→Perkins Eastman: Reply |
(No difference)
|
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days
archived by
Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{
subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
| ||||
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| ||||
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Search the COI noticeboard archives |
Help answer requested edits |
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{
edit COI}} template:
|
It seems pretty clear to me from this editor's behavior and the infomation on their user page that they are somehow affiliated with the subject or the subject's organization. They seem to be a single purpose editor who edited a few other articles for a brief period after creating their account, but now only edit the one article. Skyerise ( talk) 00:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Also note that the above editor is adding self-published (CreateSpace) books to the subject's publications. Skyerise ( talk) 00:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Having identified themselves as an editor with a COI as a member of the party, this user has continually engaged in WP:IDHT behaviour on the talk page; firstly repeatedly making attempts to change "far-right" (the sourced description) to "right-wing" ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and even after being told on the talk page 6 before dropping in a flippant comment on the talk page), creating a draft for their youth wing (complete with a copyvio upload) before adding a great deal of cruft and when reverted, restoring it with ZERO edit summary once, twice, thrice, partially four times and now five times. In the interim, the user has accused me of attempting to make the party "look good". I usually wouldn't care so much about people editing the articles of parties they're involved with so long as it's actually done unbiasedly and without any WP:IDHT concerns but this is absolutely not the case, and enough time has been wasted on this user. Between COI concerns, repeatedly no-summary reverts and failure to WP:GETTHEPOINT, enough is enough. — ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 17:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Note that the party this editor is a member of is currently involved in local and European elections in Ireland, so this is particularly timely. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't mean to repeatedly bang the drum, but could someone please look into this? We've a self-professed member of a party making repeated disruptive edits and reverting without summary, over an elongated period, including during our ongoing election campaigns here in Ireland. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 13:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Juanma281984 was previously blocked for UPE, which they admitted to (last diff [1], interested parties can read the entire discussion for context). They successfully appealed the block and have returned to editing, having now promised for at least the second time to declare all paid editing.
Thinkfree Office, created after the unblock, is not neutral. As I mentioned on the talk page, the article has no criticism or negative coverage. This is depsite one of the sources cited containing a healthy dose of criticism, which seems to me like deliberate omission.
This diff [2] removes sourced content (the quote at "tattooed" and the sentence from "Brown's last day at CNN") and adds unsourced content (e.g. "Reuters Institute"). That one diff is too expansive for me to get an overview of, but seems to be biased toward Brown. Also, this user's creation of Redkey USB Ltd includes a token "Controversy" section (albeit unsourced), but still largely seems like UPE for that company.
I don't see a COI/ UPE declaration for any of these three cases. A user unblocked after an indef for UPE is on thin ice – either they need to give a very good explanation and clean up after themselves, or I would support an admin getting involved. Toadspike [Talk] 20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
This longtime user has recently appeared at AfD procedures where their battleground behaviors ( [3], [4], [5], [6]) have drawn the attention of several editors ( [7], [8]). The AfD on EcoCute was closed as merge to Air source heat pump; today it points at EcoCute (Japan) ( [9], [10] by Namazu-tron), a glance at the page histories will show tendentious and "I don't hear you" behaviors from this editor during the deletion discussions. The pages texts themselves are aggressively complimentary and the photograph of the product on the page is linked to the user above (from 2008). BusterD ( talk) 15:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Axel Downard-Wilke is Schwede66 (userpage disclosure), a prominent New Zealander Wikipedian, administrator and member of Wikimedia Aotorea New Zealand's executive committee. Marshelec also sits on this committee (userpage disclosure). I couldn't find explicit onwiki disclosure of which member he is, so to be on the safe side I will not make a claim either way for now. Marshelec has a conflict of interest regarding Downard-Wilke/Schwede66 because of this relationship.
Marshelec made major contributions to Downard-Wilke's article without explicitly disclosing this conflict of interest. This included nominating the article for a prominent spot on the Main Page as DYK's image hook. My view is this is bright-line misconduct.
Wainuiomartian, the other major contributor, has had some interactions with Schwede66 [11] [12] and it would probably be best for them to clarify their relationship.
To be clear, Downard-Wilke/Schwede66 himself has not had anything to do with the article and does not seem to have done anything wrong here. I have only notified him for completeness' sake. – Tera tix ₵ 08:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I accept that I have a Conflict of Interest with regards to Axel Downard-Wilke, and that I should not have edited the article or nominated it for DKY. I regret this lapse of judgement, and I accept the criticism that I "should have known better". I have now belately added a COI declaration to my user page, and a connected contributor template to the talk page of the article. I regret and apologise for the disruption and extra work that this has caused for multiple editors. Marshelec ( talk) 20:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification on my talk page, Teratix.
Allow me to state that Wainuiomartian does not have a COI. My administrative work happens at WP:ERRORS, WP:DYK, and WP:ITN. Beyond that, I almost exclusively edit New Zealand content, where I create content, curate new content, help out other editors, and keep an eye on a watchlist that is just shy of 10,000 items. With some 235,000 edits, it’s virtually impossible that I won’t have interacted with any New Zealand editor who is active in one of my topic areas of interest. This is one of those normal interactions that is part of my Wiki work and it is a very far off from getting Wainuiomartian and myself into a situation that resembles a COI.
The other week, Wainuiomartian started making additions to many of the YYYY New Zealand census articles, which are all on my watchlist. I made some stylistic changes to her edits and when a question arose, they came to my talk page and asked some questions, presumably because they had seen that I had also edited the census articles. That was on 11 May 2024, long after she last edited my bio. Hence no COI here either; merely from a timing perspective. You may note that as part of my reply, I issued a thank you for “very good work on a certain biography”. Wainuiomartian and I have never met or spoken with one another apart from these two interactions.
One article that is not on my watchlist is my bio. My thinking here is that I should not watch something when I cannot and should not take any actions; if there are issues, I trust that the Wiki community will sort it out. Hence, it took quite a while before I noticed that Marshelec is editing my bio when clearly he shouldn’t. I stated to him that this concerned me and this was a month after the article had been nominated at DYK. I shall state that he hasn’t edited the article since.
The side issue of notability was raised. There are a couple of sources that would count towards establishing notability that are missing from the bio:
If anyone is keen to work those in, let me know and I’ll type up the relevant book passages. And there's heaps more; I have another good 50 sources that can be cited. Also, I’d appreciate if someone could cast their eye over the content that Marshelec has added to check that’s it complies with NPOV. If that includes any offline sources or stuff that comes from ProQuest, I can make that available. I hope this helps. Schwede 66 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I was asked to write the article and agreed because the subject seemed notable with regards to his invention for cyclists at wide intersections and for instigating the consistent use of macrons on Wikipedia pages. I do not believe I have a conflict of interest. I have never met Axel and was not even sure of his username when I created the article. I have since contacted him directly once with a question of style about New Zealand censuses which I am working my way through. Wainuiomartian ( talk) 22:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
isn't it the right thing to do to suggest to someone else without a conflict of interest to write it?In this case, the writer should be transparent and disclose they have not written the article fully of their own volition but have been prompted by someone with a conflict of interest. – Tera tix ₵ 16:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Please note that the New Zealand Wiki community has its monthly online meeting tomorrow. Anyone can join in and we usually have a few Australians turn up. I'll be talking about COI editing so that we as a community learn something from it, achieving broader understanding of how to manage this. Anyone watching this page is most welcome to join in: Wikipedia:Meetup/Aotearoa New Zealand Online/49#Conflict of interest editing. I'll ask the organiser to be on the programme in second slot so that there's an approximate time available for those who are only interested in this topic; tune in from 12:15 h NZT, which is UTC+12:00. Time zone conversion link for your convenience. Schwede 66 03:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Following up:
I made some stylistic changes to her editsHow do you know Wainuiomartian's gender? I don't see anywhere it's been mentioned onwiki.
this was a month after the article had been nominated at DYKcould you narrow that timeframe down a bit further? Does "a month after the article had been nominated at DYK" literally mean "7 May" or is it broader?
I am too close to him to write the article myself, indicating he was aware of COI issues as far back as 13 February, well before he started making contributions to the article and DYK nomination. Honestly, finding this has shifted my view on the matter from "unfortunate incident but seems like an honest misjudgement" to "there was definitely awareness, even at the time, that what was going on went against our guidelines". – Tera tix ₵ 10:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Extra eyes on this article would be useful, please. 46.69.215.187 ( talk) 19:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Writing about themselves on Wikipedia without disclosing COI. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account ( talk) 15:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to self-report an incident that happened in 2016. I am not sure if it qualifies as a COI on Wikipedia or not. Back in 2016 I was still trying to figure out what kind of work was appropriate for me. Our HR person suggested that I work on a page for a donor to the library where I work as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, and I said I would try, but couldn't guarantee any specific kind of content (right, I should never have agreed to do that). I spent several weeks researching and creating a page in my sandbox for a man who made his fortune off of real estate (he's dead now). There were definitely enough sources on him for him to pass notability guidelines. One of my main sources was actually a biography commissioned by his trust. After I was happy with what I wrote in my sandbox, I sent it to the HR person, who sent it on to someone at the trust. The trust people hated it because I mentioned that the houses he built were not available to black people to purchase, as was the case with a lot of homes built then (a detail in the biography THEY commissioned, which I guess they also didn't like). Our HR person told me not to publish it. Was NOT publishing it a COI as outlined in our COI guidelines? Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 18:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Maria-Ana Tupan (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
ForTupan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) (and various IPs, see page history)
COI issues; Romanian IPs (likely ForTupan logged out, see
talk) making somewhat promotional edits to the page. ForTupan claims that the article is not about themself, and that their username was chosen out of respect for the author, because it was required to register a name when proposing the article for validation.
(This is my first time posting here, so please let me know if I did something wrong)'''[[
User:CanonNi]]''' (
talk •
contribs) 13:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
This started with some edits, including large-scale deletion, addition of unsourced text, and egregious violations of MOS, in the 125 SATA article. In the course of discussion with PRISH123, they stated, These directions have been received pan Indian Army to Update/Create a page of the respective units… If you will be kind enough to scroll through other pages, all the units are updating their data in the said format.
(diff) On review of other articles, I saw editing at 20 SATA by two editors—one now blocked, and the other, ArtyGunner12345—which follow the same pattern and indicate the same COI. Accordingly, I bring the matter here, since the scope is too large for a single administrator too monitor. —
C.Fred (
talk) 17:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Just adding a small something from SPI:
The SPI is broadly consistent with this being multiple dispersed people, thus CU is not going to be too helpful here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Addition of promotional content (including an image gallery which I have reverted). When I asked about COI on the user's talk page, their response was to delete my post without comment. My suspicion was aroused by a new account making multiple null edits, on this and other wikis, before starting on the article in question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I suspect that the 'IBG' in the username stands for 'International Brands Group', who own the IP of Totectors. Turned that article into a weird and unfocussed advert, was reverted and told about managing a COI, responded by adding the odd advert back again. 81.187.192.168 ( talk) 14:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
A number of users who edited the article are already blocked:
Found this while removing citations to Simple Flying. Something sketchy going on here: Aleksandr Celiadin is the founder of GetJet Airlines, his article seems to be edited exclusively by accounts with limited other edits. The company seems to have previously set up an account and I think the other accounts seem to be likely related to each other. There is also frequently IP edits on this article adding material from the company (most recently [13] [14]) and one of the accounts listed above deleted some (admittedly not well sourced) negative info about the company. Avgeekamfot ( talk) 15:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Editing Rejoin EU and various parliamentary consistencies to add Rejoin EU party candidates with edit summaries mentioning "my party". Username suggests they are a candidate or party operative themselves. Went off the deep end at another editor when challenged about this yesterday, but then calmed down and seemed to accept the advice they were given, but resumed editing UK constituency articles this morning. 90.251.20.238 ( talk) 09:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats, NewPolitician (indef) and their IP (1 week) blocked for legal threats with a side order of DHT and NOTHERE. 90.251.20.238 ( talk) 15:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
I am bringing to your attention a dispute concerning the Hamis Kiggundu article, which has recently been reverted to its most recent edit prior to Davey2010's contested reversion. This reversion was necessary due to ongoing allegations of promotional editing and bias. I am now seeking a neutral review of the article to address these concerns and ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.
Background:
Concerns:
Policies Believed to Have Been Violated:
Request for Review:
Given these concerns, I am requesting a neutral mediator from the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard to:
I believe that a neutral review will help resolve this dispute fairly and maintain the integrity of the article.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 41.210.145.68 ( talk) 11:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
1. Promotional Tone Allegation:
The allegation of a promotional tone is subjective and requires specific examples to be addressed. The edits made over the last three years were supported by verifiable and reliable sources. These included:
- A chronological summary of a lawsuit and its resolution, documented by court records and news reports. - Detailed history of Hamis Kiggundu’s business journey, similar to those found in articles about other notable entrepreneurs such as Aliko Dangote, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg. - Philanthropic efforts, like the donation of 100,000 Royal Palm Trees to Kampala Capital City Authority, verified by government sources ( [18]). - Business achievements such as the redevelopment and grand opening of Nakivubo Stadium, covered by multiple reliable sources ( [19], [20], [21]).
If specific sections are deemed promotional, they should be discussed and revised rather than the entire article being reverted.
2. Allegations of Paid Editing:The assertion that this article is a result of paid editing should be substantiated with concrete evidence. Wikipedia permits paid editing, provided there is full disclosure and adherence to the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. In 2020, the user Mark Had disclosed his conflict of interest prior to the article passing Articles for Creation (AFC). However, despite this transparency, he was blocked, and an undisclosed paid editing tag was added almost a year later, in March 2021.
Wikipedia operates on the principle that "what is written is more important than who writes it," as outlined in its core content policies. This means that the focus should be on the verifiability, neutrality, and reliability of the content rather than the identity of the contributor. It is essential to respect the
Wikipedia:Assume good faith principle. If there are legitimate concerns regarding sockpuppetry, these should be addressed impartially and without bias through appropriate channels, such as
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. It is crucial that all actions taken are in good faith, ensuring a fair and collaborative editing environment.
3. Quality and Content Removal:
The reversion has significantly reduced the quality of the article by removing well-referenced and neutrally presented information. The edits made were in line with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, reliability, and neutrality. Removing such content without proper discussion and consensus is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.
4. Previous Discussions and Administrative Actions:
Previous discussions and administrative actions should be taken into account. A blanket reversion to a 2021 version disregards the collaborative efforts of multiple editors. The article should be reviewed for specific content issues rather than a wholesale reversion, which is disruptive and not in line with Wikipedia:Consensus.
Request for a Neutral Review:
Given these points, I request the following:
Policies Believed to Have Been Violated:
- Consensus: The reversion did not follow the principle of consensus-building ( Wikipedia:Consensus). - Edit warring: The repeated reversion without attempting to resolve the disagreement through discussion is a form of edit warring ( Wikipedia:Edit warring). - Assume good faith: Assuming bad faith without proper evidence or discussion contradicts the policy ( Wikipedia:Assume good faith). - Ownership of content: Acting as if they own the article by reverting to a preferred version without consensus ( Wikipedia:Ownership of content). - Disruptive editing: Removing significant contributions made over three years is disruptive ( Wikipedia:Disruptive editing). - Purpose and Five Pillars: The reversion contradicts Wikipedia's purpose and five pillars by restricting information and lacking fairness ( Wikipedia:Purpose, Wikipedia:Five pillars).
I believe that addressing the specific concerns through a neutral review will help resolve this dispute fairly and maintain the integrity of the article.
Firstly, User:Timtrent tagged all of the subject's media for deletion despite substantial permissions. When these deletions did not occur, User:Davey2010 proceeded to blank three years' worth of edits. It is noteworthy that both users are located in the UK, which raises the possibility that Davey2010 might have been influenced by Timtrent, as evidenced by reverting to Timtrent's revision.
These actions suggest a potential conflict of interest and might be perceived as being done in bad faith. The assumption of ownership over this content by a select group of users contradicts the principles outlined in Wikipedia's Ownership of content policy (WP:OWN). This policy clearly states that no one owns the content here and that all contributions are collaborative efforts.
Additionally, labeling every editor of this article as engaging in undisclosed paid editing (UPE) without substantial evidence seems excessive and contrary to the Assume good faith (WP:AGF) guideline. Not every notable figure's edits should be deemed promotional when they adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:V) policies.
It is also concerning that all recent editors have been submitted for sockpuppet investigations, which seems to target contributors unfairly. According to the Blocking policy (WP:BLOCK), blocks are meant to prevent disruptive editing and not to punish users. Repeatedly calling for investigations can discourage new contributors and create a hostile editing environment.
In light of these points, I respectfully request that unbiased and non-conflicted mediators be involved to ensure that this article is managed fairly and in accordance with Wikipedia's core content policies. It is essential that all editors are treated with respect and that any actions taken are transparent and justified.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in maintaining the integrity and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia
Thank you for your consideration. 41.210.141.54 ( talk) 13:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Saw this editor add advertising language to Flexcar. I reverted and warned for COI. But going back to the article, they turned it into an advert back in March. I'm hesitant to revert further back because the article was a bit rubbish even before that and any attempt by an IPv6 editor to radically shorten the article would be reverted by a bot.
So, some more eyes, and some further advice (to me and/or Creativebuffalo), would be good, please. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:74C9:F21C:7D37:E976 ( talk) 21:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
User is editing page with a username that indicates association with the org. Did not respond to warning in February and has continued to edit. glman ( talk) 13:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Browsing the internet, I have found a Trustpilot profile profile of a UPE agency. The agency is named "Wiki Proficiency" and is seemingly banned per WP:ABTACH.
There is an interesting pattern in their reviews. As for pre-2024 reviews, I could not find Wikipedia articles ordered by the reviewers, and there is a large number of very negative reviews.
In 2024, this pattern breaks. Positive reviews dominate, and for a majority of them, I could find articles named after the reviewers. No article had been created before the reviewer wrote a review to Trustpilot, and (with a few exceptions) the reviews were written no more than a month after the creation of corresponding articles. Where I was unable to find an article named after the reviewer, the reviewer mostly refered to themselves in plural or refered to their "company". I should however note I haven't found any relevant AfDs related to negative reviews.
There is a catch, however. Some of the article creators had over 1000 edits. There is one with 16000 edits and one even with over 40000 edits. As much as I try to assume good faith, I do not see any better explanation than that the editors were paid. I find it highly unlikely that the UPE company is tricking me.
If we agree the articles are paid for, we should do something with them. Even if some of them aren't downright promotional, the company is profiting of intransparency and dishonesty, so per WP:IAR, we should so something to stop them, even if unprecedented. Some options are deletion for a fixed period of time or draftification (the closing editor of the discussion that resulted in CBAN for the company noted that potentially useful articles might be draftified.)
Here are the suspected-UPE articles:
I hope you could give me some advice. I intentionally didn't name the article creators, as I don't want to cast baseless aspersions before being advised on this matter.
— Janhrach ( talk) 17:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The referenced user (above) has been making a few changes to the article above. There have been a couple test edits, which I have no issues, but the first edit is what I worry about. This article was extensively edited with promotional language. Internal links were broken, links to their companies website were added for the founders, in place of the relevant people's Wikipedia pages, and some red flags appeared for me when editing, pertaining to the previously mentioned "first edit" which can be found here Here's why I removed them, and why I believe this Wikipedian has a COI with this article, and maybe the industry of this company in general:
1. The language used in the edits, such as "after beginning his career at the famed Burnham and Root in Chicago" and the change of "Dwight Heald Perkins, started an architecture firm" to "Dwight Heald Perkins, opened his own architecture firm." This type of language is glorifying the people involved in the company, which leads me to believe there is a COI.
2. Next, the links are what really raised red flags. Once again, this is concerning the individuals mentioned in the article. One of the "higher ups," Mary-Jean Eastman, does not have a Wikipedia article, and the referenced user above has linked the companies website to her name.
3. I have a bit of understanding in SEO, and from what I can tell, this is an attempt to beef up the Wikipedia article as a means of promotion, over other companies websites, on relevant topics which the company has a market share in. This user created a list of "practice areas of the firm," which introduce a lot of words. This means that the referenced Wikipedia article will be boosted in search rankings for searches that include the words this user has added to the page, such as "K-12 education" and "science + technology."
4. I'm a bit tired, so this one may be oversight on my part, but I thought it might be useful to include. This user added a lot of further reading resources, but the first one includes text which just beefs up this guy's person a lot, by explaining the article's subject "undertook the study as the result of winning the AIA College of Fellows’ Latrobe Prize in 2019, which came with a $100,000 grant." Just sounds like a lot of promotion, and it didn't sit well with me, especially after reading the above things in the article.
5. Update: After reading the user's talk page message to me, he claims to be the "chief communications writer for Perkins Eastman," and he states "it is my job to see to it that the facts surrounding our company are correct."
I had a lot of extra time to really analyze everything, so I hope this explains my issues with the edits from this user. I put in the time, as I can tell from the users talk page, they really did spend a lot of time editing the article, and I want to ensure their (hopefully) honest work has good faith.
OnlyNano 00:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
→Perkins Eastman: Reply |
(No difference)
|
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days
archived by
Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{
subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
| ||||
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| ||||
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Search the COI noticeboard archives |
Help answer requested edits |
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{
edit COI}} template:
|
It seems pretty clear to me from this editor's behavior and the infomation on their user page that they are somehow affiliated with the subject or the subject's organization. They seem to be a single purpose editor who edited a few other articles for a brief period after creating their account, but now only edit the one article. Skyerise ( talk) 00:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Also note that the above editor is adding self-published (CreateSpace) books to the subject's publications. Skyerise ( talk) 00:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Having identified themselves as an editor with a COI as a member of the party, this user has continually engaged in WP:IDHT behaviour on the talk page; firstly repeatedly making attempts to change "far-right" (the sourced description) to "right-wing" ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and even after being told on the talk page 6 before dropping in a flippant comment on the talk page), creating a draft for their youth wing (complete with a copyvio upload) before adding a great deal of cruft and when reverted, restoring it with ZERO edit summary once, twice, thrice, partially four times and now five times. In the interim, the user has accused me of attempting to make the party "look good". I usually wouldn't care so much about people editing the articles of parties they're involved with so long as it's actually done unbiasedly and without any WP:IDHT concerns but this is absolutely not the case, and enough time has been wasted on this user. Between COI concerns, repeatedly no-summary reverts and failure to WP:GETTHEPOINT, enough is enough. — ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 17:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Note that the party this editor is a member of is currently involved in local and European elections in Ireland, so this is particularly timely. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't mean to repeatedly bang the drum, but could someone please look into this? We've a self-professed member of a party making repeated disruptive edits and reverting without summary, over an elongated period, including during our ongoing election campaigns here in Ireland. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 13:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Juanma281984 was previously blocked for UPE, which they admitted to (last diff [1], interested parties can read the entire discussion for context). They successfully appealed the block and have returned to editing, having now promised for at least the second time to declare all paid editing.
Thinkfree Office, created after the unblock, is not neutral. As I mentioned on the talk page, the article has no criticism or negative coverage. This is depsite one of the sources cited containing a healthy dose of criticism, which seems to me like deliberate omission.
This diff [2] removes sourced content (the quote at "tattooed" and the sentence from "Brown's last day at CNN") and adds unsourced content (e.g. "Reuters Institute"). That one diff is too expansive for me to get an overview of, but seems to be biased toward Brown. Also, this user's creation of Redkey USB Ltd includes a token "Controversy" section (albeit unsourced), but still largely seems like UPE for that company.
I don't see a COI/ UPE declaration for any of these three cases. A user unblocked after an indef for UPE is on thin ice – either they need to give a very good explanation and clean up after themselves, or I would support an admin getting involved. Toadspike [Talk] 20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
This longtime user has recently appeared at AfD procedures where their battleground behaviors ( [3], [4], [5], [6]) have drawn the attention of several editors ( [7], [8]). The AfD on EcoCute was closed as merge to Air source heat pump; today it points at EcoCute (Japan) ( [9], [10] by Namazu-tron), a glance at the page histories will show tendentious and "I don't hear you" behaviors from this editor during the deletion discussions. The pages texts themselves are aggressively complimentary and the photograph of the product on the page is linked to the user above (from 2008). BusterD ( talk) 15:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Axel Downard-Wilke is Schwede66 (userpage disclosure), a prominent New Zealander Wikipedian, administrator and member of Wikimedia Aotorea New Zealand's executive committee. Marshelec also sits on this committee (userpage disclosure). I couldn't find explicit onwiki disclosure of which member he is, so to be on the safe side I will not make a claim either way for now. Marshelec has a conflict of interest regarding Downard-Wilke/Schwede66 because of this relationship.
Marshelec made major contributions to Downard-Wilke's article without explicitly disclosing this conflict of interest. This included nominating the article for a prominent spot on the Main Page as DYK's image hook. My view is this is bright-line misconduct.
Wainuiomartian, the other major contributor, has had some interactions with Schwede66 [11] [12] and it would probably be best for them to clarify their relationship.
To be clear, Downard-Wilke/Schwede66 himself has not had anything to do with the article and does not seem to have done anything wrong here. I have only notified him for completeness' sake. – Tera tix ₵ 08:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I accept that I have a Conflict of Interest with regards to Axel Downard-Wilke, and that I should not have edited the article or nominated it for DKY. I regret this lapse of judgement, and I accept the criticism that I "should have known better". I have now belately added a COI declaration to my user page, and a connected contributor template to the talk page of the article. I regret and apologise for the disruption and extra work that this has caused for multiple editors. Marshelec ( talk) 20:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification on my talk page, Teratix.
Allow me to state that Wainuiomartian does not have a COI. My administrative work happens at WP:ERRORS, WP:DYK, and WP:ITN. Beyond that, I almost exclusively edit New Zealand content, where I create content, curate new content, help out other editors, and keep an eye on a watchlist that is just shy of 10,000 items. With some 235,000 edits, it’s virtually impossible that I won’t have interacted with any New Zealand editor who is active in one of my topic areas of interest. This is one of those normal interactions that is part of my Wiki work and it is a very far off from getting Wainuiomartian and myself into a situation that resembles a COI.
The other week, Wainuiomartian started making additions to many of the YYYY New Zealand census articles, which are all on my watchlist. I made some stylistic changes to her edits and when a question arose, they came to my talk page and asked some questions, presumably because they had seen that I had also edited the census articles. That was on 11 May 2024, long after she last edited my bio. Hence no COI here either; merely from a timing perspective. You may note that as part of my reply, I issued a thank you for “very good work on a certain biography”. Wainuiomartian and I have never met or spoken with one another apart from these two interactions.
One article that is not on my watchlist is my bio. My thinking here is that I should not watch something when I cannot and should not take any actions; if there are issues, I trust that the Wiki community will sort it out. Hence, it took quite a while before I noticed that Marshelec is editing my bio when clearly he shouldn’t. I stated to him that this concerned me and this was a month after the article had been nominated at DYK. I shall state that he hasn’t edited the article since.
The side issue of notability was raised. There are a couple of sources that would count towards establishing notability that are missing from the bio:
If anyone is keen to work those in, let me know and I’ll type up the relevant book passages. And there's heaps more; I have another good 50 sources that can be cited. Also, I’d appreciate if someone could cast their eye over the content that Marshelec has added to check that’s it complies with NPOV. If that includes any offline sources or stuff that comes from ProQuest, I can make that available. I hope this helps. Schwede 66 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I was asked to write the article and agreed because the subject seemed notable with regards to his invention for cyclists at wide intersections and for instigating the consistent use of macrons on Wikipedia pages. I do not believe I have a conflict of interest. I have never met Axel and was not even sure of his username when I created the article. I have since contacted him directly once with a question of style about New Zealand censuses which I am working my way through. Wainuiomartian ( talk) 22:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
isn't it the right thing to do to suggest to someone else without a conflict of interest to write it?In this case, the writer should be transparent and disclose they have not written the article fully of their own volition but have been prompted by someone with a conflict of interest. – Tera tix ₵ 16:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Please note that the New Zealand Wiki community has its monthly online meeting tomorrow. Anyone can join in and we usually have a few Australians turn up. I'll be talking about COI editing so that we as a community learn something from it, achieving broader understanding of how to manage this. Anyone watching this page is most welcome to join in: Wikipedia:Meetup/Aotearoa New Zealand Online/49#Conflict of interest editing. I'll ask the organiser to be on the programme in second slot so that there's an approximate time available for those who are only interested in this topic; tune in from 12:15 h NZT, which is UTC+12:00. Time zone conversion link for your convenience. Schwede 66 03:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Following up:
I made some stylistic changes to her editsHow do you know Wainuiomartian's gender? I don't see anywhere it's been mentioned onwiki.
this was a month after the article had been nominated at DYKcould you narrow that timeframe down a bit further? Does "a month after the article had been nominated at DYK" literally mean "7 May" or is it broader?
I am too close to him to write the article myself, indicating he was aware of COI issues as far back as 13 February, well before he started making contributions to the article and DYK nomination. Honestly, finding this has shifted my view on the matter from "unfortunate incident but seems like an honest misjudgement" to "there was definitely awareness, even at the time, that what was going on went against our guidelines". – Tera tix ₵ 10:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Extra eyes on this article would be useful, please. 46.69.215.187 ( talk) 19:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Writing about themselves on Wikipedia without disclosing COI. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account ( talk) 15:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to self-report an incident that happened in 2016. I am not sure if it qualifies as a COI on Wikipedia or not. Back in 2016 I was still trying to figure out what kind of work was appropriate for me. Our HR person suggested that I work on a page for a donor to the library where I work as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, and I said I would try, but couldn't guarantee any specific kind of content (right, I should never have agreed to do that). I spent several weeks researching and creating a page in my sandbox for a man who made his fortune off of real estate (he's dead now). There were definitely enough sources on him for him to pass notability guidelines. One of my main sources was actually a biography commissioned by his trust. After I was happy with what I wrote in my sandbox, I sent it to the HR person, who sent it on to someone at the trust. The trust people hated it because I mentioned that the houses he built were not available to black people to purchase, as was the case with a lot of homes built then (a detail in the biography THEY commissioned, which I guess they also didn't like). Our HR person told me not to publish it. Was NOT publishing it a COI as outlined in our COI guidelines? Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 18:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Maria-Ana Tupan (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
ForTupan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) (and various IPs, see page history)
COI issues; Romanian IPs (likely ForTupan logged out, see
talk) making somewhat promotional edits to the page. ForTupan claims that the article is not about themself, and that their username was chosen out of respect for the author, because it was required to register a name when proposing the article for validation.
(This is my first time posting here, so please let me know if I did something wrong)'''[[
User:CanonNi]]''' (
talk •
contribs) 13:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
This started with some edits, including large-scale deletion, addition of unsourced text, and egregious violations of MOS, in the 125 SATA article. In the course of discussion with PRISH123, they stated, These directions have been received pan Indian Army to Update/Create a page of the respective units… If you will be kind enough to scroll through other pages, all the units are updating their data in the said format.
(diff) On review of other articles, I saw editing at 20 SATA by two editors—one now blocked, and the other, ArtyGunner12345—which follow the same pattern and indicate the same COI. Accordingly, I bring the matter here, since the scope is too large for a single administrator too monitor. —
C.Fred (
talk) 17:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Just adding a small something from SPI:
The SPI is broadly consistent with this being multiple dispersed people, thus CU is not going to be too helpful here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Addition of promotional content (including an image gallery which I have reverted). When I asked about COI on the user's talk page, their response was to delete my post without comment. My suspicion was aroused by a new account making multiple null edits, on this and other wikis, before starting on the article in question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I suspect that the 'IBG' in the username stands for 'International Brands Group', who own the IP of Totectors. Turned that article into a weird and unfocussed advert, was reverted and told about managing a COI, responded by adding the odd advert back again. 81.187.192.168 ( talk) 14:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
A number of users who edited the article are already blocked:
Found this while removing citations to Simple Flying. Something sketchy going on here: Aleksandr Celiadin is the founder of GetJet Airlines, his article seems to be edited exclusively by accounts with limited other edits. The company seems to have previously set up an account and I think the other accounts seem to be likely related to each other. There is also frequently IP edits on this article adding material from the company (most recently [13] [14]) and one of the accounts listed above deleted some (admittedly not well sourced) negative info about the company. Avgeekamfot ( talk) 15:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Editing Rejoin EU and various parliamentary consistencies to add Rejoin EU party candidates with edit summaries mentioning "my party". Username suggests they are a candidate or party operative themselves. Went off the deep end at another editor when challenged about this yesterday, but then calmed down and seemed to accept the advice they were given, but resumed editing UK constituency articles this morning. 90.251.20.238 ( talk) 09:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats, NewPolitician (indef) and their IP (1 week) blocked for legal threats with a side order of DHT and NOTHERE. 90.251.20.238 ( talk) 15:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
I am bringing to your attention a dispute concerning the Hamis Kiggundu article, which has recently been reverted to its most recent edit prior to Davey2010's contested reversion. This reversion was necessary due to ongoing allegations of promotional editing and bias. I am now seeking a neutral review of the article to address these concerns and ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.
Background:
Concerns:
Policies Believed to Have Been Violated:
Request for Review:
Given these concerns, I am requesting a neutral mediator from the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard to:
I believe that a neutral review will help resolve this dispute fairly and maintain the integrity of the article.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 41.210.145.68 ( talk) 11:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
1. Promotional Tone Allegation:
The allegation of a promotional tone is subjective and requires specific examples to be addressed. The edits made over the last three years were supported by verifiable and reliable sources. These included:
- A chronological summary of a lawsuit and its resolution, documented by court records and news reports. - Detailed history of Hamis Kiggundu’s business journey, similar to those found in articles about other notable entrepreneurs such as Aliko Dangote, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg. - Philanthropic efforts, like the donation of 100,000 Royal Palm Trees to Kampala Capital City Authority, verified by government sources ( [18]). - Business achievements such as the redevelopment and grand opening of Nakivubo Stadium, covered by multiple reliable sources ( [19], [20], [21]).
If specific sections are deemed promotional, they should be discussed and revised rather than the entire article being reverted.
2. Allegations of Paid Editing:The assertion that this article is a result of paid editing should be substantiated with concrete evidence. Wikipedia permits paid editing, provided there is full disclosure and adherence to the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. In 2020, the user Mark Had disclosed his conflict of interest prior to the article passing Articles for Creation (AFC). However, despite this transparency, he was blocked, and an undisclosed paid editing tag was added almost a year later, in March 2021.
Wikipedia operates on the principle that "what is written is more important than who writes it," as outlined in its core content policies. This means that the focus should be on the verifiability, neutrality, and reliability of the content rather than the identity of the contributor. It is essential to respect the
Wikipedia:Assume good faith principle. If there are legitimate concerns regarding sockpuppetry, these should be addressed impartially and without bias through appropriate channels, such as
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. It is crucial that all actions taken are in good faith, ensuring a fair and collaborative editing environment.
3. Quality and Content Removal:
The reversion has significantly reduced the quality of the article by removing well-referenced and neutrally presented information. The edits made were in line with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, reliability, and neutrality. Removing such content without proper discussion and consensus is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.
4. Previous Discussions and Administrative Actions:
Previous discussions and administrative actions should be taken into account. A blanket reversion to a 2021 version disregards the collaborative efforts of multiple editors. The article should be reviewed for specific content issues rather than a wholesale reversion, which is disruptive and not in line with Wikipedia:Consensus.
Request for a Neutral Review:
Given these points, I request the following:
Policies Believed to Have Been Violated:
- Consensus: The reversion did not follow the principle of consensus-building ( Wikipedia:Consensus). - Edit warring: The repeated reversion without attempting to resolve the disagreement through discussion is a form of edit warring ( Wikipedia:Edit warring). - Assume good faith: Assuming bad faith without proper evidence or discussion contradicts the policy ( Wikipedia:Assume good faith). - Ownership of content: Acting as if they own the article by reverting to a preferred version without consensus ( Wikipedia:Ownership of content). - Disruptive editing: Removing significant contributions made over three years is disruptive ( Wikipedia:Disruptive editing). - Purpose and Five Pillars: The reversion contradicts Wikipedia's purpose and five pillars by restricting information and lacking fairness ( Wikipedia:Purpose, Wikipedia:Five pillars).
I believe that addressing the specific concerns through a neutral review will help resolve this dispute fairly and maintain the integrity of the article.
Firstly, User:Timtrent tagged all of the subject's media for deletion despite substantial permissions. When these deletions did not occur, User:Davey2010 proceeded to blank three years' worth of edits. It is noteworthy that both users are located in the UK, which raises the possibility that Davey2010 might have been influenced by Timtrent, as evidenced by reverting to Timtrent's revision.
These actions suggest a potential conflict of interest and might be perceived as being done in bad faith. The assumption of ownership over this content by a select group of users contradicts the principles outlined in Wikipedia's Ownership of content policy (WP:OWN). This policy clearly states that no one owns the content here and that all contributions are collaborative efforts.
Additionally, labeling every editor of this article as engaging in undisclosed paid editing (UPE) without substantial evidence seems excessive and contrary to the Assume good faith (WP:AGF) guideline. Not every notable figure's edits should be deemed promotional when they adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:V) policies.
It is also concerning that all recent editors have been submitted for sockpuppet investigations, which seems to target contributors unfairly. According to the Blocking policy (WP:BLOCK), blocks are meant to prevent disruptive editing and not to punish users. Repeatedly calling for investigations can discourage new contributors and create a hostile editing environment.
In light of these points, I respectfully request that unbiased and non-conflicted mediators be involved to ensure that this article is managed fairly and in accordance with Wikipedia's core content policies. It is essential that all editors are treated with respect and that any actions taken are transparent and justified.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in maintaining the integrity and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia
Thank you for your consideration. 41.210.141.54 ( talk) 13:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Saw this editor add advertising language to Flexcar. I reverted and warned for COI. But going back to the article, they turned it into an advert back in March. I'm hesitant to revert further back because the article was a bit rubbish even before that and any attempt by an IPv6 editor to radically shorten the article would be reverted by a bot.
So, some more eyes, and some further advice (to me and/or Creativebuffalo), would be good, please. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:74C9:F21C:7D37:E976 ( talk) 21:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
User is editing page with a username that indicates association with the org. Did not respond to warning in February and has continued to edit. glman ( talk) 13:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Browsing the internet, I have found a Trustpilot profile profile of a UPE agency. The agency is named "Wiki Proficiency" and is seemingly banned per WP:ABTACH.
There is an interesting pattern in their reviews. As for pre-2024 reviews, I could not find Wikipedia articles ordered by the reviewers, and there is a large number of very negative reviews.
In 2024, this pattern breaks. Positive reviews dominate, and for a majority of them, I could find articles named after the reviewers. No article had been created before the reviewer wrote a review to Trustpilot, and (with a few exceptions) the reviews were written no more than a month after the creation of corresponding articles. Where I was unable to find an article named after the reviewer, the reviewer mostly refered to themselves in plural or refered to their "company". I should however note I haven't found any relevant AfDs related to negative reviews.
There is a catch, however. Some of the article creators had over 1000 edits. There is one with 16000 edits and one even with over 40000 edits. As much as I try to assume good faith, I do not see any better explanation than that the editors were paid. I find it highly unlikely that the UPE company is tricking me.
If we agree the articles are paid for, we should do something with them. Even if some of them aren't downright promotional, the company is profiting of intransparency and dishonesty, so per WP:IAR, we should so something to stop them, even if unprecedented. Some options are deletion for a fixed period of time or draftification (the closing editor of the discussion that resulted in CBAN for the company noted that potentially useful articles might be draftified.)
Here are the suspected-UPE articles:
I hope you could give me some advice. I intentionally didn't name the article creators, as I don't want to cast baseless aspersions before being advised on this matter.
— Janhrach ( talk) 17:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The referenced user (above) has been making a few changes to the article above. There have been a couple test edits, which I have no issues, but the first edit is what I worry about. This article was extensively edited with promotional language. Internal links were broken, links to their companies website were added for the founders, in place of the relevant people's Wikipedia pages, and some red flags appeared for me when editing, pertaining to the previously mentioned "first edit" which can be found here Here's why I removed them, and why I believe this Wikipedian has a COI with this article, and maybe the industry of this company in general:
1. The language used in the edits, such as "after beginning his career at the famed Burnham and Root in Chicago" and the change of "Dwight Heald Perkins, started an architecture firm" to "Dwight Heald Perkins, opened his own architecture firm." This type of language is glorifying the people involved in the company, which leads me to believe there is a COI.
2. Next, the links are what really raised red flags. Once again, this is concerning the individuals mentioned in the article. One of the "higher ups," Mary-Jean Eastman, does not have a Wikipedia article, and the referenced user above has linked the companies website to her name.
3. I have a bit of understanding in SEO, and from what I can tell, this is an attempt to beef up the Wikipedia article as a means of promotion, over other companies websites, on relevant topics which the company has a market share in. This user created a list of "practice areas of the firm," which introduce a lot of words. This means that the referenced Wikipedia article will be boosted in search rankings for searches that include the words this user has added to the page, such as "K-12 education" and "science + technology."
4. I'm a bit tired, so this one may be oversight on my part, but I thought it might be useful to include. This user added a lot of further reading resources, but the first one includes text which just beefs up this guy's person a lot, by explaining the article's subject "undertook the study as the result of winning the AIA College of Fellows’ Latrobe Prize in 2019, which came with a $100,000 grant." Just sounds like a lot of promotion, and it didn't sit well with me, especially after reading the above things in the article.
5. Update: After reading the user's talk page message to me, he claims to be the "chief communications writer for Perkins Eastman," and he states "it is my job to see to it that the facts surrounding our company are correct."
I had a lot of extra time to really analyze everything, so I hope this explains my issues with the edits from this user. I put in the time, as I can tell from the users talk page, they really did spend a lot of time editing the article, and I want to ensure their (hopefully) honest work has good faith.
OnlyNano 00:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)