This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 195 | ← | Archive 199 | Archive 200 | Archive 201 | Archive 202 | Archive 203 | → | Archive 205 |
Unsure what the exact relationship is, they hinted at being an alumnus and donor of the school on their talk page but refused to disclose either. Jahaza has a long history of skewing the page away from NPOV which has been addressed by multiple editors. Jahaza does not think that they have a COI and they don't think that there are NPOV issues with their edits to the page... Despite multiple unrelated editors apparently being able to diagnose their undisclosed COI based on their editing alone. According to xtools they are the #1 editor on the main page [1] and it is their most edited page [2]. Also the #1 editor at List of Deerfield Academy alumni [3]. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationshipsper WP:COI [emphasis added]).
An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder.[emphasis added]) If you are a donor/benefactor/patron, are you not investing in the institution? GuardianH ( talk) 01:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user Klermodalwonfeyz has refused to answer any questions about their potential COI with Vivek Ramaswamy when asked by multiple editors, and has instead continued to edit the article repeatedly, re-installing the same edits after they're reverted for inserting a non-neutral POV.
On 26 August, User:Neutrality reverted a series of edits made by this user on the grounds of them having a promotional tone and poor phrasing. Klermodalwonfeyz made more edits immediately after this, which Neutrality again reverted on the grounds of POV. Klermodalwonfeyz again made more edits to the article, which were reverted and a question was left on Klermodalwonfeyz's talk page about their potential conflict of interest, due to the promotional tones of their edits.
There was no response to this question, and on 9 September, after clearing their talk page of some notices, they again began editing the article - there were a series of edits that day. The next day, User:SPECIFICO left a note on the user's talk page asking them to respond to Neutrality's question.
There was, again, no response to this question, and the user continued to the next day without responding. Having the page on my watchlist, I noticed the edits and the strange phrasing and awkward language that Neutrality had noted in the very first diff in this report. For example, they introduced sentences such as:
I reverted to the last good version, and went to their talk page to leave a notice about this awkward phrasing, where I saw the two previous requests to respond to claims about COI. In my notice, I mentioned the awkward phrasing, the usage of what appears to be phonetically-spelt English in edit summaries ( this edit summary is... "ad sayt. muv bodom tu top.") and again reiterated that they needed to respond to this COI question.
There was, for the third time, no response to this question, as they continued to edit - even having been reverted by multiple users ( User:David O. Johnson reverted their changes once and twice to the last good version). When the editor added these changes again, including the chopped-up sentences highlighted by David O. Johnson in his revert rationale, I reverted, noting that they still had not responded to any of the COI questions... only for them to continue editing the article within hours.
After FIVE attempts (three on their actual talk page, two in edit summaries) to ask them to answer this question, there has been absolutely nothing from this user, barring an edit summary in phonetically-spelt English which to the best of my reading ability says something about being asked for "payments of interest" or "ransom", further heightening my concerns. In my eyes this case borders on a WP:CIR one so feel free to direct me to ANI or another venue, but given the clear issue with COI, I'm left with no choice but to file a report here. — ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 16:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The user in question blanking the entire article and replacing the content with unsourced information which pointedly lacks any of the criticism present in the original article. I reverted and left a COI note on his talk page, but that was shortly followed by reverting my revert and putting back the unsourced content ( diff of the original and edits in question). The user isn't extremely active on Wikipedia by any stretch but they've been warned in the past for COI edits and their edit history is exclusively a laundry list of COI issues (Allan R. Bomhard is one of the most active authors in both theories, which are typically considered fringe theories within linguistics). I think this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE, but also there's a nine year gap between the edits in question and today.
Just to disclose my own COI of sorts here, I recently (unsuccessfully) AfD'd the article in question. Warrenmck ( talk) 20:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Editor has been forthcoming that they are Todd Newton. Now we need more eyes to counter WP:OWNERSHIP issues, like overloading images. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 18:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I've found an ad for a job which a blocked user has taken. It contains some information about the subject of the article which has been created recently (last 2 months at most): an author who has written 14 non-fiction books, contributed to many others and had a long career as a journalist with the weekly LIFE Magazine and Cleveland Plain-Dealer
. I haven't been able to find the article myself, but if anyone else can work out which article it is, please let me know so I can block the creator and G5 the article.
SmartSE (
talk)
17:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
User who has edited articles without disclosing conflict on interest, potential to have used other IP addresses and user names too. Happily888 ( talk) 08:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Please see the editor's user talk page, particularly their not making direct and straightforward replies to questions about undeclared paid editing 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?go=Go&search=insource%3A%22French+Comics+in+English%22 A PhD thesis titled French Comics in English by Bartholomew Hulley has been getting cite spammed by various IPs and Phdacademicgenius such as in Special:Diff/1161075974 and Special:Diff/1161082869. Graywalls ( talk) 19:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
I accepted this draft at Articles for Creation. Off-wiki coordination on the developer's web site was then pointed out to me by User:Ferret. See https://forum.defold.com/t/help-needed-to-create-defold-wikipedia-article/66645/17 . I have reverted my acceptance of the draft. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
The bots at AIV recently caught this heavy editing of the article on the mayor of Dallas. All have come from IPs ... some from a range in the Philadelphia area, the most recent from the static Dallas one linked above. In the last series have been some large removals of sourced content as "inaccurate". It also seems a lot more positive, fluffy content has been added. Per Ad Orientem's comment at AIV, this needs a look from someone familiar with, or willing to get familiar with, the situation to distinguish the good edits from the bad. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a proposal at the village pump to add a new COI disclosure requirement. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Required disclosure for admin paid advising. – Joe ( talk) 11:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
The standard autobiographical COI issues--addition of unsourced, anecdotal content, name dropping, etc. I reverted once and left a COI notice, to no avail. This is an interesting promise of intent [18]. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 13:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Huge additions of unreferenced text in their own article. Adding themselves to another article, George Green's School, with a reference that doesn't even mention George Green's School. [19] COI warning on talk page but apparently ignored. ThaddeusSholto ( talk) 20:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Truedad21 has existed as a single-purpose account for editing the BLP Richard A. Cohen, a proponent of conversion therapy, since March 2019. Of their 140 edits, 100% are either edits to the BLP itself, its talk page, or disputes with other editors regarding Mr. Cohen. Many of these edits have been reverted as promotional in nature or otherwise undue. In March 2019 Truedad21 also uploaded two images of Cohen, listing each one as his "Own Work".
After refusing to answer
questions about a potential COI with Cohen first raised in 2020, he has recently stated definitively that he has no direct connection with the subject
[20] and (after some additional prodding) that he had selected "Own Work" when uploading the images in error
[21]. Curiously, these image are labeled as having been created on 19 February 2019, about a month before Truedad21's account was created, yet later he claimed that these images were obtained from the source (PATH) by request. The photo exists on a number of bookcovers and websites independently of me.
[22] Were the photos made widely available between February and March 2019, just as Truedad21 decided to create his account?
There have been some accompanying intemperate remarks from Truedad21, though they are not egregious: suggesting that others are trying to "cancel" him [23] and accusing me specifically of acting in bad faith because of an ideological distaste for Cohen's work [24]. Of course I do agree with mainstream psychology that conversion therapy is fringe, but my main concern here is that this editor's behavior really does not seem like that of an uninvolved person. I'd be curious to hear what others on this noticeboard think.
The second account I've listed here, Lukehhuneycutt, is an odd duck. It's made only one edit, a post at Talk:Richard A. Cohen supporting Truedad21's point of view [25]. The account was created four days before its first (and only) edit, which is often considered a red flag for sockpuppetry.
You can read the relevant article talk page discussions here and here. Discussions of Truedad21 and COI can be found at user talk pages here (and following) and here.
Please note that I do not consider any of this dispositive that Truedad21 is lying about not having a COI with Cohen, but I do think that it warrants more eyes on the situation –– and that perhaps CU may be warranted to check against sockpuppetry with Lukehhuneycutt. Cheers, Generalrelative ( talk) 22:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
This user has been editing various Singaporean politician and people's articles, usually adding promotional or resume-like prose, particularly on K. Shanmugam. It may suggest a COI or paid relationship with these subjects. Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 02:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Someone here might want to take a look at the recent history of Mad River Brewing Company and contributions of User:Madriverbrews. At the very least, the username fails WP:CORPNAME. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
User is repeatedly removing the image on the page and/or adding copyrighted images claiming the artist's team does not want the image on the pages. They have continued making these edits after being notified of a potential COI and is claiming to speak for the artist. CAMERAwMUSTACHE ( talk) 02:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Only edits have been to add content to the
Stacy Spikes biography, some of it promotional in tone (writing in Wikipedia's voice with no source that MoviePass is a vital hub
whose events offer a unique opportunity for filmmakers and audiences
, headed by a person whose work there prompted a reevaluation of the way audiences engage with movies in theaters
), some of it publicity photos and scans of book covers, some of it copyvio text from promotional material. No response to multiple talk page messages asking about a possible COI, and they've failed to take on board a uw-advert2 warning asking them to write objectively.
Belbury (
talk)
08:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Deeply WP:UNDUE edits, poorly sourced and self-interested. User appears primarily to be using these articles to settle personal scores. The only question is how much to revert. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 14:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Promotional biography of a commercial auctioneer, written by a SPA. Could use some heavy trimming. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
There has been significant edit warring in the aforementioned page (pretty much all of the recent history is that), which I personally believe to be related to self promotion.
For context, there was a recent community schism. One half of the schism is not and has not attempted to link to itself in the wikipedia page, however the other group controls a page that has been linked for some time. I believe that consistently re-adding the link to this page constitutes self-promotion, and that most likely when it was originally added in this edit it was also self promotion then. I cannot prove this as both the original addition of the link and all following edits to re-add it were made by IP addresses, but I believe the high degree of engagement in consistently re-adding the reference in an otherwise relatively inactive article circumstantially implies this to be the case.
There was an attempt to discuss this in the talk section however the edit war has continued without much engagement there from either side. It was suggested by User:Deepfriedokra that a COI be declared and that involved parties stop personally editing the page. I have personally stopped editing the page aside from recently reverting a change made by another person in my community.
I did attempt to find and notify the involved parties, however the only individual who has an actual account was the aforementioned fellow from my own community.
Thanks for any review.
-- 98.97.138.195 ( talk) 01:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I've been advised to set up an account in order to have some material removed on the page relating to my work. The headline paragraph of the biog draws attention to two actors who left EastEnders during my tenure there. This is hardly noteworthy in a public forum other than, perhaps, to big fans of the series. In the context of my thirty year career, it's pretty insignificant. The suggestion here is that it was SO important that I left the BBC because of it. This is simply not true.
At the same time, citations in the body of the article relating to this eg an interview with Dominic Treadwell-Collins, simply say that he was sad that characters he created left the series. The editor has implied that this is 'evidence' of Dom being critical of me. other 'evidence' is cited from Digital Spy, The Sun and Hello- hardly secure sources in anybody's book. As a soap producer Dom is well aware that this is just the natural churn of soap. These additions have been removed from this biog before but are continually added, despite various editors agreement for them to be removed. So I'm not sure how that can be resolved?
Birkenhead01 ( talk) 15:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Steven.Valentine has edited multiple articles - not all of them are listed above - to add unsourced material that includes or explicitly focuses on "Steven Valentine." They have not replied to the message left on their User Talk page or even used edit summaries. ElKevbo ( talk) 22:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Epesi is an article that has a lot of promotional language in it. Also, it has very few sources; most of them are just reviews. This report coincides with an AfD nom.
Epesi was created multiple times by User:Jtylek under a few names and speedy deleted. Jtylek's edits account for 81.7% of the article. The creators of Epesi are Janusz Tylek and Karina Tylek (who also appears to have edited the article with User:Ktylek). They haven't edited in at least six months so I have not warned them. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 14:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
JumpingJimmySingh is blocked from editing India League due to a conflict of interest (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 182#India League. Their editing continues to consist of attempts to establish that 1928 Institute is a continuation of the India League, and they probably should have been blocked from the latter at the same time as the other block. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
CN Digital Work has made repeated efforts to add material regarding Khachaturyants' philanthropic work (see [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and [31].) In all cases, CN has added notes about arts projects that Khachaturyants has financed, but provided links that do not verify such financial support. CN has been warned about this several times, but has not engaged in any discussion about the matter. The nature of the user's edits (they have made no edits other than to this one article), as well as the user's name, lead to the conclusion that they are working on behalf of Khachaturyants. The user has been notified of this discussion. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
User:ChambersMgt received a soft username block this week for making very mildly promotional edits to biographies of clients from https://www.chambersmgt.com/artists
User:EGCM1 appears to be the new username the company selected, but they haven't acknowledged or followed Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest and paid editing. They've also moved up a notch to creating promotionally-tinged draft articles about their clients ( Draft:Dee Allum and Draft:Reuben Kaye so far) and adding a client's podcast as an example on another article without disclosing the professional connection. Belbury ( talk) 18:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
People of the noticeboard might want to take a look at Aptera (solar electric vehicle). I just removed a section on options that was sourced to company brochures. There are other dubious WP:PROMO-ish things going on, especially section Configurations, also cited to the crowdfunding website or the brochures and/or press releases. The article's creator, Fotoguru received a PROMO warning on their talkpage. Their response to my inquiry about a conflict referenced an investment but I'm not going to dig into it; people reading this are welcome to take whatever action is appropriate next. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Added another article, almost exactly half of the references are the corp site also. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Once all the cruft is removed, I think they'll be short enough to easily merge into one article. Graywalls ( talk) 20:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
My colleagues and I published a Russian-language investigation about Vyacheslav Kantor. You can use Google Translate.
The main idea is that since 2009, Kantor’s PR people have been closely involved in his articles in Russian and English Wikipedia and have pushed many articles about organizations associated with him. The main account, Acvec ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was blocked in 2019 for copyright violation. Then the account accidentally admitted that 'we are the PR department of the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation'
After Acvec was blocked, they not only actively edited as anonymous, but also decided to look for experienced Wikipedians and involve them with their reputation to work on the necessary articles. In particular, from November 2021 to May 2022, Николай Эйхвальд ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one of the most famous and titled authors of Wikipedia in Russian, an eleven-time WikiPrize winner in ru-wiki with 137 thousand edits, took up articles about Kantor. For Kantor's sake, Eichwald returned to English-language Wikipedia, where he had made only 7 edits over the previous 6 years. It detailed Kantor's public activities, removed references to his ties to Putin, and created a new article about the ridiculous concept of Secure Tolerance that Kantor and his PR consultants came up with back in 2011.
Also, in September 2023, as part of a campaign to lift sanctions against Kantor, a new editor, Kaplans2007, appeared in the English-language article. He said that Kantor is not a Russian entrepreneur at all, is not connected with Putin, and the sanctions were imposed on him unfairly.
My request is the following:
Editor came in last, brought 13k article to massively puff the current one. scope_creep Talk 06:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Recently, a FFU Request was made a few days after attempts were made by Ltowndown12 to "update" the cover on the Variety (magazine) article to a "newer cover image".
After I commented that I saw no need to update the image, an IP purporting to be the 'Director of Brand Marketing for Variety' commented in reply. A close IPv6 address (4 segments the same) also edited Variety (magazine) around the same time as the other attempts. They were told no, and I believe this may have been a marketing stunt by the management at Variety to push the Scarlett Johansson cover
I think this shows that the not only is the IP range and Ltowndown12 linked but there is absolutely UPE going on in relation to Variety (magazine). Therefore, although this is not an SPI, I would ask for a CU to check (but obviously not confirm) the link between the user and the IPs. - Rich T| C| E-Mail 23:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I want to draw attention to CharlieSmith98's edits to Sulaiman Al-Fahim. The account seems to have been created less than a month ago for the sole purpose of sanitizing the article of unflattering (yet well-sourced) material and adding random puffery to the article. Similar for 1NicholasSchmitt1. ViewmontViking has tackled some of the edits but should CharlieSmith98 & 1NicholasSchmitt1 still be editing this article? 87.200.229.168 ( talk) 17:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Highly promotional editing across the board, often using unreliable sources, often includes sizeable amounts of unverified content in BLPs, and often WP:OVERCITEs. Admits to a COI with the four articles listed above. Has created 43 articles, of which 11 have been deleted. Most of the remaining articles have serious problems. Hipal ( talk) 16:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Surviving articles created by this user and my assessment:
I think probably a handful of these would survive a deletion discussion in their current state, and the rest would be deleted. Overall I don't find it credible that this user's COI is limited to the four articles they've admitted to. Jfire ( talk) 02:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Courtesy link: WP:ANI § Bmchedlishvili
This is a heads-up of an ongoing situation that has now spread to ANI. Bmchedlishvili ( talk · contribs · count) is "deputy head of strategic communications department at Prime-Minister office Georgia", and has been editing and warring at Irakli Garibashvili (current P.M.). There has been discussion at Talk:Irakli Garibashvili and at User talk:Bmchedlishvili. This has now spread to this discussion at ANI. Imho, that discussion should have been started here and not at ANI, and I will make a proposal there to move it here, but in the meantime, in order to minimize fragmentation of discussion, interested readers here should either be patient here or respond there if you have to until it is moved. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion copied from AN/I:
Bmchedlishvili (
talk ·
contribs) has repeatedly removed sourced, verified content from
Irakli Garibashvili without explanation. They have also repeatedly changed the lead image (without explanation) multiple times, despite there
there being a discussion in progress on that topic. I have attempted to discuss the matter with them on their talk page; I have warned them multiple times that if they continue this behaviour they will end up here. I have discussed the issue on the talk page (
see discussion), along with
NobodyUser and
Emperor of Emperors. However, many of their responses were accusations of bad faith on my part: and i asking again, whats your interest when you change our image? you trying to hart us hard, lets talk with mods!
yes you really "care" and trying to add wrong information and bad picture for us
That discussion did not prove fruitful, and they have continued their unexplained changes, neither leaving edit summaries or responding to my messages on their talk page, two of which offered technical help if they are having difficulties leaving edit summaries.
I don't want to be here. I want to sort this out on a talk page. But when a user completely ignores discussion, and continues their same edits with no explanation, and accuses me of attacking the article, something needs to be done.
Diffs of unexplained content removal:
Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
deputy head of strategic communications department at Prime-Minister office Georgia,Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Not in disagreement with most of the above, but imho, this is the wrong venue for action on this. I would like to suggest that this be moved to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard where it more properly belongs. If there is no objection, I will move the discussion, or Edward-Woodrow, as OP, feel free to do the move (see Template:Discussion moved to). Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 18:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Bare minimum, Bmchedlishvili ( talk · contribs) needs p-blocked from Irakli Garibashvili to end the COI editing there. They can discuss changes on the Talk page. If they move to tendentiously editing other Georgia-related articles, then a topic ban could be implemented, but I'm not sure it needs to be done right now. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 17:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
This editor has exhibited
WP:OWN behaviour over these two articles for some time, including moving them into article space after they were rejected at
WP:AFC. The editor's previous responses to questions about COI (with other articles) have been somewhat evasive and stretched credulity as evidenced
here. They have now ignored a specific request about a COI
here and continued editing. There have also been some discussions on Commons that
Timtrent may be able to speak to.
I want to abide by
WP:OUTING (and please let me know if independent editors think this is crossing that line), but it is not difficult to find from the sources provided that the two subjects are connected in that they have children who married one another and thus they share grandchildren. Much of the content, and some of the photos, that the editor has added, are not publicly available and strongly suggest a family connection.
Melcous (
talk)
22:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
It does seem like Jim May passes NPROF criteria though. If good sourcing can't be found, the article can be trimmed down to as short as 2-3 sentences whether or not the creator likes it. Graywalls ( talk) 12:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
...shocked in both how I have behaved...about. My prior thoughts that "I am sorry that you have chosen to leave" no longer hold good. Your arguments remain that of a paid editor, whether paid or not. Your COI is large and you are not showing repentance. I see you as WP:NOTHERE and feel it a strong probability that your stated decision to leave will be made firm by an administrator observing this conversation. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
That Carey3146 be blocked indefinitely from the English Language Wikipedia as WP:NOTHERE and as an editor with a strong WP:COI whose arguments in favour of their edits are deceptive, who obfuscates and dissembles when questioned, and is not displaying the attributes of a collegial editor despite strong encouragement. This behaviour has been exhibited since the start of their editing here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Generic discussion about the COI itself should continue in the section above the proposal. This section is purely for the discussion of the proposal itself.
Adding possible spam links, claims in edit summaries that they are “updating the information for the health system”, Restored external links added in 2021 that had been removed only 18 minutes prior, and has failed to disclosed a COI. 24.211.70.219 ( talk) 15:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Editing on own article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 18:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Username suggests the editor is the same person as the subject of the article. I reverted this series of changes with the edit summary "Unsourced, non-neutral ("But failureship again, in its desire to obstruct truth to protect their status quo, failed epically to do the right thing for Wisconsin and our nation"), likely conflict of interest based on username", and added a CoI notice to the editor's Talk page. Editor has since made further non-neutral and unsourced changes, including statements like "Ramthun sought truth to end the mysteries and allegations of the presidential election results in Wisconsin". Tacyarg ( talk) 21:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I can't quite figure out the motive, but is suspicious and appears to be intentionally evading scrutiny and a potential sock situation in topic area (industry/organization psychology) that has historically seen sock activity. Unfortunately, I don't have a clue as to who the Sockpuppeteer maybe. The account was created, made one large contribution over 10kB an hour after the account was created and disappeared. The very next day, an Auckland, New Zealand IP 219.89.62.146 added about 7,600 bytes. This happened at the end of September 2023 and neither of them have any other contributions and have gone dormant. These two edits are definitely someone with fair bit of editing experience. Graywalls ( talk) 19:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC) Massive edits to that article in March and April 2011 by several SPAs are also suspicious. One SPA did a 25kB add. Graywalls ( talk) 23:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Previous post provided for transparency: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Burner_accounts_doing_massive_contents_drop_in_I-O_psychology_relevant_articles Graywalls ( talk) 19:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Landscape walker was dormant for four years before suddenly removing criticism from the Dan Hicks (archaeologist) with no edit summary [38]
When it was restored they removed it three more times [39], [40], [41] claiming one of the two articles they were removing was "retracted" when in fact there was a simple correction on a detail. Looking through their earlier edits, they have done nothing other than promote Dan Hicks (examples: [42], [43]) When confronted on their talk page they haven't responded. ThaddeusSholto ( talk) 19:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Going deeper into the history of the Dan Hicks article there is a stunning amount of SPAs that either only edit that article ( Oxensie, Oxford fad, Archaeofacts) or only promote Hicks in that and other articles ( Anthrofac, Poiuy00, GadsebyE, As998877, Sjceji2) This has been going on for years. Not sure if they are sockpuppets or meatpuppets but this is a serious problem. ThaddeusSholto ( talk) 20:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Schtickla ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor has a conflict of interest, he has a business relationship with the Motor City Rockers. I have warned this editor to stop editing the article, and I gave him a link to read about the conflict of interest rule. He still chooses to edit the article anyway by removing material. Catfurball ( talk) 21:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
"We only want to make sure there is accurate information..."and non-rejection of the connection [44] IMHO presumptively this is UPE, which is not an "unwritten rule" but part of the Terms of Service that are not even from the enwp community, but from the operators of the servers, the WMF. ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
This user has the same username as a high school football player recently graduated from West Morris Central High School. Their contributions are only to the two pages above in regards to their football programs. The user is updating information about the sports teams' records without adding new sources to verify the information. This is a young person, a new Wikipedian. I'm assuming good faith and that they just don't know. I don't want to make a bid deal out of it, but they've been making these posts for over a year and a half now. They were given a warning in August. I would like to ask someone here with more experience what to do. Thank you in advance. Kire1975 ( talk) 17:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Described a situation that was an obvious conflict of interest, then tried to deny any connection with the subject of the article. Has repeatedly been warned on their talk page about disclosing a conflict of interest and proposing edits instead of directly editing the article, but has done neither.
This account's first edit said they were "authorized" by John Arcilla and asked how to "prevent others from changing the entry I did" [45] (emphasis mine). A few days before this, an IP user made two edits with edit summaries saying they were "with approval of Mr. John Arcilla. Do not change without his permission". [46] After receiving COI warnings, they have denied having an external relationship with John Arcilla while clearly describing an external relationship, [47] [48] and later denied it completely. [49]
(The article has a history of obvious COI edits from IP users, often with a similar or identical edit summary to this account's "updated the information" and mention of permission or requests from John Arcilla.) AKiwiDeerPin ( talk) 01:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
First article needs a thorough copyedit, if it is notable. We have the usual WP:Identifying PR issues of citations to biz partners and self, and little else of substance. The ever present "awards and honors" section, though.
Draft was tagged for UPE by another editor (not me): [50]
We also have a bunch of revdel for copyright violations at Jessica Page (beauty pageant contestant), which is not a good sign.
Wondering if the creator needs to have the Terms of Service explained to them. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Account seems to be almost exclusively used for promotion of this company. One diff has over 15000 bytes of promo. A more obvious promo account was restricted recently under COI guidelines, so I wonder if they are now using this account. Catalyzzt ( talk) 17:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
User:Wiki orb2 discloses on his user page that he is a paid editor. In the mean time he is trying to whitewash John Felix Raj and St. Xavier's University, Kolkata from the instances of a controversy. In this, he claimed that it were false allegations. But now, in his last edit on John Felix Raj he tells a totally different story than the source Wiki orb2 provides. This whitewashing or diminishing is contrary to the best interests of Wikipedia and also at odds with the available sources. As I am new here, I do not really know what is possible here. Is a permanent ban from the two in the filing mentioned articles possible? The Banner talk 12:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Garden variety self-interest. Such additions [52] are always a red flag. Is notability an issue? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 03:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Need additional eyes on Michelle Salzman, where the article's subject is editing, and which has had a UPE tag since last year. Curbon7 ( talk) 18:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
KittenKuroi only edits Kitten Kuroi. She was warned back in February 2022 about COI but doesn't appear to care to follow the guidelines. She has made 10 more edits since that time all to her own article. ThaddeusSholto ( talk) 17:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Editing own article. Has done so off and on for the past several years. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 08:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
This article already had COI templates because of a self-declared COI from one of the original editors (see Talk). I noticed that this editor, Mobilizecloud, had been making large changes to the article, and only this article. Today though I noticed that they removed the COI templates. I asked on the Talk:Michael Abramoff § COI, and they said:
Kimen8 ( talk) 14:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 195 | ← | Archive 199 | Archive 200 | Archive 201 | Archive 202 | Archive 203 | → | Archive 205 |
Unsure what the exact relationship is, they hinted at being an alumnus and donor of the school on their talk page but refused to disclose either. Jahaza has a long history of skewing the page away from NPOV which has been addressed by multiple editors. Jahaza does not think that they have a COI and they don't think that there are NPOV issues with their edits to the page... Despite multiple unrelated editors apparently being able to diagnose their undisclosed COI based on their editing alone. According to xtools they are the #1 editor on the main page [1] and it is their most edited page [2]. Also the #1 editor at List of Deerfield Academy alumni [3]. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationshipsper WP:COI [emphasis added]).
An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder.[emphasis added]) If you are a donor/benefactor/patron, are you not investing in the institution? GuardianH ( talk) 01:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user Klermodalwonfeyz has refused to answer any questions about their potential COI with Vivek Ramaswamy when asked by multiple editors, and has instead continued to edit the article repeatedly, re-installing the same edits after they're reverted for inserting a non-neutral POV.
On 26 August, User:Neutrality reverted a series of edits made by this user on the grounds of them having a promotional tone and poor phrasing. Klermodalwonfeyz made more edits immediately after this, which Neutrality again reverted on the grounds of POV. Klermodalwonfeyz again made more edits to the article, which were reverted and a question was left on Klermodalwonfeyz's talk page about their potential conflict of interest, due to the promotional tones of their edits.
There was no response to this question, and on 9 September, after clearing their talk page of some notices, they again began editing the article - there were a series of edits that day. The next day, User:SPECIFICO left a note on the user's talk page asking them to respond to Neutrality's question.
There was, again, no response to this question, and the user continued to the next day without responding. Having the page on my watchlist, I noticed the edits and the strange phrasing and awkward language that Neutrality had noted in the very first diff in this report. For example, they introduced sentences such as:
I reverted to the last good version, and went to their talk page to leave a notice about this awkward phrasing, where I saw the two previous requests to respond to claims about COI. In my notice, I mentioned the awkward phrasing, the usage of what appears to be phonetically-spelt English in edit summaries ( this edit summary is... "ad sayt. muv bodom tu top.") and again reiterated that they needed to respond to this COI question.
There was, for the third time, no response to this question, as they continued to edit - even having been reverted by multiple users ( User:David O. Johnson reverted their changes once and twice to the last good version). When the editor added these changes again, including the chopped-up sentences highlighted by David O. Johnson in his revert rationale, I reverted, noting that they still had not responded to any of the COI questions... only for them to continue editing the article within hours.
After FIVE attempts (three on their actual talk page, two in edit summaries) to ask them to answer this question, there has been absolutely nothing from this user, barring an edit summary in phonetically-spelt English which to the best of my reading ability says something about being asked for "payments of interest" or "ransom", further heightening my concerns. In my eyes this case borders on a WP:CIR one so feel free to direct me to ANI or another venue, but given the clear issue with COI, I'm left with no choice but to file a report here. — ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 16:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The user in question blanking the entire article and replacing the content with unsourced information which pointedly lacks any of the criticism present in the original article. I reverted and left a COI note on his talk page, but that was shortly followed by reverting my revert and putting back the unsourced content ( diff of the original and edits in question). The user isn't extremely active on Wikipedia by any stretch but they've been warned in the past for COI edits and their edit history is exclusively a laundry list of COI issues (Allan R. Bomhard is one of the most active authors in both theories, which are typically considered fringe theories within linguistics). I think this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE, but also there's a nine year gap between the edits in question and today.
Just to disclose my own COI of sorts here, I recently (unsuccessfully) AfD'd the article in question. Warrenmck ( talk) 20:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Editor has been forthcoming that they are Todd Newton. Now we need more eyes to counter WP:OWNERSHIP issues, like overloading images. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 18:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I've found an ad for a job which a blocked user has taken. It contains some information about the subject of the article which has been created recently (last 2 months at most): an author who has written 14 non-fiction books, contributed to many others and had a long career as a journalist with the weekly LIFE Magazine and Cleveland Plain-Dealer
. I haven't been able to find the article myself, but if anyone else can work out which article it is, please let me know so I can block the creator and G5 the article.
SmartSE (
talk)
17:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
User who has edited articles without disclosing conflict on interest, potential to have used other IP addresses and user names too. Happily888 ( talk) 08:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Please see the editor's user talk page, particularly their not making direct and straightforward replies to questions about undeclared paid editing 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?go=Go&search=insource%3A%22French+Comics+in+English%22 A PhD thesis titled French Comics in English by Bartholomew Hulley has been getting cite spammed by various IPs and Phdacademicgenius such as in Special:Diff/1161075974 and Special:Diff/1161082869. Graywalls ( talk) 19:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
I accepted this draft at Articles for Creation. Off-wiki coordination on the developer's web site was then pointed out to me by User:Ferret. See https://forum.defold.com/t/help-needed-to-create-defold-wikipedia-article/66645/17 . I have reverted my acceptance of the draft. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
The bots at AIV recently caught this heavy editing of the article on the mayor of Dallas. All have come from IPs ... some from a range in the Philadelphia area, the most recent from the static Dallas one linked above. In the last series have been some large removals of sourced content as "inaccurate". It also seems a lot more positive, fluffy content has been added. Per Ad Orientem's comment at AIV, this needs a look from someone familiar with, or willing to get familiar with, the situation to distinguish the good edits from the bad. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a proposal at the village pump to add a new COI disclosure requirement. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Required disclosure for admin paid advising. – Joe ( talk) 11:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
The standard autobiographical COI issues--addition of unsourced, anecdotal content, name dropping, etc. I reverted once and left a COI notice, to no avail. This is an interesting promise of intent [18]. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 13:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Huge additions of unreferenced text in their own article. Adding themselves to another article, George Green's School, with a reference that doesn't even mention George Green's School. [19] COI warning on talk page but apparently ignored. ThaddeusSholto ( talk) 20:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Truedad21 has existed as a single-purpose account for editing the BLP Richard A. Cohen, a proponent of conversion therapy, since March 2019. Of their 140 edits, 100% are either edits to the BLP itself, its talk page, or disputes with other editors regarding Mr. Cohen. Many of these edits have been reverted as promotional in nature or otherwise undue. In March 2019 Truedad21 also uploaded two images of Cohen, listing each one as his "Own Work".
After refusing to answer
questions about a potential COI with Cohen first raised in 2020, he has recently stated definitively that he has no direct connection with the subject
[20] and (after some additional prodding) that he had selected "Own Work" when uploading the images in error
[21]. Curiously, these image are labeled as having been created on 19 February 2019, about a month before Truedad21's account was created, yet later he claimed that these images were obtained from the source (PATH) by request. The photo exists on a number of bookcovers and websites independently of me.
[22] Were the photos made widely available between February and March 2019, just as Truedad21 decided to create his account?
There have been some accompanying intemperate remarks from Truedad21, though they are not egregious: suggesting that others are trying to "cancel" him [23] and accusing me specifically of acting in bad faith because of an ideological distaste for Cohen's work [24]. Of course I do agree with mainstream psychology that conversion therapy is fringe, but my main concern here is that this editor's behavior really does not seem like that of an uninvolved person. I'd be curious to hear what others on this noticeboard think.
The second account I've listed here, Lukehhuneycutt, is an odd duck. It's made only one edit, a post at Talk:Richard A. Cohen supporting Truedad21's point of view [25]. The account was created four days before its first (and only) edit, which is often considered a red flag for sockpuppetry.
You can read the relevant article talk page discussions here and here. Discussions of Truedad21 and COI can be found at user talk pages here (and following) and here.
Please note that I do not consider any of this dispositive that Truedad21 is lying about not having a COI with Cohen, but I do think that it warrants more eyes on the situation –– and that perhaps CU may be warranted to check against sockpuppetry with Lukehhuneycutt. Cheers, Generalrelative ( talk) 22:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
This user has been editing various Singaporean politician and people's articles, usually adding promotional or resume-like prose, particularly on K. Shanmugam. It may suggest a COI or paid relationship with these subjects. Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 02:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Someone here might want to take a look at the recent history of Mad River Brewing Company and contributions of User:Madriverbrews. At the very least, the username fails WP:CORPNAME. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
User is repeatedly removing the image on the page and/or adding copyrighted images claiming the artist's team does not want the image on the pages. They have continued making these edits after being notified of a potential COI and is claiming to speak for the artist. CAMERAwMUSTACHE ( talk) 02:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Only edits have been to add content to the
Stacy Spikes biography, some of it promotional in tone (writing in Wikipedia's voice with no source that MoviePass is a vital hub
whose events offer a unique opportunity for filmmakers and audiences
, headed by a person whose work there prompted a reevaluation of the way audiences engage with movies in theaters
), some of it publicity photos and scans of book covers, some of it copyvio text from promotional material. No response to multiple talk page messages asking about a possible COI, and they've failed to take on board a uw-advert2 warning asking them to write objectively.
Belbury (
talk)
08:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Deeply WP:UNDUE edits, poorly sourced and self-interested. User appears primarily to be using these articles to settle personal scores. The only question is how much to revert. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 14:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Promotional biography of a commercial auctioneer, written by a SPA. Could use some heavy trimming. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
There has been significant edit warring in the aforementioned page (pretty much all of the recent history is that), which I personally believe to be related to self promotion.
For context, there was a recent community schism. One half of the schism is not and has not attempted to link to itself in the wikipedia page, however the other group controls a page that has been linked for some time. I believe that consistently re-adding the link to this page constitutes self-promotion, and that most likely when it was originally added in this edit it was also self promotion then. I cannot prove this as both the original addition of the link and all following edits to re-add it were made by IP addresses, but I believe the high degree of engagement in consistently re-adding the reference in an otherwise relatively inactive article circumstantially implies this to be the case.
There was an attempt to discuss this in the talk section however the edit war has continued without much engagement there from either side. It was suggested by User:Deepfriedokra that a COI be declared and that involved parties stop personally editing the page. I have personally stopped editing the page aside from recently reverting a change made by another person in my community.
I did attempt to find and notify the involved parties, however the only individual who has an actual account was the aforementioned fellow from my own community.
Thanks for any review.
-- 98.97.138.195 ( talk) 01:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I've been advised to set up an account in order to have some material removed on the page relating to my work. The headline paragraph of the biog draws attention to two actors who left EastEnders during my tenure there. This is hardly noteworthy in a public forum other than, perhaps, to big fans of the series. In the context of my thirty year career, it's pretty insignificant. The suggestion here is that it was SO important that I left the BBC because of it. This is simply not true.
At the same time, citations in the body of the article relating to this eg an interview with Dominic Treadwell-Collins, simply say that he was sad that characters he created left the series. The editor has implied that this is 'evidence' of Dom being critical of me. other 'evidence' is cited from Digital Spy, The Sun and Hello- hardly secure sources in anybody's book. As a soap producer Dom is well aware that this is just the natural churn of soap. These additions have been removed from this biog before but are continually added, despite various editors agreement for them to be removed. So I'm not sure how that can be resolved?
Birkenhead01 ( talk) 15:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Steven.Valentine has edited multiple articles - not all of them are listed above - to add unsourced material that includes or explicitly focuses on "Steven Valentine." They have not replied to the message left on their User Talk page or even used edit summaries. ElKevbo ( talk) 22:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Epesi is an article that has a lot of promotional language in it. Also, it has very few sources; most of them are just reviews. This report coincides with an AfD nom.
Epesi was created multiple times by User:Jtylek under a few names and speedy deleted. Jtylek's edits account for 81.7% of the article. The creators of Epesi are Janusz Tylek and Karina Tylek (who also appears to have edited the article with User:Ktylek). They haven't edited in at least six months so I have not warned them. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 14:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
JumpingJimmySingh is blocked from editing India League due to a conflict of interest (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 182#India League. Their editing continues to consist of attempts to establish that 1928 Institute is a continuation of the India League, and they probably should have been blocked from the latter at the same time as the other block. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
CN Digital Work has made repeated efforts to add material regarding Khachaturyants' philanthropic work (see [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and [31].) In all cases, CN has added notes about arts projects that Khachaturyants has financed, but provided links that do not verify such financial support. CN has been warned about this several times, but has not engaged in any discussion about the matter. The nature of the user's edits (they have made no edits other than to this one article), as well as the user's name, lead to the conclusion that they are working on behalf of Khachaturyants. The user has been notified of this discussion. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
User:ChambersMgt received a soft username block this week for making very mildly promotional edits to biographies of clients from https://www.chambersmgt.com/artists
User:EGCM1 appears to be the new username the company selected, but they haven't acknowledged or followed Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest and paid editing. They've also moved up a notch to creating promotionally-tinged draft articles about their clients ( Draft:Dee Allum and Draft:Reuben Kaye so far) and adding a client's podcast as an example on another article without disclosing the professional connection. Belbury ( talk) 18:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
People of the noticeboard might want to take a look at Aptera (solar electric vehicle). I just removed a section on options that was sourced to company brochures. There are other dubious WP:PROMO-ish things going on, especially section Configurations, also cited to the crowdfunding website or the brochures and/or press releases. The article's creator, Fotoguru received a PROMO warning on their talkpage. Their response to my inquiry about a conflict referenced an investment but I'm not going to dig into it; people reading this are welcome to take whatever action is appropriate next. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Added another article, almost exactly half of the references are the corp site also. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Once all the cruft is removed, I think they'll be short enough to easily merge into one article. Graywalls ( talk) 20:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
My colleagues and I published a Russian-language investigation about Vyacheslav Kantor. You can use Google Translate.
The main idea is that since 2009, Kantor’s PR people have been closely involved in his articles in Russian and English Wikipedia and have pushed many articles about organizations associated with him. The main account, Acvec ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was blocked in 2019 for copyright violation. Then the account accidentally admitted that 'we are the PR department of the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation'
After Acvec was blocked, they not only actively edited as anonymous, but also decided to look for experienced Wikipedians and involve them with their reputation to work on the necessary articles. In particular, from November 2021 to May 2022, Николай Эйхвальд ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one of the most famous and titled authors of Wikipedia in Russian, an eleven-time WikiPrize winner in ru-wiki with 137 thousand edits, took up articles about Kantor. For Kantor's sake, Eichwald returned to English-language Wikipedia, where he had made only 7 edits over the previous 6 years. It detailed Kantor's public activities, removed references to his ties to Putin, and created a new article about the ridiculous concept of Secure Tolerance that Kantor and his PR consultants came up with back in 2011.
Also, in September 2023, as part of a campaign to lift sanctions against Kantor, a new editor, Kaplans2007, appeared in the English-language article. He said that Kantor is not a Russian entrepreneur at all, is not connected with Putin, and the sanctions were imposed on him unfairly.
My request is the following:
Editor came in last, brought 13k article to massively puff the current one. scope_creep Talk 06:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Recently, a FFU Request was made a few days after attempts were made by Ltowndown12 to "update" the cover on the Variety (magazine) article to a "newer cover image".
After I commented that I saw no need to update the image, an IP purporting to be the 'Director of Brand Marketing for Variety' commented in reply. A close IPv6 address (4 segments the same) also edited Variety (magazine) around the same time as the other attempts. They were told no, and I believe this may have been a marketing stunt by the management at Variety to push the Scarlett Johansson cover
I think this shows that the not only is the IP range and Ltowndown12 linked but there is absolutely UPE going on in relation to Variety (magazine). Therefore, although this is not an SPI, I would ask for a CU to check (but obviously not confirm) the link between the user and the IPs. - Rich T| C| E-Mail 23:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I want to draw attention to CharlieSmith98's edits to Sulaiman Al-Fahim. The account seems to have been created less than a month ago for the sole purpose of sanitizing the article of unflattering (yet well-sourced) material and adding random puffery to the article. Similar for 1NicholasSchmitt1. ViewmontViking has tackled some of the edits but should CharlieSmith98 & 1NicholasSchmitt1 still be editing this article? 87.200.229.168 ( talk) 17:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Highly promotional editing across the board, often using unreliable sources, often includes sizeable amounts of unverified content in BLPs, and often WP:OVERCITEs. Admits to a COI with the four articles listed above. Has created 43 articles, of which 11 have been deleted. Most of the remaining articles have serious problems. Hipal ( talk) 16:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Surviving articles created by this user and my assessment:
I think probably a handful of these would survive a deletion discussion in their current state, and the rest would be deleted. Overall I don't find it credible that this user's COI is limited to the four articles they've admitted to. Jfire ( talk) 02:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Courtesy link: WP:ANI § Bmchedlishvili
This is a heads-up of an ongoing situation that has now spread to ANI. Bmchedlishvili ( talk · contribs · count) is "deputy head of strategic communications department at Prime-Minister office Georgia", and has been editing and warring at Irakli Garibashvili (current P.M.). There has been discussion at Talk:Irakli Garibashvili and at User talk:Bmchedlishvili. This has now spread to this discussion at ANI. Imho, that discussion should have been started here and not at ANI, and I will make a proposal there to move it here, but in the meantime, in order to minimize fragmentation of discussion, interested readers here should either be patient here or respond there if you have to until it is moved. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion copied from AN/I:
Bmchedlishvili (
talk ·
contribs) has repeatedly removed sourced, verified content from
Irakli Garibashvili without explanation. They have also repeatedly changed the lead image (without explanation) multiple times, despite there
there being a discussion in progress on that topic. I have attempted to discuss the matter with them on their talk page; I have warned them multiple times that if they continue this behaviour they will end up here. I have discussed the issue on the talk page (
see discussion), along with
NobodyUser and
Emperor of Emperors. However, many of their responses were accusations of bad faith on my part: and i asking again, whats your interest when you change our image? you trying to hart us hard, lets talk with mods!
yes you really "care" and trying to add wrong information and bad picture for us
That discussion did not prove fruitful, and they have continued their unexplained changes, neither leaving edit summaries or responding to my messages on their talk page, two of which offered technical help if they are having difficulties leaving edit summaries.
I don't want to be here. I want to sort this out on a talk page. But when a user completely ignores discussion, and continues their same edits with no explanation, and accuses me of attacking the article, something needs to be done.
Diffs of unexplained content removal:
Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
deputy head of strategic communications department at Prime-Minister office Georgia,Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Not in disagreement with most of the above, but imho, this is the wrong venue for action on this. I would like to suggest that this be moved to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard where it more properly belongs. If there is no objection, I will move the discussion, or Edward-Woodrow, as OP, feel free to do the move (see Template:Discussion moved to). Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 18:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Bare minimum, Bmchedlishvili ( talk · contribs) needs p-blocked from Irakli Garibashvili to end the COI editing there. They can discuss changes on the Talk page. If they move to tendentiously editing other Georgia-related articles, then a topic ban could be implemented, but I'm not sure it needs to be done right now. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 17:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
This editor has exhibited
WP:OWN behaviour over these two articles for some time, including moving them into article space after they were rejected at
WP:AFC. The editor's previous responses to questions about COI (with other articles) have been somewhat evasive and stretched credulity as evidenced
here. They have now ignored a specific request about a COI
here and continued editing. There have also been some discussions on Commons that
Timtrent may be able to speak to.
I want to abide by
WP:OUTING (and please let me know if independent editors think this is crossing that line), but it is not difficult to find from the sources provided that the two subjects are connected in that they have children who married one another and thus they share grandchildren. Much of the content, and some of the photos, that the editor has added, are not publicly available and strongly suggest a family connection.
Melcous (
talk)
22:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
It does seem like Jim May passes NPROF criteria though. If good sourcing can't be found, the article can be trimmed down to as short as 2-3 sentences whether or not the creator likes it. Graywalls ( talk) 12:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
...shocked in both how I have behaved...about. My prior thoughts that "I am sorry that you have chosen to leave" no longer hold good. Your arguments remain that of a paid editor, whether paid or not. Your COI is large and you are not showing repentance. I see you as WP:NOTHERE and feel it a strong probability that your stated decision to leave will be made firm by an administrator observing this conversation. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
That Carey3146 be blocked indefinitely from the English Language Wikipedia as WP:NOTHERE and as an editor with a strong WP:COI whose arguments in favour of their edits are deceptive, who obfuscates and dissembles when questioned, and is not displaying the attributes of a collegial editor despite strong encouragement. This behaviour has been exhibited since the start of their editing here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Generic discussion about the COI itself should continue in the section above the proposal. This section is purely for the discussion of the proposal itself.
Adding possible spam links, claims in edit summaries that they are “updating the information for the health system”, Restored external links added in 2021 that had been removed only 18 minutes prior, and has failed to disclosed a COI. 24.211.70.219 ( talk) 15:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Editing on own article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 18:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Username suggests the editor is the same person as the subject of the article. I reverted this series of changes with the edit summary "Unsourced, non-neutral ("But failureship again, in its desire to obstruct truth to protect their status quo, failed epically to do the right thing for Wisconsin and our nation"), likely conflict of interest based on username", and added a CoI notice to the editor's Talk page. Editor has since made further non-neutral and unsourced changes, including statements like "Ramthun sought truth to end the mysteries and allegations of the presidential election results in Wisconsin". Tacyarg ( talk) 21:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I can't quite figure out the motive, but is suspicious and appears to be intentionally evading scrutiny and a potential sock situation in topic area (industry/organization psychology) that has historically seen sock activity. Unfortunately, I don't have a clue as to who the Sockpuppeteer maybe. The account was created, made one large contribution over 10kB an hour after the account was created and disappeared. The very next day, an Auckland, New Zealand IP 219.89.62.146 added about 7,600 bytes. This happened at the end of September 2023 and neither of them have any other contributions and have gone dormant. These two edits are definitely someone with fair bit of editing experience. Graywalls ( talk) 19:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC) Massive edits to that article in March and April 2011 by several SPAs are also suspicious. One SPA did a 25kB add. Graywalls ( talk) 23:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Previous post provided for transparency: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Burner_accounts_doing_massive_contents_drop_in_I-O_psychology_relevant_articles Graywalls ( talk) 19:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Landscape walker was dormant for four years before suddenly removing criticism from the Dan Hicks (archaeologist) with no edit summary [38]
When it was restored they removed it three more times [39], [40], [41] claiming one of the two articles they were removing was "retracted" when in fact there was a simple correction on a detail. Looking through their earlier edits, they have done nothing other than promote Dan Hicks (examples: [42], [43]) When confronted on their talk page they haven't responded. ThaddeusSholto ( talk) 19:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Going deeper into the history of the Dan Hicks article there is a stunning amount of SPAs that either only edit that article ( Oxensie, Oxford fad, Archaeofacts) or only promote Hicks in that and other articles ( Anthrofac, Poiuy00, GadsebyE, As998877, Sjceji2) This has been going on for years. Not sure if they are sockpuppets or meatpuppets but this is a serious problem. ThaddeusSholto ( talk) 20:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Schtickla ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor has a conflict of interest, he has a business relationship with the Motor City Rockers. I have warned this editor to stop editing the article, and I gave him a link to read about the conflict of interest rule. He still chooses to edit the article anyway by removing material. Catfurball ( talk) 21:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
"We only want to make sure there is accurate information..."and non-rejection of the connection [44] IMHO presumptively this is UPE, which is not an "unwritten rule" but part of the Terms of Service that are not even from the enwp community, but from the operators of the servers, the WMF. ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
This user has the same username as a high school football player recently graduated from West Morris Central High School. Their contributions are only to the two pages above in regards to their football programs. The user is updating information about the sports teams' records without adding new sources to verify the information. This is a young person, a new Wikipedian. I'm assuming good faith and that they just don't know. I don't want to make a bid deal out of it, but they've been making these posts for over a year and a half now. They were given a warning in August. I would like to ask someone here with more experience what to do. Thank you in advance. Kire1975 ( talk) 17:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Described a situation that was an obvious conflict of interest, then tried to deny any connection with the subject of the article. Has repeatedly been warned on their talk page about disclosing a conflict of interest and proposing edits instead of directly editing the article, but has done neither.
This account's first edit said they were "authorized" by John Arcilla and asked how to "prevent others from changing the entry I did" [45] (emphasis mine). A few days before this, an IP user made two edits with edit summaries saying they were "with approval of Mr. John Arcilla. Do not change without his permission". [46] After receiving COI warnings, they have denied having an external relationship with John Arcilla while clearly describing an external relationship, [47] [48] and later denied it completely. [49]
(The article has a history of obvious COI edits from IP users, often with a similar or identical edit summary to this account's "updated the information" and mention of permission or requests from John Arcilla.) AKiwiDeerPin ( talk) 01:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
First article needs a thorough copyedit, if it is notable. We have the usual WP:Identifying PR issues of citations to biz partners and self, and little else of substance. The ever present "awards and honors" section, though.
Draft was tagged for UPE by another editor (not me): [50]
We also have a bunch of revdel for copyright violations at Jessica Page (beauty pageant contestant), which is not a good sign.
Wondering if the creator needs to have the Terms of Service explained to them. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Account seems to be almost exclusively used for promotion of this company. One diff has over 15000 bytes of promo. A more obvious promo account was restricted recently under COI guidelines, so I wonder if they are now using this account. Catalyzzt ( talk) 17:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
User:Wiki orb2 discloses on his user page that he is a paid editor. In the mean time he is trying to whitewash John Felix Raj and St. Xavier's University, Kolkata from the instances of a controversy. In this, he claimed that it were false allegations. But now, in his last edit on John Felix Raj he tells a totally different story than the source Wiki orb2 provides. This whitewashing or diminishing is contrary to the best interests of Wikipedia and also at odds with the available sources. As I am new here, I do not really know what is possible here. Is a permanent ban from the two in the filing mentioned articles possible? The Banner talk 12:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Garden variety self-interest. Such additions [52] are always a red flag. Is notability an issue? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 03:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Need additional eyes on Michelle Salzman, where the article's subject is editing, and which has had a UPE tag since last year. Curbon7 ( talk) 18:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
KittenKuroi only edits Kitten Kuroi. She was warned back in February 2022 about COI but doesn't appear to care to follow the guidelines. She has made 10 more edits since that time all to her own article. ThaddeusSholto ( talk) 17:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Editing own article. Has done so off and on for the past several years. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 08:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
This article already had COI templates because of a self-declared COI from one of the original editors (see Talk). I noticed that this editor, Mobilizecloud, had been making large changes to the article, and only this article. Today though I noticed that they removed the COI templates. I asked on the Talk:Michael Abramoff § COI, and they said:
Kimen8 ( talk) 14:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)