring up the issue. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I hope they're intending on making a donation to the WMF at least, since they've decided to reap the rewards of the resources of volunteer efforts at AfD/AfC/NPP (which are only going to increase). ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 17:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The New York Young Republican Club

This page bears all the hallmarks of COI editing. The creator of the page has a similar name as the leader of the organization Shortly after I cleaned up the article and told the creator of the page, Gwax23 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to disclose any COI before editing, a number of IP numbers popped up to restore poorly sourced trivia to the article. I strongly suspect both COI and sockpuppetry. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Joe Lonsdale

This is a more article-wide issue, so I'm not sure if this is the right place. Various IPs and SPAs (possibly COIs or UPEs) are continuously editing the article Joe Lonsdale. It seems like new accounts will edit for a week to a month or more and then stop, around the time I usually leave a message about possible COI or start reverting/cleaning up their edits. They continuously restore a CV-like section to the page, [18] [19] [20] and I've left messages on their talk pages and on the article's talk page. I only recently (today) left a COI message for the most recent editor (Orchid013), but they have also been removing the COI tag on the article.

I haven't been able to engage them in any discussion (which is starting to feel hard to do, since I assume the accounts will keep changing). IP edits also seem to be one-and-done [21] (so I'm not sure if anything can be done about that), and sometimes just sound like general COI/UPE editing. [22] [23] [24] [25] - Whisperjanes ( talk) 15:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Mid-Am Racing Series

Grablife5 claims to the the owner of the subject-matter, and wants to control it; is now demanding that it be deleted if he can't control it. Orange Mike | Talk 15:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

N.B. We're having a discussion at Grablife5's talk page, initiated after this thread at the help desk [26]. With luck we can sort this out civilly. Thanks, Pahunkat ( talk) 15:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible problems at Jake Sullivan

The first IP listed removed properly sourced information on the subject's connection to Uber. Numerous other edits have been made from naked IPs from Minnesota, apparently from the subject's hometown and home state, and the University of Minnesota, where the subject's father was a professor. AleatoryPonderings seems oddly defensive even though I think she added this content herself. I can't tell exactly what is going on but given the timing of Jake Sullivan's pending political appointment, the nature of the content in dispute, and the geographic evidence, I would say this merits a look from people more experienced than me. 125.227.90.115 ( talk) 17:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Give me a break. This IP accused me of being affiliated with the Biden campaign because I … edited articles related to the Biden campaign. Their accusations are not credible. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 17:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
You are not only mischaracterizing my arguments but also engaging in ad hominem attacks. 125.227.90.115 ( talk) 17:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
This also adds some context. 125.227.90.115 ( talk) 17:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
As does this. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 18:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Great. There is still a lot of quacking here not necessarily related to you. Take a look at Urban Alliance Foundation, which was started by Zientz. Almost everywhere I see a recent political nominee, I see major shenanigans. This isn't all about you. That is one of the reasons I have been using language quite carefully. 125.227.90.115 ( talk) 18:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

And of course this [27] just happened. This entirely consistent with COI editing. 125.227.90.115 ( talk) 22:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
And the place the IP address is associated with is consistent with the subject's former employer. 125.227.90.115 ( talk) 22:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan is an article that seems to have had various issue with its content going back years. A few weeks ago, a new editor Sa57arc showed up and has been working the article pretty much non-stop ever since. Lots of the edits seem OK and might be considered improvements, but there's also lots of content being added to the article that's unsourced/questionably sourced or otherwise has BLP problems. The editor has been engaging in discussion on the article's talk page, but some of the content being added is giving the impression of at least a WP:APPARENTCOI and the editor hasn't responded to any queries about this. I've also asked about this at WP:BLPN and WP:RSN as well as on talk pages of various WikiProjects, but I think it would be good for even more people to look at it as well. The subject of the article was blocked back in 2008 for NLT reasons and there have been lots of IP editors of it over the years. Looking at some of the edits made to the article over the years (like this one from 2013), there might have been some family members or friends editing the article. I'm not sure whether this latest burst of editing to the article ( 394 and counting since November 15) is related to anything like that, but perhaps some others could take a look and assess things. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Marchjuly: Included at the head of this page is the notice: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue". You say "the editor hasn't responded to any queries about this"; please can you link to, and quote specifically, the relevant queries? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
​The first time I queried Sa57arc was in this post and the response was this. The next time I asked was here and the response was this. The third time I asked about this was in this post and the response was this. Perhaps it would've been better if I had been more direct with my inquiries about this the first two times, but I tried to broach the subject without it seeming as if I was attacking the other editor. Anyway, another editor ( Wallyfromdilbert) asked basically the same thing here and got this response, which is fine. However, when Wallyfromdilbert asked for further clarification here, he got this response. That led to this which has yet to be responded to. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
In your OP you say "the editor hasn't responded to any queries about this", and yet in your latest you list three responses. I also note that the first mention of CoI on Sa57arc's talk page was the notification of this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Sa57arc posted "responses" to my queries in the sense that they posted something, but their responses didn't really answer the question of whether they had any connection to Sloan. As I posted above, perhaps the fault is mine in that I should've been more direct and simply asked whether they are Sam Sloan or whether they have any connection to him in a separate post instead of mixing it in with other comments. Anyway, if you and others feel there's no cause for concern, then that's OK by me. — Marchjuly ( talk) 11:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I am also concerned by the editor's repeated refusal to state whether they have a personal or professional relationship with the Sam Sloan. I have asked directly multiple times, including now for a second time on their talk page, and have received no response other than a single "I am not Sam Sloan". Give that this person is aware of obscure, unsourced details of Sloan's life and has said that they intend to email Sloan personally, I don't think the concern is unfounded, especially given how much the editor keeps trying to puff up the article with OR or trivial nonsense. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 20:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
My concern is that Sam Sloan has had a alleged history of others putting him in a negative light. [28] [29] This revisit of past drama very well may be an extension of old grudges. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 08:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I edited the Sloan article a few years back, but it was still on my watchlist when this post was made to the article's talk page. I responded in good faith and wasn't aware of any off-Wikipedia issues that Sloan might've had with others regarding content about him on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Anyway, my only main concern is whether the article content is in accordance with BLP; the APPARENTCOI concerns I raised above only have to do with the detail of some of the content being added, especially since it's not being supported by reliable sources. If these concerns aren't shared by others, then I'm not going to belabor the point. — Marchjuly ( talk) 11:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I do share the concerns that Marchjuly has given the seemingly non-public knowledge that the editor has about the article subject, their statement about emailing Sloan, and their repeated attempts to puff up the article about him. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 21:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I believe the only solution now is to give this person formal warnings for BLP violations of original research each time they occur and ask for administrator intervention when it goes past Level 5. I believe it is at Level 3 right now. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 22:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikimench100

I came across this editor when I saw the AfD discussion for the article Alice (2020 film), which has major issues with notability. I was going to just warn the editor and bring it up here, but it looks like this editor has been active since 2011 and to date their edits seem to be focused on editing articles related to Montes-Bradley.

Some of the COI edits are more subtle. There are edits where Wikimench100 edits articles about the persons or events Montes-Bradley covers in his films. This can be seen as a possible conflict of interest in this situation, since some of the edits were to link to the topic articles, which in turn link to the documentary films. The editor was warned in the past about notability guidelines for films, yet they were still making articles with sourcing issues - most recently the Alice film - which implies that their main goal is to promote.

They do make mention on their talk page about the Heritage Film Project that gives off the impression that they work for them in some context, but they are never fully transparent about it and don't mention this on any of the talk pages for the articles they've edited or created.

I've blocked the editor, but I think this still needs to be discussed and cleaned up, since there seems to be a lot of this sort of editing going on through the years. I'm still digging and will add more as I find it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_165&oldid=996028315"