![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
For a long time, the user concerned has been creating - or trying to create (there are two drafts also in the user's creation list; Thomas Clements and Marty Murphy) - articles that promote individuals or organisations that seek to press Autism as a bad thing. The user already has a COI established with the similarly minded Jonathan Mitchell. On the user's main user page there is an admission of editing against WP:NPOV which he added he would cease doing. However the user has persisted and may in fact be acting on behalf of the people concerned - whether they know about it or not. This had led to a tendency to misread sources as reliable in terms of notability and so forth (for example using a Word Press blog on the Singer article). This needs to be curbed and as soon as possible. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:598E:D4ED:5EAB:D689 ( talk) 09:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Update: Ylevental has outed his own name on his user page and his Twitter account. Further, he has used the edit warring rule to avoid scrutiny getting the McKean and Shestack articles protected. Shestack is a friend of Escher, who Ylevental has confessed to having a COI with, which started when they met at an IACC meeting in 2013 (see here for proof of Escher's attendance and the attendance of Shestack's wife Portia Iverson. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:A8AC:B59B:8B88:CB5B ( talk) 06:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
A web search reveals a person with this name is the global marketing manager for the company mentioned. The user has significant and one sided activity related to the company and its products. No COI was disclosed, although the user has been notified. Kleuske ( talk) 08:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
This looks like a single-purpose account possibly involved in undisclosed paid editing. Their only edits are to create
Dj Ernesty. I draftified the article and asked them to follow the AfC process, but they choose to ignore and moved it back to main twice with a comment that Hi GSS, if you say the sources are interviews what you're trying to say is that everything written by those sources is an interview which is not true and if you read my article carefully you will notice I didn't add or cite claims with any of the information from the subject (see also
WP:INTERVIEW). If you don't agree with me nominate it for Afd instead
. As per their move reason, they appear to know a lot about Wikipedia, and I don't expect this kind of comments from brand new users with no edit history in the past especially when they act so professionally and ask you to nominate their page at AfD. I then proposed the article for deletion and they removed the prod after citing some sources including
this which was published just two days after the article was proposed for deletion that hinting paid-news as well.
GSS
💬 04:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The title (
ROIDMI) was in my watchlist since an advert to create this page was posted on a freelancing website so, Grimymood chooses to create this article under
ROIDMI (XIAOMI) and I wasn't notified at that time, but after they posted
Draft:ROIDMI I asked them to disclose their paid editing status which they
did on their userpage today, but just after I asked them to provide links to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services the disclosure was immediately removed and
they changed their statement to ..I would say that I am just a friend with the manager of ROIDMI. I am not getting any compensation for this.
They also created
Draft:Ahmad Ashkar (a promotional article on a non-notable businessman) and just two days after the account was autoconfirmed they moved it to main, then a few days later they created "Will Powell (businessman)" yet another promotional article on a non-notable businessman.
GSS
💬 12:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Editor has been a WP:SPA since 2015, and claimed to be the subject's agent [2]. A lot of contributions to the article, not always encyclopedic in quality, with nary a source provided. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 17:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The editor has been asked on their talk page about a conflict of interest and has not made any declaration. The name of the account is unmistakably the name of a company about which the author has submitted a draft. Other drafts submitted by the author are also impacted by conflict of interest. Lithography-based ceramic manufacturing is a process that probably should be documented in Wikipedia, but the draft may be biased by interest in a particular company with involvement in marketing the process. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article for Full Tilt Poker is for sure a COI case of paid editing without disclosure. Just go to wikiprofessionalsinc website and scroll down to "What our clients say" section - you'll see that Full Tilt Poker is mentioned there: "The great thing about the Wiki Professionals Inc. team is that they make sure you get what you want and go an extra mile for you." -Full Tilt Poker, online poker site. By the way, I have no idea which user did the paid editing because the history log is very confusing. Ta,jhk ( talk) 08:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Presumably doing these promotional edits on behalf of "Tampa Innovation Partnership", but no disclosure whatsoever. Orange Mike | Talk 04:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
This user has admitted to a connection here to the article Thomas Maier. User has a promotional username, which seems fairly obvious is connected to subject of article. User has been repeatedly adding self promotional content to article for several years, 2014, 2016, 2019 and 2020. User has a warning on their talk page going back to 2013 in relation to other article which they may have a COI, Masters of Sex and Masters of Sex (book) is another article they have edited in the past. User was also warned in February 2019 to disclose any COI they may have (no response) and was warned by me about their username (March 2020). I tagged the article with a COI notice as well, due to the evidence listed above. User has been notified about this discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
An anon editor made a COI related comment at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bernard J. Taylor – maybe someone from this noticeboard could look at it? Tx. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 22:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Accounts Moritz nicolai and Mo nicolai are single purpose accounts, editing Dorothea Nicolai internationally. ( global edits from Moritz nicolai, global edits from Mo nicolai). Edits are usually badly sourced or unsourced. The account "Mo nicolai" has been asked to provide sources on it.wikipedia in March 2019 and warned about disruptive editing on de.wikipedia Links added from account "Moritz Nicolai" have been reported as spam in 2018. Account Michi62 created the German version of Dorothea Nicolai on June 30 2013, the wikidata entry on Oktober 8 2013, the version for en.wikipedia on Oktober 11 2013, the version for fr.wikipedia on December 17 2013, and the version for it.wikipedia on January 7 2015. Unsourced or badly sourced edits have been added to all the international versions from this account till 2017.
Usernames of accounts "Moritz nicolai" and "Mo nicolai" indicate a personal relationship with the article subject. Edits from account "Michi62" seem primary sourced. OrestesLebt ( talk) 16:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Llewop Eidoj seems to be a Single Purpose Account who was paid to make a page. Their only (well, one of 2) edit was to create Draft:MegsMenopause in one edit (31000 bytes), which is well-formatted, has images and plenty of citations. As well as that, the page contains intricate details about the creators of MegsMenopause that are in no sources as well as heavily praising the subject of the article. Weirdly, the logo of the company on commons is also CC 4.0 and the edit summary for the huge edit was "spelling". The one edit before was to also link to the MegsMenopause website. — Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • Talk∕ Contribs 16:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Ed Winters is a fringe vegan activist and a user Josh Milburn commenting on his adf discussion has a COI which he did not declare. Milburn works for the Vegan Society and sits on their Research Advisory Committee. Winters is also a member of the Vegan Society.
Winters and Milburn also (Redacted). Despite all this Milburn says he has no conflict of interest and no association with Winters but that is obviously not true. He also accuses me of digging up dirt on him which is not true. On his user-page he links to his identity and admits to being on the Research Advisory Committee for the Vegan Society in a link he provides himself, so I have not outed him. As this user works for the Vegan Society he should not be editing articles related to veganism. I made this clear to him but he has taken offense to this. What can be done here? Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I have never met Ed Winters or knowingly communicated with him. We take other editors at their word here most of the time. Why not now? It seems like a clearly good faith declaration. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 22:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Can I get a second opinion on this matter? I may have came across undisclosed paid editing when I stumbled across
Me to We. In
this edit, the editor added contents and what caught my attention was that she added this "reference" :File:///C:/Users/User/Dropbox (Veribo)/Delivery/Active Clients restored/We/Wikipedia/May 2019 project/ME to WE wiki page - phase 3.docx#%20ftn5
. It looks like a Dropbox file path for delivering a service for the client (Me to We). Further examination on this editor's history showed that she edited extensively on charities but I haven't found other "smoking guns".
OhanaUnited
Talk page 06:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The SPI resulted in a 12 account haul. Some of the accounts were fiddling with Penis enlargement among other things, so all major contributions need close scrutiny or removal. MER-C 19:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
"real editors do not prep their files in MS Word"That's bullshit; and no-one gets to define "real editors" that way. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
This outfit has been the subject of COIN discussion before: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 88#Amalto and others (sockfarm). There's new page activity today: local minor awards fitting a WP:Identifying PR profile in my opinion. Could others have a look? ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Sort of disclosed his COI at his talk page ("I represent His Highness, and I will not tolerate changes to his page that are uncalled for and are not verified by neither the Saudi government or internationl media organizations") but fails to comply with the guidelines. WikiHannibal ( talk) 15:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
People have seemed to promote WikiPR-esque services as of late (there are PLENTY of them), should we crack down on them? They will make an article on any company so long as they get paid. This is also a blantant violation of WP:COI. They use several sockpuppets and such to make pages regardless of notability, and breaks Wikimedia's terms of service under paid editing. More on paid editing shenanigans.
Recently, I found an entire network of these paid editors, and these are listed as follows (there might be MUCH more than the ones I listed):
I personally think this is an attempt for WikiPR to conceal itself amidst Wikimedia legal threats. The websites look very similar, too. This is a tactic used by scammers to hide their identity against potential threats under multiple organisations. As with the Hydra; if you chop off one head, two more will take its place.
I think it's time to take action against this. dibbydib Ping me! 💬/ ✏ 05:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
These have been listed at WP:PAIDLIST for a while ☆ Bri ( talk) 05:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I regularly come across officials from semi-professional football clubs updating the articles on their clubs (as I have a few hundred on my watchlist). This tends to be a mixture of adding histories and/or recent events (which are almost always written in a manner completely inappropriate for Wikipedia) and those adding lists of their players (in a manner which is appropriate in terms of formatting, but usually an issue in terms of them not being updated going forward).
When engaging with them on the latter, they often promise to keep them up-to-date, and I occasionally come across articles where someone clearly connected with the club has done that over a decent time period. With regards to the COI rules, I usually tell them they shouldn't be editing the article due to their links with the club. However, in cases where all they are doing is keeping the squad list up-to-date, should our COI rules prevent them from doing this? Cheers, Number 5 7 20:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Possibly, but it might be difficult to establish that paid editing is taking place. WP:PAID applies when an editor is paid specifically to make edits or take other actions on Wikipedia, either as a standalone service (e.g. payment per article, payment per time period) or as part of a broader service (e.g. marketing job position, reputation management service). If an editor works for a football club and edits the article on the club in their personal capacity, it would be a conflict of interest that does not fall under WP:PAID. For comparison, I see cases of employees editing articles on their employers all the time, but am unable to establish that they were paid to make those edits. Unless these editors violate other policies or guidelines, the most I can do is to make them aware of the COI guideline with the {{ Uw-coi}} template. — Newslinger talk 06:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
"forbid the behavior unless"So, not forbidden. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Single-purpose editor adding citations of journals authored or co-authored by Yun Wang from University of California Irvine. Multiple reverts by several editors, two warnings on talk page, yet the editor does not change behavior. I propose a block. Thank you. -- Ariadacapo ( talk) 07:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
This editor is a single-purpose account who only edits this one article and refuses to communicate with other editors even when specifically asked if he or she has a connection to the subject. ElKevbo ( talk) 22:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I am here and happy to communicate with any editor about anything. I was hired by Albizu University to do this work. Please let me know what the issues are so that I can proceed. Thank you. LangosyArts ( talk) 01:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, please note, I just responded to your other question regarding my relationship with the university. With the current global situation, I am home with many distractions and not actively on Wikipedia watching messages all of the time. Thank you. LangosyArts ( talk) 01:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Editing articles related to Democratic members of the New Jersey legislature. Username implies a COI. Catgirllover4ever ( talk) 21:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 22:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
User Wallstny (get it? Wall Street, NY) has been editing one single article, on a Wall Street banker, in a manner that clearly indicates a COI. Their edits have turned that article into a promotional puff piece with all the usual things wrong with it--using primary sources to fill up the subject's resume (by linking to articles he published), adding inline URLs to all kinds of things including websites he's responsible for or associated with and speeches he gave. The actual biographical section doesn't have a single reliable secondary source. I don't doubt the man's notability, nor that of his JQI (see, for instance, [ https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-03-16/coronavirus-employers-sick-leave this article in the LA Times), but this puffery is not OK. Drmies ( talk) 02:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Jaykodaline has a name that suggests a potential COI (could just be a fan). Edits include removing some apparent history of the band under the guise of "Fixed an inaccurate fact". wikidata:Q2482563 has "21 Demands" as an AKA. Bits of searching find references at last.fm and others saying that "21 Demands" turned into Kodaline [4], [5] and even an apparent Fan YT account referring to them as one and the same - [6]. Trying to hide the history, or just uninformed? Reedy ( talk) 03:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
User Gregoriagregoria21 keeps editing this article (as if they are the subject of the article, see their edit history on this article). I have tried to have discussions and no response. They're not using the talk page of the article to discuss the issues and are making threats in the editing space as they delete many citations and content. There has been a COI notice on their user talk page since February, with no response. There is verifiable evidence WP:V in the citation of the issue at hand. Jooojay ( talk) 05:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern.I also think this issue is better suited for WP:BLPN, as the core issue is not so much COI as it is BLP claims and sourcing. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 06:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Oof. You can't say stuff like "Joe Smith is a blackguard" or whatever anywhere in the Wikipedia without good cause and without offering a good ref right then and there. You just can't. Our talk pages are not supposed to be toxic stew of unsupported gossip and libelm which is why the first sentence of WP:BLP is "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis in original).
I redacted some material ( WP:BLP is a core policy which supersedes WP:TALK, an etiquette page, so I'm not onl allowed but actually required to do this.) This thread should actually be oversighted, but baby steps here. You can restore the material if you provide good refs right here for any allegations. I do recognize that our rules make it harder to be casual when arguing about some things. But other editors work with the parameters of the rule. It's possible to talk about many things while avoiding libel. I'm confident that you guys can too. Herostratus ( talk) 02:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
On the merits... It's not COI to not want to slandered. It's a human right to not be slandered. We all are members of and participants in one of the most powerful human entities on this planet: a website that is one one of the most read, quoted, linked to, and republished pubications in existence, one that frequently comes as a first result on Google searches and consequently is the primary source of information on an entity, often swamping other sources, and whose database enshrines material that will persist for decades or maybe centuries. An entity that is capable of destroying lives with ease, without even being aware of it. And has done.
While the subjects of our articles are (often) individual private persons with no great resources and little ability to battle with a huge corporate entity (us), sitting alone in their room in impotent shame and anger.
So, I mean, be fair. Even if we didn't have rules to take this into account (we do), the general life rule of "don't be a bully" supersedes any rules we have here, anyway. Herostratus ( talk) 03:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
This user has been adding highly promotional or otherwise positive information to the BLP since 28 March. At that time, I reverted his edits as violations of BLP (as all the information was unsourced). After the revert, David left a message asking what was wrong with the edits. After I explained why I reverted, the user told me that he had contacted the subject of the article and offered to share his email. I tried to be friendly and asked him to get reliable sources to support his information. He did get two sources (and shared the email [address], which was promptly gotten rid of by Cabayi), so I left it there. However, I did have a word with Cabayi, who advised me to watch the article due to the large number of SPAs editing there. I suspected UPE, but decided to wait. Now, today, when I saw my talk page, I saw that David had left another message, asking how to get rid of the COI notice on the page. I read the article, saw lots of promotional information like before, and asked him if he is a UPE. Also note that the user has been trying to press the whole time that he has no COI involved, so I feel we could be dealing with a sock. Also note that the user page mentions that the user is a New York-based journalist. -- Java Hurricane 02:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
For at least a few years Kuda188 ( talk · contribs) has been creating and editing articles for specific record labels in a way that seems intentionally to advertise and sell their music. The main one is Bethel Music. Although he does edit articles for a few other record labels. Most (or all) of the articles he has created seem to follow the same generic formula, formatting, and way of referencing things. A lot of his articles contain an excessive amount of links to places where you can buy the label's music and their YouTube channel. For example Bethel Music discography has over 200 references, the vast majority being to YouTube and iTunes. With Have It All (Bethel Music and Brian Johnson song) half the refs are to them. On Brian Johnson (Bethel Music singer) a good portion where to those sites before I deleted them. It's the same way for The Father's House, Elevation Worship, Let the Redeemed, and At Midnight (EP). Along with many other articles he created. It seems unlikely that he is creating articles for such a narrow subject, in such a systematic way and using refs the way he is, just because of a personal interest in the topic. Also, he was asked about it on his talk page by multiple users, but he never responded and deleted most of the comments. My guess is that he is a possible paid editor. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 23:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
A recently created editor is again trying to insert massive amounts of puffery, as well as mundane primary source text. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I've edited multiple pages on the COVID-19 crisis but bizarrely only had a problem with this page and this editor. Even after modifying my submission multiple times this editor has undone all changes. Flagging for conflict of interest. And warring. wikipedianpolitico ( talk) 03:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
" Snooganssnoogans" tried to remove itself from this noticeboard even though the account clearly has a curious interest with Elaine Chao. Even after modifying my submission to her page multiple times to satisfy concerns expressed by "Snooganssnoogans" – to merely note that Chao is a member of the WH Task Force and that Chao, as news outlets have reported [1], objectively announced COVID-related funding – the account bizarrely continues to undo all changes. The account's latest edit included no explanation whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by wikipedianpolitico ( talk • contribs)
References
The two editors have been edit warring over the band article for months. I finally got in there and did a WP:TNT rewrite with the neutral Allmusic biography article, but they are still having at it, restoring their version of the article, with one of them assuming mine is vandalism. Vladjanicek66 has declared COI but Johnny Alucard has not, but has apparent COI, dismissing Vlad's formation of a parallel band with former band members as a "tribute band". AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Would some others mind taking a look at Dan Pickett and assessing it for COI issues per User talk:Marchjuly#Dan Pickett Wikipedia Page? If there are no major issues with the article and the {{ COI}} template is no longer necessary, feel free to remove it. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
This article has a lot of features of COI editing. Wondering if I could get someone to review. IPs keep removing the tags that list the concern. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. I have been tracking an issue of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry for some time, and it has become more or less WP:LTA level stuff. It turns out that, based on recent edit summaries by some of the editors, there is a conflict of interest involved. The head of their church, a Major Archbishop or Patriarch, in Kerala, India, is apparently directing editors to come to Wikipedia and place information on various church-related articles. So far, the best defense is page protection for good long durations, that locks out the non-autoconfirmed IPv6 addresses and new accounts. But every once in a while they choose new targets and we've got to protect more articles for a longer duration. Today I've opened a sockpuppet investigation on the newest account created, @ Barek777:. He has gone so far as to attempt to prohibit me from editing the page. It is pretty amusing. Anyway, more eyeballs, as always, would be appreciated here. Elizium23 ( talk) 07:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The Kirkpatrick article appears to be an autobiography, tended over the years by the three Rocket accounts and one or more IPs; the earlier two registered accounts appear to be defunct. Related articles refer to Mr. Kirkpatrick's book, an associated publisher, and a sampling of the many articles spammed by Redrocket--some of the external links and self-mentions have survived for more than a decade, but there are more articles than those listed here, and which will be found in Redrocket's edit history. All articles would benefit from de-puffing. Realgonerocket88 has engaged me here [9]. 73.186.215.222 ( talk) 01:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
@ 73.186.215.222: Again, while I do not feel safe making comment here regarding my identity IRL and will guard my anonymity, I deny any charge of undue “bias” and I certainly am not being paid to make edits on this site. Again I wish to point out that I have always sought to make edits according to professional reference standards of facts, citations, neutral tone, scope, newsworthiness, and ease of use with cross-references for the end user, all based on my experience. I certainly cannot address every edit I’ve ever made, but I already provided a comparable entry for a comparable subject to demonstrate why the Rob Kirkpatrick article is appropriate in tone, scope, & newsworthiness etc. I also addressed another edited entry and IMO its appropriateness. As one final example, I invite anyone to review my recent edits to the entry for Thomas Dunne Books (it had been badly outdated, read like a years-old company press release rather than a reference entry, had disproportionate focus on non-newsworthy company employees, and even listed several “films” that seem not to have been made!) and argue that my edits did not make the entry cleaner, up-to-date, more accurate, and more reference-appropriate. I don’t feel the need to justify why I chose to edit the entries I did, and as I’ve said, I think I’m done with Wikipedia now given the militancy and sometimes even hostility with which some editors treat fellow volunteers. As I have said a few times now, if any editor sees ways to improve any of the entries I've edited based on common and professional reference standards for the end user, I don't oppose that, I applaud it! Otherwise, I’m think I'm done here and have nothing else to say. Thanks. Realgonerocket88 ( talk) 14:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
There are two remaining article backlinks to 1969: The Year Everything Changed, one does appear to have originally been added as advertising [10] but has since been independently moved in with the other references. The other appears to have been added independently [11]. Spectrum {{ UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D ( talk) 22:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
It also looks like there were some series of edits in the past to advertise upon release, e.g. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Spectrum {{ UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D ( talk) 22:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Seems pretty self explanatory based on the name and edit history so far. Looks like someone from the MDC is trying to scrub the MDC’s page of all controversies etc. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 16:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Account with the same name as Indian politician Nisith Pramanik continues to add unreferenced, non-NPOV biography to the article. Ignored COI warning given on the 9th. Cryptic Canadian 08:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This editor is updating the Cameron Whitten article on Whitten's behalf, per this edit summary. I invite editors to review recent changes to article. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Declared COI on userpage, then proceeded to game the system by creating a draft, omitting the review templates and moving it to main article space. Claims to have understood what the problem is, but actions indicate they have not. Kleuske ( talk) 08:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
This editor is repeatedly submitting drafts on A2Hosting from their sandbox, and is blanking and resubmitting when the drafts are declined or rejected. This appears to be an attempt to game the system. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
This involves straight up fabrication of articles for days-old organizations, as well as general promotion, and the user above needs to be blocked.
The problem list:
I'm a little bit disgusted by how brazen the falsehoods are here. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 00:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Please note that I first started with the Contemporary and Digital Art Fair. This led me to the digital art museums which one has been requested for speedy deletion because I made an honest mistake. The draft article for Elena of CaDAF was moved to draft because it wasn’t notable. The artist I found on MMoDA website and had decent links on their webpages. I started with one article and began expanding down that rabbit hole. I was trying to make decent contributions to Wikipedia. I have corrected mistakes in the past on here including the deletion of bad articles. I found MMoDA on Instagram and made them a page. Once a few articles were tagged with not notable I started trying to improve them all. MMoDA was a low priority but I have sources for MoCDA. I apologize for my mistake. I did not know this would cause such a large issue on my end.
UndyingCarrot (
talk) 01:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the main contributor to Andrew Miltenberg, Jeanettenj11, is an editor with an undisclosed conflict of interest. I'd like an editor with more COI experience to weigh in. The user's first edit was in 2016 to create the overtly promotional first draft of the article on Miltenberg, and they have had a sustained interest in the article over 4 years. Other than this the editor's only main contributions have been the creation of Campus assault due process, an article which mentions Miltenberg and could have been created to bolster the ostensible area Miltenberg specialises in, "campus assault due process" (a euphemism for "defending students who have been alleged to commit sexual assault"). Another edit was to Columbia University rape controversy, in order to add mention of Miltenberg. Jeanettenj11 has also edited Joe Kyrillos and Paul Matey, people perhaps related to Miltenberg or perhaps unrelated. I can't see why the editor would have such a limited and persistent focus and immediate expertise in the use of referencing and wikitext unless there's an undisclosed COI, a POV to push or sockpuppetry. — Bilorv ( talk) 20:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
A draft of Joshua Moody, who is connected to "College Church," was created by "Juliacollegechurch" on March 30 and rejected at AfC. This editor was issued a COI warning around the same time.
Today, a mainspace article for this subject was created by another user. It was then further modified by "Juliacollegechurch" without addressing their CoI warning.
This editor also took interest in Zach Fallon, another subject with connections to "College Church," which they had edited in concurrence with the creator of the new Joshua Moody article ( [18] [19]), who also has interest in subjects related to "College Church." (However, that user had not been served a CoI notice until now.) Cryptic Canadian 02:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
A few days ago, on April 1st, there was a vandalization of Papa John's Pizza. It purported that the company was playing a prank by saying they would offer free pizzas to commentators on social media. A few hours after this post user:Papa John's International posted saying they were the official account tried to remove it. Both edit attempts were held up by the pending changes.
The second user with the name of the company, was promptly banned for multiple violations of Wikipedia tos with undisclosed COI and an account representing an organization. However, the other user, by user:Paulobrien92 appears to also hold a undisclosed COI.
Evidence: (Redacted)
His prose and style of wording is very formal and extremely similar to the PapajohnInternational user. Both are new accounts. It appears to be sockpuppetry. Who ever did the COI on the PapajohnInt guy, likely didn't see the other user.
- AH ( talk) 23:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Clearly a PR employee of Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group that ignoring uw-paid3 warning as well as tag herself with paid editing disclosure. Matthew hk ( talk) 11:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
According to evidence added to an SPI, it seems very likely that topics related to Russian billionaire Ruslan Baisarov could have paid edits. I think the bio could use some scrutiny maybe starting with the claim of holding a doctorate. Also a bit odd that it doesn't mention his Chechen Muslim heritage although it is documented by Sputnik news agency, Moscow Times [20], UCL Press [21], and others.
More activities of sockfarm noted at WP:PAIDLIST#Percepto and was discussed at this noticeboard, now archive 157 ☆ Bri ( talk) 04:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Single-purpose account, only edits are creating and promoting Ahmad Massoud. The account was created in 2016, and since then made no major edits outside this one article. On April 14th, he uploaded two images (with metadata) of Massoud as his own work on commons-wiki and I'm unable to locate those images online so this strongly implies a close connection with the subject. Can someone please take a look if the subject is even notable? Thank you. GSS 💬 17:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
According to
[22]: "...Founded in 2020 by Malik Nomi, Daily Cyprus has come a long way from its beginnings in Limassol..."
. NomiWrites added links to Daily Cyprus in various Cyprus related articles.
Cinadon
36 18:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Could an administrator determine if Hypebeast Ltd. is a recreation of Hypebeast, which would be circumventing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypebeast (2nd nomination)? ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The user seem a undisclosed paid editor that keep on gaming the draft system to spam re-submission for borderline notable to clear cut non-notable biographical draft. Any chance to deal with this ? Matthew hk ( talk) 00:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Username is the same as the film that they appear to be promoting here. Despite being notified here, they still submitted a draft article on the topic. Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 02:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Refer to WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 110#Promotional startup articles and their SPA creators for background. Asking for more eyes on Faisal Farooqui. I’ve done cleanup on this, but an aggressive effort seems to be underway to restore promotion of a businessperson. I’ve warned the other editor but they are continuing. ☆ Bri ( talk) 04:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm shocked, just shocked, to report that new checkuser evidence shows that this article has been dominated by a sockfarm since its inception in 2007 up through the recent wonderful ad hominem. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be a paid editor basing most of the article on unpublished interviews. Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 04:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
You mean here? Also, please don't twist my words and intent. I fully intend to do what it takes to get this article up within Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you. And to whom should I show my final product? Shall we work on one paragraph at a time? Debora Holmes ( talk) 17:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Also, let me make it very clear that Dr. Lundberg did not instruct me as to what to write. When we say "behalf", I want to make it clear that concern is over the current inaccuracy that he noticed many years ago. Thanks. Debora Holmes ( talk) 17:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
concern is over the current inaccuracy that he noticed many years ago, you are confirming that you're in touch with the article subject and undertaking edits on their behalf. In order to preserve neutrality of our articles, we don't do that. We stay independent of our subjects. A selection of the problems with your recent edits (which boil down to a non-neutral approach) is as follows:
References
Thank you VERY much for this specific feedback, ThatMontrealIP. As I've mentioned, I'm new to doing this and eager to learn. I think I understand what it is you want to see now, but please, please, gently guide me if I err. Also, if you got the impression that I've known Dr. Lundberg for years, that is absolutely not the case. It was only through a fellow academic a few months ago that I became aware of the issues with his page, and I had never exchanged a single email with him (let alone met him or worked with him etc.) until then. I'm going to suggest the first addition on the Talk page in the next hour. Will someone be able to comment fairly soon? Debora Holmes ( talk) 19:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your valuable comments. This is exactly the kind of advice I've been looking for! Debora Holmes ( talk) 20:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC) I've just posted a proposal for the first section at this talk page: /info/en/?search=Talk:George_D._Lundberg#First_proposed_addition_to_Lundberg_article . I'm not sure if I posted the references/footnotes in the proper format for this talk page (I've been working in Virtual Mode so not too familiar with the usual Wiki mode), but it's evident at least where each of the 19 footnotes belong. In addition, there's 27 links, but not sure those show up. Let me know what you think. Debora Holmes ( talk) 23:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
{{request edit}}
to activate it. The advice on how to request edits is at
Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request.
TSventon (
talk) 13:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[User:TSventon|TSventon], thanks so very much for the guidance -- I will try doing that now! Also, I hope I entered your name right so that you get this... Debora Holmes ( talk) 16:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm here to ask a question for myself, actually. I was thinking about working on a couple articles about United Methodist Church history, but I am a member of the denomination and occasional volunteer (though any editing I will do is purely on my own initiative and is not in any way asked or required of me). I plan to work on history only, and I feel that I can write about it neutrally, but I recognize that I've reported plenty of COI editors here who have said the exact same thing. My question is basically "does that seem like enough of a relationship that I should be making edit requests?" I will declare the COI on my COI list, and if people feel it's appropriate I can mark myself as a connected contributor and/or do edit requests, but I feel like it's a fairly weak COI (I don't hold any official positions or anything) so I wanted to ask here for feedback before doing anything. creffett ( talk) 18:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I was searching for recent updates about the group, when I saw an article published by Al-Monitor [1] referring to a contract between the organization mentioned above and the DC law firm Cogent Law Group, to "develop Wikipedia page" (this Short Form Registration Statement contains the service). The news website also says that the organization wants its communist ideology kept out of sight, because it wants to seek support in the United States. I am not going to point fingers at anyone, but I noticed that in the infobox "Social-democracy" had replaced commnism. For the time being, I added a reliable source to restore that certain part, however, I am writing this if any further action should be done. Pahlevun ( talk) 18:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Draftified article - was originally in mainspace, I moved it to draft based on my suspicions of UPE or undisclosed COI. Article has strong indications of COI/UPE - see my note on the draft's talk page, but basically it is going out of its way to support the article's subject's claims and specifically counter controversies in a way that goes beyond "bias" and into "intentional promotion." Additional evidence which I can't share because of outing concerns, as usual will provide to admins privately on request. creffett ( talk) 16:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Article Philip Sheffield created by Heliumsop in 2009 without any sources. Unsourced edits in 2012 from Durham University ip 129.234.78.225 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) seem primary sourced. Recent unsourced edits from Helium soprano suggest COI. All three seem SPA connected to Philip Sheffield. -- OrestesLebt ( talk) 21:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
(prefatory declaration: I am COI with respect to the school in question as a former student/employee, so I'm probably taking it a little too easy on the editor I'm reporting)
IP editor 72.83.15.95 has been adding a lot of links to scrc.gmu.edu to a large number of pages, to the point that I am very confident that the IP editor is connected to it in some way. It's a legitimate GLAM site (if I understand correctly, it's George Mason University's "rare documents" archive), and it's presumably well-intentioned. The problem here is that they're not declaring that connection - I left a COI template on their talk page last week and added a personal note encouraging them to declare their connection and to register an account, but they have continued editing the past couple days without response to the COI warning, so I'm bringing it here. creffett ( talk) 20:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Article name is same as username. Idan ( talk) 21:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Lol, I saw this too and messaged them (Juniatta) directly on Instagram and they said that they had absolutely nothing to do with the article. Vika messaged me back and said that it was probably her social media manager since they knew about the book and other insider things on the organization so it wasn’t a conflict of interest on the founder’s part but it was someone close to the organization — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.125.81 ( talk • contribs)
The stuff is accurate though, I don’t think that there is a conflict of interest...I talked to the guy and he was genuinely confused. Thought that you needed your username to be the same name as the article you were writing...he seems so confused right now to be honest
Well I mean it is fairly accurate as far as I can see, their resources seem good for the information that they have Tilly ( talk) 12:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
In Talk:OpIndia § Is this a coordinated Hit Job on Opindia?, 58.182.176.169 posted an extremely long statement that reads as if it were written by OpIndia's legal advisor. They claim "NO COI", but I am having a very hard time believing them considering the personal attacks and demands in the statement.
In case you are not familiar with the background, OpIndia was blacklisted from Wikipedia after the editor of OpIndia doxed a Wikipedia editor in early March in retaliation for their edits on a political topic, forcing them to vanish for safety reasons. The community showed consensus to deprecate OpIndia in a noticeboard discussion, and the resulting perennial sources list entry is at WP:OPINDIA. — Newslinger talk 12:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
cartelized wolves packing order. creffett ( talk) 12:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear Newslinger and Creffett, I am reading this this and still laughing hard, specially the "by OpIndia's legal advisor" is very funny, "wow, you overestimate my law skills a lot". Since you made efforts to make this post, let me address each concern.
1. I have nothing to do with law profession or journalism.
2. I know Opindia as source only recently. No loyalty of any kind. I do not care about them or their staff.
3. I have explained in my OP how I arrived at that article, then google search took me to couple of Opindia article, I do not know the people involved in those articles (journalists/writers, and other parties, nor I specifically recall having come across any of those journalists and editors during my editing on wikipedia). These are all strangers to me, beyond basic human compassion I have no love or hate for them.
4. I have not personally named or attacked anyone. How can I attack when I do not even know the people or the background. All I have done is I articulated my concerns after incidentally coming across Opindia wikipedia article and subsequently articles written by Opindia regarding some wikipdia malpartices,. In my OP, I copied and pasted the heading of the first article on google search as an example post written by Opindia staff. Thats it. It neither means I agree or know the facts/truth. But it raised my concerns. I can not recall who the people are in those articles as I have not come across them on wikipedia. I really have nothing to go on against any individuals. I have no agenda, no paid/unpaid mission, no axes to grind. I am not stupid to lose my peace of mind by picking useless wikipedia fights with strangers. I have no intentions to get into personal issues of historical tussles behind the issue.
5. After reading Opindia talk page (which I felt was too messy for me to comment, I did not participate in any ongoing discussion) and after reading couple articles written by Opindia, I was certainly alarmed. I listed my concerns on the talk page in the hope there is some centralised effort to look at the issues in holistic unbiased manner if there is something wrong going on. There is nothing more to it.
6. Are you two in anyway involved with this issue? If so, apologies guys if you felt my post was personal. Seems you feel passionately about the topic and very sensitive about it? I do not have any professional, legal, personal attachment to the issue really, I have nothing against you or anyone else. My post is meant to be "non-personal post" about resolving the bigger structural flaws in wikipedia process and how things work. Please focus on the concerns/issues, about the people I am not concerned because I do not know who is right or wrong in their past edit/block wars.
7. My post is not about the individuals (they come and go), but about the wider concepts/concerns of fairness, transparency, democratisation of power on wikipedia. If wrong things are happening at wikipedia at a larger scale, then it will slowly kill the wikipedia. Imagine all my and every body else's contribution being wasted if wikipedia is replaced by major nations by something else like China did. Wikipedia thrives only due to google search engine algorithm. The day its gone, our contributions will not appear in google search and all the effort will be wasted. After reading the articles, I have genuine concern about wiki becoming personal hegemony of select few and then being chocked to death. Let me know/assure me those concerns are either unfounded or if there is a mechanism to proactively identify and fix those issues.
8. I do not know if it puts your heart at ease, I do not really know what more to say, because your concerns of me being linked/COI to any of the parties are completely unfounded. Be assured.
9. My post is out of curiosity, not OCI/malice/game. Each point can be answered by posting a link to some thread where those discussions have already taken place. I do not think my concerns are invalid in anyway. I want to ask two questions: (a) are my concerns in the OP invalid? (b) I do not have any COI, but hypothetically if someone with COI raised the same concerns would not those still be valid. My focus is on issues, not individuals involved. I do not know any of them, I do not want to make it my personal mess either, I completely want to stay out of that aspect of the discussion.
10. Sorry, I am still laughing, I find this post strange and funny, because in every sense of the word I am far far far away from Opindia or other people involved with the issue.
11. I still thank you, because of you I got to know how this noticeboard works. Please feel free to voice more concerns if you have any, I will try to answer. Wiki being anonymous, I do not really have any means of meeting or showing I am not involved/related to Opindia, etc. I find it super funny though. I hope this puts your heart at ease. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 13:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I was doing some cleanup of the Wickety Wak page. Despite it being factually correct, it does not comply with Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. Any attempts by myself and other editors to maintain or expand article to compliance keep getting reverted by authors who have close connection to subject material, including removal of User:Talk entries and tags.
The authors have expressed defensive behaviour over these edits on my talk page, and use various different IPs to revert our edits.
We've had this article submitted for peer review, who have recommended we take this to WP:SPI We also suspect COI. Could we get some assistance in resolving this issue please? -- LoofNeZorf ( talk) 05:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I decided to expand the article the book Good Faith Collaboration and as it happens one of the RS is a book review written by me ( [29]). Is it ok for me to use it as one of the sources for the article? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Expert editors are cautioned to be mindful of the potential conflict of interest that may arise if editing articles which concern an expert's own research, writings, discoveries, or the article about herself/himself. Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy does allow an editor to include information from his or her own publications in Wikipedia articles and to cite them. This may only be done when the editors are sure that the Wikipedia article maintains a neutral point of view and their material has been published in a reliable source by a third party. If the neutrality or reliability are questioned, it is Wikipedia consensus, rather than the expert editor, that decides what is to be done. When in doubt, it is good practice for a person who may have a conflict of interest to disclose it on the relevant article's talk page and to suggest changes there rather than in the article. Transparency is essential to the workings of Wikipedia.. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Draft name is same as username. Non notable article and username policy. Idan ( talk) 07:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
For a long time, the user concerned has been creating - or trying to create (there are two drafts also in the user's creation list; Thomas Clements and Marty Murphy) - articles that promote individuals or organisations that seek to press Autism as a bad thing. The user already has a COI established with the similarly minded Jonathan Mitchell. On the user's main user page there is an admission of editing against WP:NPOV which he added he would cease doing. However the user has persisted and may in fact be acting on behalf of the people concerned - whether they know about it or not. This had led to a tendency to misread sources as reliable in terms of notability and so forth (for example using a Word Press blog on the Singer article). This needs to be curbed and as soon as possible. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:598E:D4ED:5EAB:D689 ( talk) 09:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Update: Ylevental has outed his own name on his user page and his Twitter account. Further, he has used the edit warring rule to avoid scrutiny getting the McKean and Shestack articles protected. Shestack is a friend of Escher, who Ylevental has confessed to having a COI with, which started when they met at an IACC meeting in 2013 (see here for proof of Escher's attendance and the attendance of Shestack's wife Portia Iverson. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:A8AC:B59B:8B88:CB5B ( talk) 06:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
A web search reveals a person with this name is the global marketing manager for the company mentioned. The user has significant and one sided activity related to the company and its products. No COI was disclosed, although the user has been notified. Kleuske ( talk) 08:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
This looks like a single-purpose account possibly involved in undisclosed paid editing. Their only edits are to create
Dj Ernesty. I draftified the article and asked them to follow the AfC process, but they choose to ignore and moved it back to main twice with a comment that Hi GSS, if you say the sources are interviews what you're trying to say is that everything written by those sources is an interview which is not true and if you read my article carefully you will notice I didn't add or cite claims with any of the information from the subject (see also
WP:INTERVIEW). If you don't agree with me nominate it for Afd instead
. As per their move reason, they appear to know a lot about Wikipedia, and I don't expect this kind of comments from brand new users with no edit history in the past especially when they act so professionally and ask you to nominate their page at AfD. I then proposed the article for deletion and they removed the prod after citing some sources including
this which was published just two days after the article was proposed for deletion that hinting paid-news as well.
GSS
💬 04:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The title (
ROIDMI) was in my watchlist since an advert to create this page was posted on a freelancing website so, Grimymood chooses to create this article under
ROIDMI (XIAOMI) and I wasn't notified at that time, but after they posted
Draft:ROIDMI I asked them to disclose their paid editing status which they
did on their userpage today, but just after I asked them to provide links to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services the disclosure was immediately removed and
they changed their statement to ..I would say that I am just a friend with the manager of ROIDMI. I am not getting any compensation for this.
They also created
Draft:Ahmad Ashkar (a promotional article on a non-notable businessman) and just two days after the account was autoconfirmed they moved it to main, then a few days later they created "Will Powell (businessman)" yet another promotional article on a non-notable businessman.
GSS
💬 12:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Editor has been a WP:SPA since 2015, and claimed to be the subject's agent [2]. A lot of contributions to the article, not always encyclopedic in quality, with nary a source provided. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 17:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The editor has been asked on their talk page about a conflict of interest and has not made any declaration. The name of the account is unmistakably the name of a company about which the author has submitted a draft. Other drafts submitted by the author are also impacted by conflict of interest. Lithography-based ceramic manufacturing is a process that probably should be documented in Wikipedia, but the draft may be biased by interest in a particular company with involvement in marketing the process. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article for Full Tilt Poker is for sure a COI case of paid editing without disclosure. Just go to wikiprofessionalsinc website and scroll down to "What our clients say" section - you'll see that Full Tilt Poker is mentioned there: "The great thing about the Wiki Professionals Inc. team is that they make sure you get what you want and go an extra mile for you." -Full Tilt Poker, online poker site. By the way, I have no idea which user did the paid editing because the history log is very confusing. Ta,jhk ( talk) 08:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Presumably doing these promotional edits on behalf of "Tampa Innovation Partnership", but no disclosure whatsoever. Orange Mike | Talk 04:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
This user has admitted to a connection here to the article Thomas Maier. User has a promotional username, which seems fairly obvious is connected to subject of article. User has been repeatedly adding self promotional content to article for several years, 2014, 2016, 2019 and 2020. User has a warning on their talk page going back to 2013 in relation to other article which they may have a COI, Masters of Sex and Masters of Sex (book) is another article they have edited in the past. User was also warned in February 2019 to disclose any COI they may have (no response) and was warned by me about their username (March 2020). I tagged the article with a COI notice as well, due to the evidence listed above. User has been notified about this discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
An anon editor made a COI related comment at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bernard J. Taylor – maybe someone from this noticeboard could look at it? Tx. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 22:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Accounts Moritz nicolai and Mo nicolai are single purpose accounts, editing Dorothea Nicolai internationally. ( global edits from Moritz nicolai, global edits from Mo nicolai). Edits are usually badly sourced or unsourced. The account "Mo nicolai" has been asked to provide sources on it.wikipedia in March 2019 and warned about disruptive editing on de.wikipedia Links added from account "Moritz Nicolai" have been reported as spam in 2018. Account Michi62 created the German version of Dorothea Nicolai on June 30 2013, the wikidata entry on Oktober 8 2013, the version for en.wikipedia on Oktober 11 2013, the version for fr.wikipedia on December 17 2013, and the version for it.wikipedia on January 7 2015. Unsourced or badly sourced edits have been added to all the international versions from this account till 2017.
Usernames of accounts "Moritz nicolai" and "Mo nicolai" indicate a personal relationship with the article subject. Edits from account "Michi62" seem primary sourced. OrestesLebt ( talk) 16:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Llewop Eidoj seems to be a Single Purpose Account who was paid to make a page. Their only (well, one of 2) edit was to create Draft:MegsMenopause in one edit (31000 bytes), which is well-formatted, has images and plenty of citations. As well as that, the page contains intricate details about the creators of MegsMenopause that are in no sources as well as heavily praising the subject of the article. Weirdly, the logo of the company on commons is also CC 4.0 and the edit summary for the huge edit was "spelling". The one edit before was to also link to the MegsMenopause website. — Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • Talk∕ Contribs 16:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Ed Winters is a fringe vegan activist and a user Josh Milburn commenting on his adf discussion has a COI which he did not declare. Milburn works for the Vegan Society and sits on their Research Advisory Committee. Winters is also a member of the Vegan Society.
Winters and Milburn also (Redacted). Despite all this Milburn says he has no conflict of interest and no association with Winters but that is obviously not true. He also accuses me of digging up dirt on him which is not true. On his user-page he links to his identity and admits to being on the Research Advisory Committee for the Vegan Society in a link he provides himself, so I have not outed him. As this user works for the Vegan Society he should not be editing articles related to veganism. I made this clear to him but he has taken offense to this. What can be done here? Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I have never met Ed Winters or knowingly communicated with him. We take other editors at their word here most of the time. Why not now? It seems like a clearly good faith declaration. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 22:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Can I get a second opinion on this matter? I may have came across undisclosed paid editing when I stumbled across
Me to We. In
this edit, the editor added contents and what caught my attention was that she added this "reference" :File:///C:/Users/User/Dropbox (Veribo)/Delivery/Active Clients restored/We/Wikipedia/May 2019 project/ME to WE wiki page - phase 3.docx#%20ftn5
. It looks like a Dropbox file path for delivering a service for the client (Me to We). Further examination on this editor's history showed that she edited extensively on charities but I haven't found other "smoking guns".
OhanaUnited
Talk page 06:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The SPI resulted in a 12 account haul. Some of the accounts were fiddling with Penis enlargement among other things, so all major contributions need close scrutiny or removal. MER-C 19:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
"real editors do not prep their files in MS Word"That's bullshit; and no-one gets to define "real editors" that way. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
This outfit has been the subject of COIN discussion before: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 88#Amalto and others (sockfarm). There's new page activity today: local minor awards fitting a WP:Identifying PR profile in my opinion. Could others have a look? ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Sort of disclosed his COI at his talk page ("I represent His Highness, and I will not tolerate changes to his page that are uncalled for and are not verified by neither the Saudi government or internationl media organizations") but fails to comply with the guidelines. WikiHannibal ( talk) 15:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
People have seemed to promote WikiPR-esque services as of late (there are PLENTY of them), should we crack down on them? They will make an article on any company so long as they get paid. This is also a blantant violation of WP:COI. They use several sockpuppets and such to make pages regardless of notability, and breaks Wikimedia's terms of service under paid editing. More on paid editing shenanigans.
Recently, I found an entire network of these paid editors, and these are listed as follows (there might be MUCH more than the ones I listed):
I personally think this is an attempt for WikiPR to conceal itself amidst Wikimedia legal threats. The websites look very similar, too. This is a tactic used by scammers to hide their identity against potential threats under multiple organisations. As with the Hydra; if you chop off one head, two more will take its place.
I think it's time to take action against this. dibbydib Ping me! 💬/ ✏ 05:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
These have been listed at WP:PAIDLIST for a while ☆ Bri ( talk) 05:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I regularly come across officials from semi-professional football clubs updating the articles on their clubs (as I have a few hundred on my watchlist). This tends to be a mixture of adding histories and/or recent events (which are almost always written in a manner completely inappropriate for Wikipedia) and those adding lists of their players (in a manner which is appropriate in terms of formatting, but usually an issue in terms of them not being updated going forward).
When engaging with them on the latter, they often promise to keep them up-to-date, and I occasionally come across articles where someone clearly connected with the club has done that over a decent time period. With regards to the COI rules, I usually tell them they shouldn't be editing the article due to their links with the club. However, in cases where all they are doing is keeping the squad list up-to-date, should our COI rules prevent them from doing this? Cheers, Number 5 7 20:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Possibly, but it might be difficult to establish that paid editing is taking place. WP:PAID applies when an editor is paid specifically to make edits or take other actions on Wikipedia, either as a standalone service (e.g. payment per article, payment per time period) or as part of a broader service (e.g. marketing job position, reputation management service). If an editor works for a football club and edits the article on the club in their personal capacity, it would be a conflict of interest that does not fall under WP:PAID. For comparison, I see cases of employees editing articles on their employers all the time, but am unable to establish that they were paid to make those edits. Unless these editors violate other policies or guidelines, the most I can do is to make them aware of the COI guideline with the {{ Uw-coi}} template. — Newslinger talk 06:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
"forbid the behavior unless"So, not forbidden. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Single-purpose editor adding citations of journals authored or co-authored by Yun Wang from University of California Irvine. Multiple reverts by several editors, two warnings on talk page, yet the editor does not change behavior. I propose a block. Thank you. -- Ariadacapo ( talk) 07:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
This editor is a single-purpose account who only edits this one article and refuses to communicate with other editors even when specifically asked if he or she has a connection to the subject. ElKevbo ( talk) 22:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I am here and happy to communicate with any editor about anything. I was hired by Albizu University to do this work. Please let me know what the issues are so that I can proceed. Thank you. LangosyArts ( talk) 01:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, please note, I just responded to your other question regarding my relationship with the university. With the current global situation, I am home with many distractions and not actively on Wikipedia watching messages all of the time. Thank you. LangosyArts ( talk) 01:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Editing articles related to Democratic members of the New Jersey legislature. Username implies a COI. Catgirllover4ever ( talk) 21:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 22:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
User Wallstny (get it? Wall Street, NY) has been editing one single article, on a Wall Street banker, in a manner that clearly indicates a COI. Their edits have turned that article into a promotional puff piece with all the usual things wrong with it--using primary sources to fill up the subject's resume (by linking to articles he published), adding inline URLs to all kinds of things including websites he's responsible for or associated with and speeches he gave. The actual biographical section doesn't have a single reliable secondary source. I don't doubt the man's notability, nor that of his JQI (see, for instance, [ https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-03-16/coronavirus-employers-sick-leave this article in the LA Times), but this puffery is not OK. Drmies ( talk) 02:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Jaykodaline has a name that suggests a potential COI (could just be a fan). Edits include removing some apparent history of the band under the guise of "Fixed an inaccurate fact". wikidata:Q2482563 has "21 Demands" as an AKA. Bits of searching find references at last.fm and others saying that "21 Demands" turned into Kodaline [4], [5] and even an apparent Fan YT account referring to them as one and the same - [6]. Trying to hide the history, or just uninformed? Reedy ( talk) 03:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
User Gregoriagregoria21 keeps editing this article (as if they are the subject of the article, see their edit history on this article). I have tried to have discussions and no response. They're not using the talk page of the article to discuss the issues and are making threats in the editing space as they delete many citations and content. There has been a COI notice on their user talk page since February, with no response. There is verifiable evidence WP:V in the citation of the issue at hand. Jooojay ( talk) 05:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern.I also think this issue is better suited for WP:BLPN, as the core issue is not so much COI as it is BLP claims and sourcing. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 06:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Oof. You can't say stuff like "Joe Smith is a blackguard" or whatever anywhere in the Wikipedia without good cause and without offering a good ref right then and there. You just can't. Our talk pages are not supposed to be toxic stew of unsupported gossip and libelm which is why the first sentence of WP:BLP is "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis in original).
I redacted some material ( WP:BLP is a core policy which supersedes WP:TALK, an etiquette page, so I'm not onl allowed but actually required to do this.) This thread should actually be oversighted, but baby steps here. You can restore the material if you provide good refs right here for any allegations. I do recognize that our rules make it harder to be casual when arguing about some things. But other editors work with the parameters of the rule. It's possible to talk about many things while avoiding libel. I'm confident that you guys can too. Herostratus ( talk) 02:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
On the merits... It's not COI to not want to slandered. It's a human right to not be slandered. We all are members of and participants in one of the most powerful human entities on this planet: a website that is one one of the most read, quoted, linked to, and republished pubications in existence, one that frequently comes as a first result on Google searches and consequently is the primary source of information on an entity, often swamping other sources, and whose database enshrines material that will persist for decades or maybe centuries. An entity that is capable of destroying lives with ease, without even being aware of it. And has done.
While the subjects of our articles are (often) individual private persons with no great resources and little ability to battle with a huge corporate entity (us), sitting alone in their room in impotent shame and anger.
So, I mean, be fair. Even if we didn't have rules to take this into account (we do), the general life rule of "don't be a bully" supersedes any rules we have here, anyway. Herostratus ( talk) 03:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
This user has been adding highly promotional or otherwise positive information to the BLP since 28 March. At that time, I reverted his edits as violations of BLP (as all the information was unsourced). After the revert, David left a message asking what was wrong with the edits. After I explained why I reverted, the user told me that he had contacted the subject of the article and offered to share his email. I tried to be friendly and asked him to get reliable sources to support his information. He did get two sources (and shared the email [address], which was promptly gotten rid of by Cabayi), so I left it there. However, I did have a word with Cabayi, who advised me to watch the article due to the large number of SPAs editing there. I suspected UPE, but decided to wait. Now, today, when I saw my talk page, I saw that David had left another message, asking how to get rid of the COI notice on the page. I read the article, saw lots of promotional information like before, and asked him if he is a UPE. Also note that the user has been trying to press the whole time that he has no COI involved, so I feel we could be dealing with a sock. Also note that the user page mentions that the user is a New York-based journalist. -- Java Hurricane 02:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
For at least a few years Kuda188 ( talk · contribs) has been creating and editing articles for specific record labels in a way that seems intentionally to advertise and sell their music. The main one is Bethel Music. Although he does edit articles for a few other record labels. Most (or all) of the articles he has created seem to follow the same generic formula, formatting, and way of referencing things. A lot of his articles contain an excessive amount of links to places where you can buy the label's music and their YouTube channel. For example Bethel Music discography has over 200 references, the vast majority being to YouTube and iTunes. With Have It All (Bethel Music and Brian Johnson song) half the refs are to them. On Brian Johnson (Bethel Music singer) a good portion where to those sites before I deleted them. It's the same way for The Father's House, Elevation Worship, Let the Redeemed, and At Midnight (EP). Along with many other articles he created. It seems unlikely that he is creating articles for such a narrow subject, in such a systematic way and using refs the way he is, just because of a personal interest in the topic. Also, he was asked about it on his talk page by multiple users, but he never responded and deleted most of the comments. My guess is that he is a possible paid editor. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 23:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
A recently created editor is again trying to insert massive amounts of puffery, as well as mundane primary source text. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I've edited multiple pages on the COVID-19 crisis but bizarrely only had a problem with this page and this editor. Even after modifying my submission multiple times this editor has undone all changes. Flagging for conflict of interest. And warring. wikipedianpolitico ( talk) 03:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
" Snooganssnoogans" tried to remove itself from this noticeboard even though the account clearly has a curious interest with Elaine Chao. Even after modifying my submission to her page multiple times to satisfy concerns expressed by "Snooganssnoogans" – to merely note that Chao is a member of the WH Task Force and that Chao, as news outlets have reported [1], objectively announced COVID-related funding – the account bizarrely continues to undo all changes. The account's latest edit included no explanation whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by wikipedianpolitico ( talk • contribs)
References
The two editors have been edit warring over the band article for months. I finally got in there and did a WP:TNT rewrite with the neutral Allmusic biography article, but they are still having at it, restoring their version of the article, with one of them assuming mine is vandalism. Vladjanicek66 has declared COI but Johnny Alucard has not, but has apparent COI, dismissing Vlad's formation of a parallel band with former band members as a "tribute band". AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Would some others mind taking a look at Dan Pickett and assessing it for COI issues per User talk:Marchjuly#Dan Pickett Wikipedia Page? If there are no major issues with the article and the {{ COI}} template is no longer necessary, feel free to remove it. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
This article has a lot of features of COI editing. Wondering if I could get someone to review. IPs keep removing the tags that list the concern. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. I have been tracking an issue of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry for some time, and it has become more or less WP:LTA level stuff. It turns out that, based on recent edit summaries by some of the editors, there is a conflict of interest involved. The head of their church, a Major Archbishop or Patriarch, in Kerala, India, is apparently directing editors to come to Wikipedia and place information on various church-related articles. So far, the best defense is page protection for good long durations, that locks out the non-autoconfirmed IPv6 addresses and new accounts. But every once in a while they choose new targets and we've got to protect more articles for a longer duration. Today I've opened a sockpuppet investigation on the newest account created, @ Barek777:. He has gone so far as to attempt to prohibit me from editing the page. It is pretty amusing. Anyway, more eyeballs, as always, would be appreciated here. Elizium23 ( talk) 07:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The Kirkpatrick article appears to be an autobiography, tended over the years by the three Rocket accounts and one or more IPs; the earlier two registered accounts appear to be defunct. Related articles refer to Mr. Kirkpatrick's book, an associated publisher, and a sampling of the many articles spammed by Redrocket--some of the external links and self-mentions have survived for more than a decade, but there are more articles than those listed here, and which will be found in Redrocket's edit history. All articles would benefit from de-puffing. Realgonerocket88 has engaged me here [9]. 73.186.215.222 ( talk) 01:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
@ 73.186.215.222: Again, while I do not feel safe making comment here regarding my identity IRL and will guard my anonymity, I deny any charge of undue “bias” and I certainly am not being paid to make edits on this site. Again I wish to point out that I have always sought to make edits according to professional reference standards of facts, citations, neutral tone, scope, newsworthiness, and ease of use with cross-references for the end user, all based on my experience. I certainly cannot address every edit I’ve ever made, but I already provided a comparable entry for a comparable subject to demonstrate why the Rob Kirkpatrick article is appropriate in tone, scope, & newsworthiness etc. I also addressed another edited entry and IMO its appropriateness. As one final example, I invite anyone to review my recent edits to the entry for Thomas Dunne Books (it had been badly outdated, read like a years-old company press release rather than a reference entry, had disproportionate focus on non-newsworthy company employees, and even listed several “films” that seem not to have been made!) and argue that my edits did not make the entry cleaner, up-to-date, more accurate, and more reference-appropriate. I don’t feel the need to justify why I chose to edit the entries I did, and as I’ve said, I think I’m done with Wikipedia now given the militancy and sometimes even hostility with which some editors treat fellow volunteers. As I have said a few times now, if any editor sees ways to improve any of the entries I've edited based on common and professional reference standards for the end user, I don't oppose that, I applaud it! Otherwise, I’m think I'm done here and have nothing else to say. Thanks. Realgonerocket88 ( talk) 14:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
There are two remaining article backlinks to 1969: The Year Everything Changed, one does appear to have originally been added as advertising [10] but has since been independently moved in with the other references. The other appears to have been added independently [11]. Spectrum {{ UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D ( talk) 22:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
It also looks like there were some series of edits in the past to advertise upon release, e.g. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Spectrum {{ UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D ( talk) 22:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Seems pretty self explanatory based on the name and edit history so far. Looks like someone from the MDC is trying to scrub the MDC’s page of all controversies etc. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 16:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Account with the same name as Indian politician Nisith Pramanik continues to add unreferenced, non-NPOV biography to the article. Ignored COI warning given on the 9th. Cryptic Canadian 08:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This editor is updating the Cameron Whitten article on Whitten's behalf, per this edit summary. I invite editors to review recent changes to article. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Declared COI on userpage, then proceeded to game the system by creating a draft, omitting the review templates and moving it to main article space. Claims to have understood what the problem is, but actions indicate they have not. Kleuske ( talk) 08:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
This editor is repeatedly submitting drafts on A2Hosting from their sandbox, and is blanking and resubmitting when the drafts are declined or rejected. This appears to be an attempt to game the system. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
This involves straight up fabrication of articles for days-old organizations, as well as general promotion, and the user above needs to be blocked.
The problem list:
I'm a little bit disgusted by how brazen the falsehoods are here. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 00:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Please note that I first started with the Contemporary and Digital Art Fair. This led me to the digital art museums which one has been requested for speedy deletion because I made an honest mistake. The draft article for Elena of CaDAF was moved to draft because it wasn’t notable. The artist I found on MMoDA website and had decent links on their webpages. I started with one article and began expanding down that rabbit hole. I was trying to make decent contributions to Wikipedia. I have corrected mistakes in the past on here including the deletion of bad articles. I found MMoDA on Instagram and made them a page. Once a few articles were tagged with not notable I started trying to improve them all. MMoDA was a low priority but I have sources for MoCDA. I apologize for my mistake. I did not know this would cause such a large issue on my end.
UndyingCarrot (
talk) 01:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the main contributor to Andrew Miltenberg, Jeanettenj11, is an editor with an undisclosed conflict of interest. I'd like an editor with more COI experience to weigh in. The user's first edit was in 2016 to create the overtly promotional first draft of the article on Miltenberg, and they have had a sustained interest in the article over 4 years. Other than this the editor's only main contributions have been the creation of Campus assault due process, an article which mentions Miltenberg and could have been created to bolster the ostensible area Miltenberg specialises in, "campus assault due process" (a euphemism for "defending students who have been alleged to commit sexual assault"). Another edit was to Columbia University rape controversy, in order to add mention of Miltenberg. Jeanettenj11 has also edited Joe Kyrillos and Paul Matey, people perhaps related to Miltenberg or perhaps unrelated. I can't see why the editor would have such a limited and persistent focus and immediate expertise in the use of referencing and wikitext unless there's an undisclosed COI, a POV to push or sockpuppetry. — Bilorv ( talk) 20:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
A draft of Joshua Moody, who is connected to "College Church," was created by "Juliacollegechurch" on March 30 and rejected at AfC. This editor was issued a COI warning around the same time.
Today, a mainspace article for this subject was created by another user. It was then further modified by "Juliacollegechurch" without addressing their CoI warning.
This editor also took interest in Zach Fallon, another subject with connections to "College Church," which they had edited in concurrence with the creator of the new Joshua Moody article ( [18] [19]), who also has interest in subjects related to "College Church." (However, that user had not been served a CoI notice until now.) Cryptic Canadian 02:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
A few days ago, on April 1st, there was a vandalization of Papa John's Pizza. It purported that the company was playing a prank by saying they would offer free pizzas to commentators on social media. A few hours after this post user:Papa John's International posted saying they were the official account tried to remove it. Both edit attempts were held up by the pending changes.
The second user with the name of the company, was promptly banned for multiple violations of Wikipedia tos with undisclosed COI and an account representing an organization. However, the other user, by user:Paulobrien92 appears to also hold a undisclosed COI.
Evidence: (Redacted)
His prose and style of wording is very formal and extremely similar to the PapajohnInternational user. Both are new accounts. It appears to be sockpuppetry. Who ever did the COI on the PapajohnInt guy, likely didn't see the other user.
- AH ( talk) 23:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Clearly a PR employee of Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group that ignoring uw-paid3 warning as well as tag herself with paid editing disclosure. Matthew hk ( talk) 11:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
According to evidence added to an SPI, it seems very likely that topics related to Russian billionaire Ruslan Baisarov could have paid edits. I think the bio could use some scrutiny maybe starting with the claim of holding a doctorate. Also a bit odd that it doesn't mention his Chechen Muslim heritage although it is documented by Sputnik news agency, Moscow Times [20], UCL Press [21], and others.
More activities of sockfarm noted at WP:PAIDLIST#Percepto and was discussed at this noticeboard, now archive 157 ☆ Bri ( talk) 04:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Single-purpose account, only edits are creating and promoting Ahmad Massoud. The account was created in 2016, and since then made no major edits outside this one article. On April 14th, he uploaded two images (with metadata) of Massoud as his own work on commons-wiki and I'm unable to locate those images online so this strongly implies a close connection with the subject. Can someone please take a look if the subject is even notable? Thank you. GSS 💬 17:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
According to
[22]: "...Founded in 2020 by Malik Nomi, Daily Cyprus has come a long way from its beginnings in Limassol..."
. NomiWrites added links to Daily Cyprus in various Cyprus related articles.
Cinadon
36 18:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Could an administrator determine if Hypebeast Ltd. is a recreation of Hypebeast, which would be circumventing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypebeast (2nd nomination)? ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The user seem a undisclosed paid editor that keep on gaming the draft system to spam re-submission for borderline notable to clear cut non-notable biographical draft. Any chance to deal with this ? Matthew hk ( talk) 00:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Username is the same as the film that they appear to be promoting here. Despite being notified here, they still submitted a draft article on the topic. Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 02:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Refer to WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 110#Promotional startup articles and their SPA creators for background. Asking for more eyes on Faisal Farooqui. I’ve done cleanup on this, but an aggressive effort seems to be underway to restore promotion of a businessperson. I’ve warned the other editor but they are continuing. ☆ Bri ( talk) 04:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm shocked, just shocked, to report that new checkuser evidence shows that this article has been dominated by a sockfarm since its inception in 2007 up through the recent wonderful ad hominem. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be a paid editor basing most of the article on unpublished interviews. Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 04:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
You mean here? Also, please don't twist my words and intent. I fully intend to do what it takes to get this article up within Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you. And to whom should I show my final product? Shall we work on one paragraph at a time? Debora Holmes ( talk) 17:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Also, let me make it very clear that Dr. Lundberg did not instruct me as to what to write. When we say "behalf", I want to make it clear that concern is over the current inaccuracy that he noticed many years ago. Thanks. Debora Holmes ( talk) 17:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
concern is over the current inaccuracy that he noticed many years ago, you are confirming that you're in touch with the article subject and undertaking edits on their behalf. In order to preserve neutrality of our articles, we don't do that. We stay independent of our subjects. A selection of the problems with your recent edits (which boil down to a non-neutral approach) is as follows:
References
Thank you VERY much for this specific feedback, ThatMontrealIP. As I've mentioned, I'm new to doing this and eager to learn. I think I understand what it is you want to see now, but please, please, gently guide me if I err. Also, if you got the impression that I've known Dr. Lundberg for years, that is absolutely not the case. It was only through a fellow academic a few months ago that I became aware of the issues with his page, and I had never exchanged a single email with him (let alone met him or worked with him etc.) until then. I'm going to suggest the first addition on the Talk page in the next hour. Will someone be able to comment fairly soon? Debora Holmes ( talk) 19:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your valuable comments. This is exactly the kind of advice I've been looking for! Debora Holmes ( talk) 20:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC) I've just posted a proposal for the first section at this talk page: /info/en/?search=Talk:George_D._Lundberg#First_proposed_addition_to_Lundberg_article . I'm not sure if I posted the references/footnotes in the proper format for this talk page (I've been working in Virtual Mode so not too familiar with the usual Wiki mode), but it's evident at least where each of the 19 footnotes belong. In addition, there's 27 links, but not sure those show up. Let me know what you think. Debora Holmes ( talk) 23:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
{{request edit}}
to activate it. The advice on how to request edits is at
Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request.
TSventon (
talk) 13:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[User:TSventon|TSventon], thanks so very much for the guidance -- I will try doing that now! Also, I hope I entered your name right so that you get this... Debora Holmes ( talk) 16:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm here to ask a question for myself, actually. I was thinking about working on a couple articles about United Methodist Church history, but I am a member of the denomination and occasional volunteer (though any editing I will do is purely on my own initiative and is not in any way asked or required of me). I plan to work on history only, and I feel that I can write about it neutrally, but I recognize that I've reported plenty of COI editors here who have said the exact same thing. My question is basically "does that seem like enough of a relationship that I should be making edit requests?" I will declare the COI on my COI list, and if people feel it's appropriate I can mark myself as a connected contributor and/or do edit requests, but I feel like it's a fairly weak COI (I don't hold any official positions or anything) so I wanted to ask here for feedback before doing anything. creffett ( talk) 18:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I was searching for recent updates about the group, when I saw an article published by Al-Monitor [1] referring to a contract between the organization mentioned above and the DC law firm Cogent Law Group, to "develop Wikipedia page" (this Short Form Registration Statement contains the service). The news website also says that the organization wants its communist ideology kept out of sight, because it wants to seek support in the United States. I am not going to point fingers at anyone, but I noticed that in the infobox "Social-democracy" had replaced commnism. For the time being, I added a reliable source to restore that certain part, however, I am writing this if any further action should be done. Pahlevun ( talk) 18:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Draftified article - was originally in mainspace, I moved it to draft based on my suspicions of UPE or undisclosed COI. Article has strong indications of COI/UPE - see my note on the draft's talk page, but basically it is going out of its way to support the article's subject's claims and specifically counter controversies in a way that goes beyond "bias" and into "intentional promotion." Additional evidence which I can't share because of outing concerns, as usual will provide to admins privately on request. creffett ( talk) 16:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Article Philip Sheffield created by Heliumsop in 2009 without any sources. Unsourced edits in 2012 from Durham University ip 129.234.78.225 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) seem primary sourced. Recent unsourced edits from Helium soprano suggest COI. All three seem SPA connected to Philip Sheffield. -- OrestesLebt ( talk) 21:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
(prefatory declaration: I am COI with respect to the school in question as a former student/employee, so I'm probably taking it a little too easy on the editor I'm reporting)
IP editor 72.83.15.95 has been adding a lot of links to scrc.gmu.edu to a large number of pages, to the point that I am very confident that the IP editor is connected to it in some way. It's a legitimate GLAM site (if I understand correctly, it's George Mason University's "rare documents" archive), and it's presumably well-intentioned. The problem here is that they're not declaring that connection - I left a COI template on their talk page last week and added a personal note encouraging them to declare their connection and to register an account, but they have continued editing the past couple days without response to the COI warning, so I'm bringing it here. creffett ( talk) 20:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Article name is same as username. Idan ( talk) 21:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Lol, I saw this too and messaged them (Juniatta) directly on Instagram and they said that they had absolutely nothing to do with the article. Vika messaged me back and said that it was probably her social media manager since they knew about the book and other insider things on the organization so it wasn’t a conflict of interest on the founder’s part but it was someone close to the organization — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.125.81 ( talk • contribs)
The stuff is accurate though, I don’t think that there is a conflict of interest...I talked to the guy and he was genuinely confused. Thought that you needed your username to be the same name as the article you were writing...he seems so confused right now to be honest
Well I mean it is fairly accurate as far as I can see, their resources seem good for the information that they have Tilly ( talk) 12:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
In Talk:OpIndia § Is this a coordinated Hit Job on Opindia?, 58.182.176.169 posted an extremely long statement that reads as if it were written by OpIndia's legal advisor. They claim "NO COI", but I am having a very hard time believing them considering the personal attacks and demands in the statement.
In case you are not familiar with the background, OpIndia was blacklisted from Wikipedia after the editor of OpIndia doxed a Wikipedia editor in early March in retaliation for their edits on a political topic, forcing them to vanish for safety reasons. The community showed consensus to deprecate OpIndia in a noticeboard discussion, and the resulting perennial sources list entry is at WP:OPINDIA. — Newslinger talk 12:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
cartelized wolves packing order. creffett ( talk) 12:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear Newslinger and Creffett, I am reading this this and still laughing hard, specially the "by OpIndia's legal advisor" is very funny, "wow, you overestimate my law skills a lot". Since you made efforts to make this post, let me address each concern.
1. I have nothing to do with law profession or journalism.
2. I know Opindia as source only recently. No loyalty of any kind. I do not care about them or their staff.
3. I have explained in my OP how I arrived at that article, then google search took me to couple of Opindia article, I do not know the people involved in those articles (journalists/writers, and other parties, nor I specifically recall having come across any of those journalists and editors during my editing on wikipedia). These are all strangers to me, beyond basic human compassion I have no love or hate for them.
4. I have not personally named or attacked anyone. How can I attack when I do not even know the people or the background. All I have done is I articulated my concerns after incidentally coming across Opindia wikipedia article and subsequently articles written by Opindia regarding some wikipdia malpartices,. In my OP, I copied and pasted the heading of the first article on google search as an example post written by Opindia staff. Thats it. It neither means I agree or know the facts/truth. But it raised my concerns. I can not recall who the people are in those articles as I have not come across them on wikipedia. I really have nothing to go on against any individuals. I have no agenda, no paid/unpaid mission, no axes to grind. I am not stupid to lose my peace of mind by picking useless wikipedia fights with strangers. I have no intentions to get into personal issues of historical tussles behind the issue.
5. After reading Opindia talk page (which I felt was too messy for me to comment, I did not participate in any ongoing discussion) and after reading couple articles written by Opindia, I was certainly alarmed. I listed my concerns on the talk page in the hope there is some centralised effort to look at the issues in holistic unbiased manner if there is something wrong going on. There is nothing more to it.
6. Are you two in anyway involved with this issue? If so, apologies guys if you felt my post was personal. Seems you feel passionately about the topic and very sensitive about it? I do not have any professional, legal, personal attachment to the issue really, I have nothing against you or anyone else. My post is meant to be "non-personal post" about resolving the bigger structural flaws in wikipedia process and how things work. Please focus on the concerns/issues, about the people I am not concerned because I do not know who is right or wrong in their past edit/block wars.
7. My post is not about the individuals (they come and go), but about the wider concepts/concerns of fairness, transparency, democratisation of power on wikipedia. If wrong things are happening at wikipedia at a larger scale, then it will slowly kill the wikipedia. Imagine all my and every body else's contribution being wasted if wikipedia is replaced by major nations by something else like China did. Wikipedia thrives only due to google search engine algorithm. The day its gone, our contributions will not appear in google search and all the effort will be wasted. After reading the articles, I have genuine concern about wiki becoming personal hegemony of select few and then being chocked to death. Let me know/assure me those concerns are either unfounded or if there is a mechanism to proactively identify and fix those issues.
8. I do not know if it puts your heart at ease, I do not really know what more to say, because your concerns of me being linked/COI to any of the parties are completely unfounded. Be assured.
9. My post is out of curiosity, not OCI/malice/game. Each point can be answered by posting a link to some thread where those discussions have already taken place. I do not think my concerns are invalid in anyway. I want to ask two questions: (a) are my concerns in the OP invalid? (b) I do not have any COI, but hypothetically if someone with COI raised the same concerns would not those still be valid. My focus is on issues, not individuals involved. I do not know any of them, I do not want to make it my personal mess either, I completely want to stay out of that aspect of the discussion.
10. Sorry, I am still laughing, I find this post strange and funny, because in every sense of the word I am far far far away from Opindia or other people involved with the issue.
11. I still thank you, because of you I got to know how this noticeboard works. Please feel free to voice more concerns if you have any, I will try to answer. Wiki being anonymous, I do not really have any means of meeting or showing I am not involved/related to Opindia, etc. I find it super funny though. I hope this puts your heart at ease. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 13:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I was doing some cleanup of the Wickety Wak page. Despite it being factually correct, it does not comply with Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. Any attempts by myself and other editors to maintain or expand article to compliance keep getting reverted by authors who have close connection to subject material, including removal of User:Talk entries and tags.
The authors have expressed defensive behaviour over these edits on my talk page, and use various different IPs to revert our edits.
We've had this article submitted for peer review, who have recommended we take this to WP:SPI We also suspect COI. Could we get some assistance in resolving this issue please? -- LoofNeZorf ( talk) 05:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I decided to expand the article the book Good Faith Collaboration and as it happens one of the RS is a book review written by me ( [29]). Is it ok for me to use it as one of the sources for the article? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Expert editors are cautioned to be mindful of the potential conflict of interest that may arise if editing articles which concern an expert's own research, writings, discoveries, or the article about herself/himself. Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy does allow an editor to include information from his or her own publications in Wikipedia articles and to cite them. This may only be done when the editors are sure that the Wikipedia article maintains a neutral point of view and their material has been published in a reliable source by a third party. If the neutrality or reliability are questioned, it is Wikipedia consensus, rather than the expert editor, that decides what is to be done. When in doubt, it is good practice for a person who may have a conflict of interest to disclose it on the relevant article's talk page and to suggest changes there rather than in the article. Transparency is essential to the workings of Wikipedia.. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Draft name is same as username. Non notable article and username policy. Idan ( talk) 07:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)