![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
@ Fatam50 keeps taking down maintenance tags from a BLP that looks overly PROMO. I've asked them on their user tp to stop removing the tags, but they're not listening. I haven't removed anything from the BLP yet or nominated it for deletion—just added tags. But the creator is getting defensive, which makes me think there might be some COI going on. I might just take it to AfD though, because I don't see it meeting WP:N. Even though it looks legit with all those RS citations, but its not quite up to snuff. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 10:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems Tanhasahu may have a conflict of interest, but they denied it when asked to disclose. They registered in February 2024 and started with minor random edits before taking over Robert Soto, where Lifeiswhatnow ( talk · contribs) was active before being blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Notably, Tanhasahu registered just a few hours after Lifeiswhatnow was blocked, so it wouldn't be surprising if they were the same person. Tanhasahu also moved Draft:Maniv Mobility a couple of weeks after it was declined and subsequently created Ross Andrew Paquette, a non-notable Canadian businessman. Given their creation of three articles about villages in Rajasthan and their username, it suggests they are from India. It's unusual for someone to write articles about subjects thousands of miles away, particularly when those subjects are not widely known, which indicates they may have been hired. Additionally, they created Julian Jewel Jeyaraj on es-wiki (now deleted), a page previously created by user Jhummu, a blocked undisclosed paid editor and a sock of user Vivek.k.Verma. I also found this SPI filed by user DarmaniLink. GSS 💬 13:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
The primary purpose of User:Gladiator-Citizen (who previously edited as User:Citizen-Gladiator) on Wikipedia appears to be to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles about himself, family members, close friends/acquaintances, and related corporate entities. The editor now appears to have a desire to remain anonymous, however their identity is pretty clear from their editing history and a past username. I will try to avoid outing them in the below and am happy for any information to be redacted if it's deemed too close to the line.
A sample of the user's edits are below, ranging from less harmful to exceptionally harmful:
Unfortunately, when I tried to engage with the editor in a pretty neutral manner as to their COI, they responded with a rambling screed that did not address my basic query and showing very little understanding of Wikipedia's basic principles. The user's talkpage shows a history of similar interactions.
Based on this user's undisclosed COI editing and lack of understanding of fundamental policies I think an indef block is warranted. Their most recent edits (particularly that to the ACCC article) show that their editing quality is declining further and the risk of further damage is high given they typically edit in low-traffic subject areas. The content issues can be dealt with separately. ITBF ( talk) 12:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Apostolic Christian Church ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2600:1008:b05e:5e5c:34ea:3aeb:5dfb:dac8 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and similar IPs)
JoelSinn ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
23.28.106.237 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.222.170.52 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2600:1007:b01e:62a6:7c0d:a50:39c9:1227 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2600:1007:b01e:62a6:9cd5:dc9a:c426:6bb5 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Note that some IPs listed may belong to a singular user. There was also extensive reverting by other IPs on other sections of the article, but they are not listed here.
Hi, I was told to post this notice here, so here we are. I recently across a lengthy edit war at Apostolic Christian Church involving multiple IPs and a registered account recently, but didn’t know where to post it. Apparently there’s a COI of some kind or something? Hopefully this is the right page. I’m not entirely sure what to think of the situation. -Shift 674- 🌀 contribs 01:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Initially, I sensed something was off when I noticed they were inserting self published primary source references into may articles, such as plaskett.family and adding tourism guide like contents. COI was suspected, because they were single handedly responsible for the insertion of the overwhelming majority of that self published personal website blog reference. They've created the article White Stag Leadership Development Program and when I searched articles containing sourcing to Whitestag.org and ran a Wikiblame check for insertion of whitestag.org (such as this example and this 2022 example out of many) I found that btphelps was responsible for most of them. Further research found strong evidence of long term advocacy editing and likely undisclosed paid editing. I've given them a chance to explain, but after a few days, no response. Per Wikipedia policy on outing, I can not name the evidence here, however per the protocol, private evidence has been emailed to Wikipedia functionaries. Graywalls ( talk) 06:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok, so I can now say btphelps is a co-director of White Stag, per their self reveal as they have not had it redacted/oversighted. White stag was founded by Béla H. Bánáthy. Extensively writing about their own organization as well as those closely associated with it and inserting links to contents to the organization they direct as references to numerous related articles is a COI behavior. Graywalls ( talk) 18:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
This is a serious allegation and you should be prepared to provide solid evidence.since you have not directly introduced yourself by your identity outside of Wikipedia, I have to be careful with what can be posted here since posting anything that connects user name to real life identity is strictly prohibited, unless you explicitly authorize. Even then, I'd feel more comfortable if you introduced yourself first (strictly optional though) before I post it. Graywalls ( talk) 13:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I am going to be AFK until next week. Just an FYI, I just posted this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Graywalls reported by User:Evrik (Result:_) -- evrik ( talk) 03:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
This is also something to look at: Talk:Leadership_training_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)#Pinetreeweb_and_other_non-RS. Btphelps disclosed they're the author of that contents on pinetreeweb. @ SandyGeorgia: Graywalls ( talk) 15:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Please also see discussion of GA reassessment at Talk:Béla_H._Bánáthy/GA2 Graywalls ( talk) 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:COI's def is so broad and vague that it can be easily capitalized on by someone with an axe to grind. Saying there is a COI on someone who has been dead since 2003 is certainly outside the intent of wp:coi. North8000 ( talk) 16:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Btphelps:, We haven't heard you comment in a while Do you give permission for editors to publicly share evidence found off-wiki in this discussion even though it may reveal your identity and/or your affiliation with various organizations? Without your explicit consent, those details can't be shared here. Graywalls ( talk) 09:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
This new editor is repeatedly adding a lot of advertorial material (sample: Keio members often believe that any person related to the Keio organisation (e.g. professors, students, alumni and their family members) as part of their inner circle, and should offer their best in assisting one another like brothers or sisters.) to this article, suggesting a CoI, and isn't willing to engage on their talk page despite warnings. I'm not prepared to edit war over this, especially now they've discovered the undo button, so some extra eyes would be useful instead. The latest addition is still up at the time of writing. 81.187.192.168 ( talk) 18:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
This user is a manager at The Independent Florida Alligator and they need help that I can't provide. I'd appreciate it if someone here could help them. Below is what they put on their talk page.
This is all new to me. I have worked at The Independent Florida Alligator for 26 years. I manage the historical archives and alumni information. Up until a few months ago everything was fine with this page. Whoever was adding the new editors to the list was keeping everything current. However, recently, someone has removed very pertinent information - specifically the list of past editors - was removed. I do not know why. I was merely trying to put it back when it all hit the fan. I made an account (which I had never had to do before). I REALLY don't understand the whole "Conflict of Interest" thing! Who better to make sure that everything on this page is correct than someone who works here and knows what is what? I just want the editor list data returned to the page. I don't know who is responsible and who deemed it "unproduction, irrelevant", etc. ???? I think we, as the organization should have sole control over the content that is made public about us. Ellen Light (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
81.187.192.168 ( talk) 19:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
{{
connected contributor (paid)}}
template on the article talk page. The user's talk page correspondence suggests this situation is under control, for now. --
Drm310 🍁 (
talk)
04:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)In full transparency, I wanted to ask for a second opinion in a UPE template that I removed from Propel (company). I am the author and major contributor of the article, and I have a professional connection disclosed on the article's talk page and my user page. Today an IP editor added a UPE template, which I didn't think was appropriate. In general I try to avoid touching the article at all, but I've reverted the UPE tag. I'm mentioning it here in full transparency in case people agree with the UPE tag, or if they believe there are issues of notability that need to be addressed. Mokadoshi ( talk) 14:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Uncommunicative new user changing Le Labo to add advertising/marketing language. Could use more eyes. 81.187.192.168 ( talk) 17:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Editor continually copies large swaths of promotional information regarding the subject, suggesting they have an undeclared vested interest in said subject. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 18:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
(and the list goes on, see user's further edit history: /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Heideneii)
User Heideneii have been creating and heavily editing pages on various EU "Volt" related entities (individual member states parties) and persons (politicians).
I have contacted them on their talk page regarding this and they deny any COI. However, based on their edits, where they are a creator or heavy editor of those Volt related party and politician pages, I still suspect COI.
In their latest response they agreed they "are interested in the movement".
I welcome checks and opinions of other users. dusoft ( talk) 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
As a general question; do editors with a COI (paid or unpaid) have a COI with the COI guideline?
For paid editors, I would suggest that they do - they have strong reason to support weakening the restrictions on the editing they can do. For editors with an unpaid COI, I would suggest it is a little more complicated and would depend on the nature of their COI and how much of their editing relates to it. BilledMammal ( talk) 20:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
affected articles,
new articles,
no one on Wikipedia controls articles, etc.), and WP:COI is not an article.Second, if one is considering both paid and unpaid COIs, numerous editors have a WP:POTENTIALCOI. Would they therefore have a COI with WP:COI, since the guideline advises about behavior around one's potential COIs as well, which would thus affect all editors with potential COIs? Anyone who's worked for any organization notable enough for there to be an article about it (summer job at KFC, cafeteria job at your university, intern staffer at your regional or national legislature, shelf stocker at Walmart, desk job at a big company, etc.); anyone who has ever interacted with or been a person notable enough to be documented in an article, according to some editors anyone who has ever been a lay member of an organization notable enough to have an article (though I disagree with that last interpretation of COI).(For full transparency, my talk page includes a disclosure of a COI with an article to which I previously made contributions, so I suppose I would be among the editors caught up in BilledMammal's suggested interpretation. In retrospect it was immoderate of me to make those contributions, as the article's topic pertains to a work created by an organization part of an umbrella organization that included an organization I was once a student employee of years ago. At the time of my contributions, I thought the termination of my employment terminated my potential COI, as I was no longer financially involved with the organization or umbrella organization (and had never been financially involved with the article topic's organization).) Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 05:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all paid editing be disclosed, emphasis mine.
For editors with an unpaid COI, I would suggest it is a little more complicated and would depend on the nature of their COI and how much of their editing relates to it.In other words, this wouldn't apply to editors with a potential conflict of interest, and generally would only apply to non-paid editors whose primary purpose here is to make edits related to their conflict of interest.
Unsure if I'm doing this report right since I'm not familiar with the behind the scenes of Wikipedia, but I believe I've found a conflict of interest where the artist Romero Britto is editing his own Wikipedia page. This user has only ever edited Britto's page, generally to create a more positive view of him (removing references to being friendly with a right wing politician and explaining in the edit page that Britto is politically neutral, adding an article where Britto defends himself against allegations of being abusive to restaurant staff). When you click on the Geolocate links on the userpage ( [8], [9]), the IP address is based in Miami, where Britto lives, and it lists the ISP/Organization as "Britto". Maybe there's an ISP called Britto that I've never heard of, but I feel like this is enough to raise a few eyebrows. Soflata ( talk) 01:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Matthew T Rader appears to have a COI in editing article Sam and Nia -- both because of a personal connection (the user disclosed on his personal blog that he is Sam Rader's brother) and a professional connection (he is advertised as a professional photographer on his blog, on Instagram, and even on Wikimedia Commons). The user created the article Sam and Nia, has made the vast majority of contributions to the article (per Xtools, the user has contributed 83.5% of all characters and 63.5% of all edits), and is still active editing the article now -- especially now that a Netflix documentary about Sam and Nia was recently released. 2620:1F7:8B5:284B:0:0:32:386 ( talk) 17:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Update Since the user has confirmed COI above, I've gone ahead and added the appropriate tags to both the article and the article's talk. Would still recommend an Admin determine if further actions ( WP:PBAN, WP:BLOCK, etc.) are warranted. 2620:1F7:8B5:284B:0:0:32:386 ( talk) 18:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Nigel PG Dale is an author who is currently working with Bill Smith of the Bluebird Project on a book regarding his side of the restoration story. User:Nigel PG Dale is attempting to influence the Bluebird K7 Wikipedia page to reflect untruths and is in a conflict of interest situation.
80.3.122.252 ( talk) 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
A long term editor with an obvious undisclosed COI and possible UPE on multiple articles they have created and improved over time. Monhiroe initially uploaded File:Nivedhithaa Sathish image.jpg and File:Niveedha sathish1.jpg, which were deleted for copyright violation. They then proceeded to upload File:Sathish2024.jpg, which was verified through VRT. But when asked if they were the photographer, they proceeded to remove the entire thread from their talk page without replying.
Hi folks, I'd welcome input/help from editors more experienced with handling COIs here, I don't really have time for this (I just stumbled upon the problematic page when cleaning up a category of scientists!). In one sense, the COI is pretty open, given the user name matches the name of the subject, but still, even after a warning there's no attempt to follow COI policies.
As outlined on the article talk page, the issues with this page might be broader than just this one user's COI, but certainly a lot of edits over the past couple of years create the appearance of self-promotion and public relations / whitewashing – a long pattern of edits emphasising (sometimes hyping) the subject's scientific impact and de-emphasizing scandal. (The other users listed on the article talk page were active 2 years ago, and not since, so I've not brought them into this discussion.)
After I used Uw-coi on the user's talk page yesterday, the user made further edits implying an unwillingness to engage with this:
Joe D (t) 10:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Extra eyes on this article would be useful, please. 46.69.215.187 ( talk) 19:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear to me from this editor's behavior and the infomation on their user page that they are somehow affiliated with the subject or the subject's organization. They seem to be a single purpose editor who edited a few other articles for a brief period after creating their account, but now only edit the one article. Skyerise ( talk) 00:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Also note that the above editor is adding self-published (CreateSpace) books to the subject's publications. Skyerise ( talk) 00:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Axel Downard-Wilke is Schwede66 (userpage disclosure), a prominent New Zealander Wikipedian, administrator and member of Wikimedia Aotorea New Zealand's executive committee. Marshelec also sits on this committee (userpage disclosure). I couldn't find explicit onwiki disclosure of which member he is, so to be on the safe side I will not make a claim either way for now. Marshelec has a conflict of interest regarding Downard-Wilke/Schwede66 because of this relationship.
Marshelec made major contributions to Downard-Wilke's article without explicitly disclosing this conflict of interest. This included nominating the article for a prominent spot on the Main Page as DYK's image hook. My view is this is bright-line misconduct.
Wainuiomartian, the other major contributor, has had some interactions with Schwede66 [12] [13] and it would probably be best for them to clarify their relationship.
To be clear, Downard-Wilke/Schwede66 himself has not had anything to do with the article and does not seem to have done anything wrong here. I have only notified him for completeness' sake. – Tera tix ₵ 08:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I accept that I have a Conflict of Interest with regards to Axel Downard-Wilke, and that I should not have edited the article or nominated it for DKY. I regret this lapse of judgement, and I accept the criticism that I "should have known better". I have now belately added a COI declaration to my user page, and a connected contributor template to the talk page of the article. I regret and apologise for the disruption and extra work that this has caused for multiple editors. Marshelec ( talk) 20:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification on my talk page, Teratix.
Allow me to state that Wainuiomartian does not have a COI. My administrative work happens at WP:ERRORS, WP:DYK, and WP:ITN. Beyond that, I almost exclusively edit New Zealand content, where I create content, curate new content, help out other editors, and keep an eye on a watchlist that is just shy of 10,000 items. With some 235,000 edits, it’s virtually impossible that I won’t have interacted with any New Zealand editor who is active in one of my topic areas of interest. This is one of those normal interactions that is part of my Wiki work and it is a very far off from getting Wainuiomartian and myself into a situation that resembles a COI.
The other week, Wainuiomartian started making additions to many of the YYYY New Zealand census articles, which are all on my watchlist. I made some stylistic changes to her edits and when a question arose, they came to my talk page and asked some questions, presumably because they had seen that I had also edited the census articles. That was on 11 May 2024, long after she last edited my bio. Hence no COI here either; merely from a timing perspective. You may note that as part of my reply, I issued a thank you for “very good work on a certain biography”. Wainuiomartian and I have never met or spoken with one another apart from these two interactions.
One article that is not on my watchlist is my bio. My thinking here is that I should not watch something when I cannot and should not take any actions; if there are issues, I trust that the Wiki community will sort it out. Hence, it took quite a while before I noticed that Marshelec is editing my bio when clearly he shouldn’t. I stated to him that this concerned me and this was a month after the article had been nominated at DYK. I shall state that he hasn’t edited the article since.
The side issue of notability was raised. There are a couple of sources that would count towards establishing notability that are missing from the bio:
If anyone is keen to work those in, let me know and I’ll type up the relevant book passages. And there's heaps more; I have another good 50 sources that can be cited. Also, I’d appreciate if someone could cast their eye over the content that Marshelec has added to check that’s it complies with NPOV. If that includes any offline sources or stuff that comes from ProQuest, I can make that available. I hope this helps. Schwede 66 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I was asked to write the article and agreed because the subject seemed notable with regards to his invention for cyclists at wide intersections and for instigating the consistent use of macrons on Wikipedia pages. I do not believe I have a conflict of interest. I have never met Axel and was not even sure of his username when I created the article. I have since contacted him directly once with a question of style about New Zealand censuses which I am working my way through. Wainuiomartian ( talk) 22:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
isn't it the right thing to do to suggest to someone else without a conflict of interest to write it?In this case, the writer should be transparent and disclose they have not written the article fully of their own volition but have been prompted by someone with a conflict of interest. – Tera tix ₵ 16:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Please note that the New Zealand Wiki community has its monthly online meeting tomorrow. Anyone can join in and we usually have a few Australians turn up. I'll be talking about COI editing so that we as a community learn something from it, achieving broader understanding of how to manage this. Anyone watching this page is most welcome to join in: Wikipedia:Meetup/Aotearoa New Zealand Online/49#Conflict of interest editing. I'll ask the organiser to be on the programme in second slot so that there's an approximate time available for those who are only interested in this topic; tune in from 12:15 h NZT, which is UTC+12:00. Time zone conversion link for your convenience. Schwede 66 03:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Following up:
I made some stylistic changes to her editsHow do you know Wainuiomartian's gender? I don't see anywhere it's been mentioned onwiki.
this was a month after the article had been nominated at DYKcould you narrow that timeframe down a bit further? Does "a month after the article had been nominated at DYK" literally mean "7 May" or is it broader?
I am too close to him to write the article myself, indicating he was aware of COI issues as far back as 13 February, well before he started making contributions to the article and DYK nomination. Honestly, finding this has shifted my view on the matter from "unfortunate incident but seems like an honest misjudgement" to "there was definitely awareness, even at the time, that what was going on went against our guidelines". – Tera tix ₵ 10:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
This longtime user has recently appeared at AfD procedures where their battleground behaviors ( [14], [15], [16], [17]) have drawn the attention of several editors ( [18], [19]). The AfD on EcoCute was closed as merge to Air source heat pump; today it points at EcoCute (Japan) ( [20], [21] by Namazu-tron), a glance at the page histories will show tendentious and "I don't hear you" behaviors from this editor during the deletion discussions. The pages texts themselves are aggressively complimentary and the photograph of the product on the page is linked to the user above (from 2008). BusterD ( talk) 15:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Juanma281984 was previously blocked for UPE, which they admitted to (last diff [22], interested parties can read the entire discussion for context). They successfully appealed the block and have returned to editing, having now promised for at least the second time to declare all paid editing.
Thinkfree Office, created after the unblock, is not neutral. As I mentioned on the talk page, the article has no criticism or negative coverage. This is depsite one of the sources cited containing a healthy dose of criticism, which seems to me like deliberate omission.
This diff [23] removes sourced content (the quote at "tattooed" and the sentence from "Brown's last day at CNN") and adds unsourced content (e.g. "Reuters Institute"). That one diff is too expansive for me to get an overview of, but seems to be biased toward Brown. Also, this user's creation of Redkey USB Ltd includes a token "Controversy" section (albeit unsourced), but still largely seems like UPE for that company.
I don't see a COI/ UPE declaration for any of these three cases. A user unblocked after an indef for UPE is on thin ice – either they need to give a very good explanation and clean up after themselves, or I would support an admin getting involved. Toadspike [Talk] 20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Having identified themselves as an editor with a COI as a member of the party, this user has continually engaged in WP:IDHT behaviour on the talk page; firstly repeatedly making attempts to change "far-right" (the sourced description) to "right-wing" ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and even after being told on the talk page 6 before dropping in a flippant comment on the talk page), creating a draft for their youth wing (complete with a copyvio upload) before adding a great deal of cruft and when reverted, restoring it with ZERO edit summary once, twice, thrice, partially four times and now five times. In the interim, the user has accused me of attempting to make the party "look good". I usually wouldn't care so much about people editing the articles of parties they're involved with so long as it's actually done unbiasedly and without any WP:IDHT concerns but this is absolutely not the case, and enough time has been wasted on this user. Between COI concerns, repeatedly no-summary reverts and failure to WP:GETTHEPOINT, enough is enough. — ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 17:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Note that the party this editor is a member of is currently involved in local and European elections in Ireland, so this is particularly timely. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't mean to repeatedly bang the drum, but could someone please look into this? We've a self-professed member of a party making repeated disruptive edits and reverting without summary, over an elongated period, including during our ongoing election campaigns here in Ireland. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 13:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Maria-Ana Tupan (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
ForTupan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) (and various IPs, see page history)
COI issues; Romanian IPs (likely ForTupan logged out, see
talk) making somewhat promotional edits to the page. ForTupan claims that the article is not about themself, and that their username was chosen out of respect for the author, because it was required to register a name when proposing the article for validation.
(This is my first time posting here, so please let me know if I did something wrong)'''[[
User:CanonNi]]''' (
talk •
contribs)
13:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
This started with some edits, including large-scale deletion, addition of unsourced text, and egregious violations of MOS, in the 125 SATA article. In the course of discussion with PRISH123, they stated, These directions have been received pan Indian Army to Update/Create a page of the respective units… If you will be kind enough to scroll through other pages, all the units are updating their data in the said format.
(diff) On review of other articles, I saw editing at 20 SATA by two editors—one now blocked, and the other, ArtyGunner12345—which follow the same pattern and indicate the same COI. Accordingly, I bring the matter here, since the scope is too large for a single administrator too monitor. —
C.Fred (
talk)
17:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Just adding a small something from SPI:
The SPI is broadly consistent with this being multiple dispersed people, thus CU is not going to be too helpful here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Addition of promotional content (including an image gallery which I have reverted). When I asked about COI on the user's talk page, their response was to delete my post without comment. My suspicion was aroused by a new account making multiple null edits, on this and other wikis, before starting on the article in question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I suspect that the 'IBG' in the username stands for 'International Brands Group', who own the IP of Totectors. Turned that article into a weird and unfocussed advert, was reverted and told about managing a COI, responded by adding the odd advert back again. 81.187.192.168 ( talk) 14:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Editing Rejoin EU and various parliamentary consistencies to add Rejoin EU party candidates with edit summaries mentioning "my party". Username suggests they are a candidate or party operative themselves. Went off the deep end at another editor when challenged about this yesterday, but then calmed down and seemed to accept the advice they were given, but resumed editing UK constituency articles this morning. 90.251.20.238 ( talk) 09:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats, NewPolitician (indef) and their IP (1 week) blocked for legal threats with a side order of DHT and NOTHERE. 90.251.20.238 ( talk) 15:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
I am bringing to your attention a dispute concerning the Hamis Kiggundu article, which has recently been reverted to its most recent edit prior to Davey2010's contested reversion. This reversion was necessary due to ongoing allegations of promotional editing and bias. I am now seeking a neutral review of the article to address these concerns and ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.
Background:
Concerns:
Policies Believed to Have Been Violated:
Request for Review:
Given these concerns, I am requesting a neutral mediator from the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard to:
I believe that a neutral review will help resolve this dispute fairly and maintain the integrity of the article.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 41.210.145.68 ( talk) 11:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
1. Promotional Tone Allegation:
The allegation of a promotional tone is subjective and requires specific examples to be addressed. The edits made over the last three years were supported by verifiable and reliable sources. These included:
- A chronological summary of a lawsuit and its resolution, documented by court records and news reports. - Detailed history of Hamis Kiggundu’s business journey, similar to those found in articles about other notable entrepreneurs such as Aliko Dangote, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg. - Philanthropic efforts, like the donation of 100,000 Royal Palm Trees to Kampala Capital City Authority, verified by government sources ( [27]). - Business achievements such as the redevelopment and grand opening of Nakivubo Stadium, covered by multiple reliable sources ( [28], [29], [30]).
If specific sections are deemed promotional, they should be discussed and revised rather than the entire article being reverted.
2. Allegations of Paid Editing:The assertion that this article is a result of paid editing should be substantiated with concrete evidence. Wikipedia permits paid editing, provided there is full disclosure and adherence to the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. In 2020, the user Mark Had disclosed his conflict of interest prior to the article passing Articles for Creation (AFC). However, despite this transparency, he was blocked, and an undisclosed paid editing tag was added almost a year later, in March 2021.
Wikipedia operates on the principle that "what is written is more important than who writes it," as outlined in its core content policies. This means that the focus should be on the verifiability, neutrality, and reliability of the content rather than the identity of the contributor. It is essential to respect the
Wikipedia:Assume good faith principle. If there are legitimate concerns regarding sockpuppetry, these should be addressed impartially and without bias through appropriate channels, such as
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. It is crucial that all actions taken are in good faith, ensuring a fair and collaborative editing environment.
3. Quality and Content Removal:
The reversion has significantly reduced the quality of the article by removing well-referenced and neutrally presented information. The edits made were in line with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, reliability, and neutrality. Removing such content without proper discussion and consensus is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.
4. Previous Discussions and Administrative Actions:
Previous discussions and administrative actions should be taken into account. A blanket reversion to a 2021 version disregards the collaborative efforts of multiple editors. The article should be reviewed for specific content issues rather than a wholesale reversion, which is disruptive and not in line with Wikipedia:Consensus.
Request for a Neutral Review:
Given these points, I request the following:
Policies Believed to Have Been Violated:
- Consensus: The reversion did not follow the principle of consensus-building ( Wikipedia:Consensus). - Edit warring: The repeated reversion without attempting to resolve the disagreement through discussion is a form of edit warring ( Wikipedia:Edit warring). - Assume good faith: Assuming bad faith without proper evidence or discussion contradicts the policy ( Wikipedia:Assume good faith). - Ownership of content: Acting as if they own the article by reverting to a preferred version without consensus ( Wikipedia:Ownership of content). - Disruptive editing: Removing significant contributions made over three years is disruptive ( Wikipedia:Disruptive editing). - Purpose and Five Pillars: The reversion contradicts Wikipedia's purpose and five pillars by restricting information and lacking fairness ( Wikipedia:Purpose, Wikipedia:Five pillars).
I believe that addressing the specific concerns through a neutral review will help resolve this dispute fairly and maintain the integrity of the article.
Firstly, User:Timtrent tagged all of the subject's media for deletion despite substantial permissions. When these deletions did not occur, User:Davey2010 proceeded to blank three years' worth of edits. It is noteworthy that both users are located in the UK, which raises the possibility that Davey2010 might have been influenced by Timtrent, as evidenced by reverting to Timtrent's revision.
These actions suggest a potential conflict of interest and might be perceived as being done in bad faith. The assumption of ownership over this content by a select group of users contradicts the principles outlined in Wikipedia's Ownership of content policy (WP:OWN). This policy clearly states that no one owns the content here and that all contributions are collaborative efforts.
Additionally, labeling every editor of this article as engaging in undisclosed paid editing (UPE) without substantial evidence seems excessive and contrary to the Assume good faith (WP:AGF) guideline. Not every notable figure's edits should be deemed promotional when they adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:V) policies.
It is also concerning that all recent editors have been submitted for sockpuppet investigations, which seems to target contributors unfairly. According to the Blocking policy (WP:BLOCK), blocks are meant to prevent disruptive editing and not to punish users. Repeatedly calling for investigations can discourage new contributors and create a hostile editing environment.
In light of these points, I respectfully request that unbiased and non-conflicted mediators be involved to ensure that this article is managed fairly and in accordance with Wikipedia's core content policies. It is essential that all editors are treated with respect and that any actions taken are transparent and justified.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in maintaining the integrity and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia
Thank you for your consideration. 41.210.141.54 ( talk) 13:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
User is editing page with a username that indicates association with the org. Did not respond to warning in February and has continued to edit. glman ( talk) 13:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Saw this editor add advertising language to Flexcar. I reverted and warned for COI. But going back to the article, they turned it into an advert back in March. I'm hesitant to revert further back because the article was a bit rubbish even before that and any attempt by an IPv6 editor to radically shorten the article would be reverted by a bot.
So, some more eyes, and some further advice (to me and/or Creativebuffalo), would be good, please. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:74C9:F21C:7D37:E976 ( talk) 21:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to self-report an incident that happened in 2016. I am not sure if it qualifies as a COI on Wikipedia or not. Back in 2016 I was still trying to figure out what kind of work was appropriate for me. Our HR person suggested that I work on a page for a donor to the library where I work as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, and I said I would try, but couldn't guarantee any specific kind of content (right, I should never have agreed to do that). I spent several weeks researching and creating a page in my sandbox for a man who made his fortune off of real estate (he's dead now). There were definitely enough sources on him for him to pass notability guidelines. One of my main sources was actually a biography commissioned by his trust. After I was happy with what I wrote in my sandbox, I sent it to the HR person, who sent it on to someone at the trust. The trust people hated it because I mentioned that the houses he built were not available to black people to purchase, as was the case with a lot of homes built then (a detail in the biography THEY commissioned, which I guess they also didn't like). Our HR person told me not to publish it. Was NOT publishing it a COI as outlined in our COI guidelines? Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 18:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
@ Fatam50 keeps taking down maintenance tags from a BLP that looks overly PROMO. I've asked them on their user tp to stop removing the tags, but they're not listening. I haven't removed anything from the BLP yet or nominated it for deletion—just added tags. But the creator is getting defensive, which makes me think there might be some COI going on. I might just take it to AfD though, because I don't see it meeting WP:N. Even though it looks legit with all those RS citations, but its not quite up to snuff. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 10:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems Tanhasahu may have a conflict of interest, but they denied it when asked to disclose. They registered in February 2024 and started with minor random edits before taking over Robert Soto, where Lifeiswhatnow ( talk · contribs) was active before being blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Notably, Tanhasahu registered just a few hours after Lifeiswhatnow was blocked, so it wouldn't be surprising if they were the same person. Tanhasahu also moved Draft:Maniv Mobility a couple of weeks after it was declined and subsequently created Ross Andrew Paquette, a non-notable Canadian businessman. Given their creation of three articles about villages in Rajasthan and their username, it suggests they are from India. It's unusual for someone to write articles about subjects thousands of miles away, particularly when those subjects are not widely known, which indicates they may have been hired. Additionally, they created Julian Jewel Jeyaraj on es-wiki (now deleted), a page previously created by user Jhummu, a blocked undisclosed paid editor and a sock of user Vivek.k.Verma. I also found this SPI filed by user DarmaniLink. GSS 💬 13:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
The primary purpose of User:Gladiator-Citizen (who previously edited as User:Citizen-Gladiator) on Wikipedia appears to be to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles about himself, family members, close friends/acquaintances, and related corporate entities. The editor now appears to have a desire to remain anonymous, however their identity is pretty clear from their editing history and a past username. I will try to avoid outing them in the below and am happy for any information to be redacted if it's deemed too close to the line.
A sample of the user's edits are below, ranging from less harmful to exceptionally harmful:
Unfortunately, when I tried to engage with the editor in a pretty neutral manner as to their COI, they responded with a rambling screed that did not address my basic query and showing very little understanding of Wikipedia's basic principles. The user's talkpage shows a history of similar interactions.
Based on this user's undisclosed COI editing and lack of understanding of fundamental policies I think an indef block is warranted. Their most recent edits (particularly that to the ACCC article) show that their editing quality is declining further and the risk of further damage is high given they typically edit in low-traffic subject areas. The content issues can be dealt with separately. ITBF ( talk) 12:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Apostolic Christian Church ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2600:1008:b05e:5e5c:34ea:3aeb:5dfb:dac8 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and similar IPs)
JoelSinn ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
23.28.106.237 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.222.170.52 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2600:1007:b01e:62a6:7c0d:a50:39c9:1227 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2600:1007:b01e:62a6:9cd5:dc9a:c426:6bb5 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Note that some IPs listed may belong to a singular user. There was also extensive reverting by other IPs on other sections of the article, but they are not listed here.
Hi, I was told to post this notice here, so here we are. I recently across a lengthy edit war at Apostolic Christian Church involving multiple IPs and a registered account recently, but didn’t know where to post it. Apparently there’s a COI of some kind or something? Hopefully this is the right page. I’m not entirely sure what to think of the situation. -Shift 674- 🌀 contribs 01:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Initially, I sensed something was off when I noticed they were inserting self published primary source references into may articles, such as plaskett.family and adding tourism guide like contents. COI was suspected, because they were single handedly responsible for the insertion of the overwhelming majority of that self published personal website blog reference. They've created the article White Stag Leadership Development Program and when I searched articles containing sourcing to Whitestag.org and ran a Wikiblame check for insertion of whitestag.org (such as this example and this 2022 example out of many) I found that btphelps was responsible for most of them. Further research found strong evidence of long term advocacy editing and likely undisclosed paid editing. I've given them a chance to explain, but after a few days, no response. Per Wikipedia policy on outing, I can not name the evidence here, however per the protocol, private evidence has been emailed to Wikipedia functionaries. Graywalls ( talk) 06:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok, so I can now say btphelps is a co-director of White Stag, per their self reveal as they have not had it redacted/oversighted. White stag was founded by Béla H. Bánáthy. Extensively writing about their own organization as well as those closely associated with it and inserting links to contents to the organization they direct as references to numerous related articles is a COI behavior. Graywalls ( talk) 18:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
This is a serious allegation and you should be prepared to provide solid evidence.since you have not directly introduced yourself by your identity outside of Wikipedia, I have to be careful with what can be posted here since posting anything that connects user name to real life identity is strictly prohibited, unless you explicitly authorize. Even then, I'd feel more comfortable if you introduced yourself first (strictly optional though) before I post it. Graywalls ( talk) 13:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I am going to be AFK until next week. Just an FYI, I just posted this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Graywalls reported by User:Evrik (Result:_) -- evrik ( talk) 03:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
This is also something to look at: Talk:Leadership_training_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)#Pinetreeweb_and_other_non-RS. Btphelps disclosed they're the author of that contents on pinetreeweb. @ SandyGeorgia: Graywalls ( talk) 15:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Please also see discussion of GA reassessment at Talk:Béla_H._Bánáthy/GA2 Graywalls ( talk) 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:COI's def is so broad and vague that it can be easily capitalized on by someone with an axe to grind. Saying there is a COI on someone who has been dead since 2003 is certainly outside the intent of wp:coi. North8000 ( talk) 16:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Btphelps:, We haven't heard you comment in a while Do you give permission for editors to publicly share evidence found off-wiki in this discussion even though it may reveal your identity and/or your affiliation with various organizations? Without your explicit consent, those details can't be shared here. Graywalls ( talk) 09:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
This new editor is repeatedly adding a lot of advertorial material (sample: Keio members often believe that any person related to the Keio organisation (e.g. professors, students, alumni and their family members) as part of their inner circle, and should offer their best in assisting one another like brothers or sisters.) to this article, suggesting a CoI, and isn't willing to engage on their talk page despite warnings. I'm not prepared to edit war over this, especially now they've discovered the undo button, so some extra eyes would be useful instead. The latest addition is still up at the time of writing. 81.187.192.168 ( talk) 18:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
This user is a manager at The Independent Florida Alligator and they need help that I can't provide. I'd appreciate it if someone here could help them. Below is what they put on their talk page.
This is all new to me. I have worked at The Independent Florida Alligator for 26 years. I manage the historical archives and alumni information. Up until a few months ago everything was fine with this page. Whoever was adding the new editors to the list was keeping everything current. However, recently, someone has removed very pertinent information - specifically the list of past editors - was removed. I do not know why. I was merely trying to put it back when it all hit the fan. I made an account (which I had never had to do before). I REALLY don't understand the whole "Conflict of Interest" thing! Who better to make sure that everything on this page is correct than someone who works here and knows what is what? I just want the editor list data returned to the page. I don't know who is responsible and who deemed it "unproduction, irrelevant", etc. ???? I think we, as the organization should have sole control over the content that is made public about us. Ellen Light (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
81.187.192.168 ( talk) 19:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
{{
connected contributor (paid)}}
template on the article talk page. The user's talk page correspondence suggests this situation is under control, for now. --
Drm310 🍁 (
talk)
04:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)In full transparency, I wanted to ask for a second opinion in a UPE template that I removed from Propel (company). I am the author and major contributor of the article, and I have a professional connection disclosed on the article's talk page and my user page. Today an IP editor added a UPE template, which I didn't think was appropriate. In general I try to avoid touching the article at all, but I've reverted the UPE tag. I'm mentioning it here in full transparency in case people agree with the UPE tag, or if they believe there are issues of notability that need to be addressed. Mokadoshi ( talk) 14:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Uncommunicative new user changing Le Labo to add advertising/marketing language. Could use more eyes. 81.187.192.168 ( talk) 17:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Editor continually copies large swaths of promotional information regarding the subject, suggesting they have an undeclared vested interest in said subject. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 18:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
(and the list goes on, see user's further edit history: /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Heideneii)
User Heideneii have been creating and heavily editing pages on various EU "Volt" related entities (individual member states parties) and persons (politicians).
I have contacted them on their talk page regarding this and they deny any COI. However, based on their edits, where they are a creator or heavy editor of those Volt related party and politician pages, I still suspect COI.
In their latest response they agreed they "are interested in the movement".
I welcome checks and opinions of other users. dusoft ( talk) 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
As a general question; do editors with a COI (paid or unpaid) have a COI with the COI guideline?
For paid editors, I would suggest that they do - they have strong reason to support weakening the restrictions on the editing they can do. For editors with an unpaid COI, I would suggest it is a little more complicated and would depend on the nature of their COI and how much of their editing relates to it. BilledMammal ( talk) 20:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
affected articles,
new articles,
no one on Wikipedia controls articles, etc.), and WP:COI is not an article.Second, if one is considering both paid and unpaid COIs, numerous editors have a WP:POTENTIALCOI. Would they therefore have a COI with WP:COI, since the guideline advises about behavior around one's potential COIs as well, which would thus affect all editors with potential COIs? Anyone who's worked for any organization notable enough for there to be an article about it (summer job at KFC, cafeteria job at your university, intern staffer at your regional or national legislature, shelf stocker at Walmart, desk job at a big company, etc.); anyone who has ever interacted with or been a person notable enough to be documented in an article, according to some editors anyone who has ever been a lay member of an organization notable enough to have an article (though I disagree with that last interpretation of COI).(For full transparency, my talk page includes a disclosure of a COI with an article to which I previously made contributions, so I suppose I would be among the editors caught up in BilledMammal's suggested interpretation. In retrospect it was immoderate of me to make those contributions, as the article's topic pertains to a work created by an organization part of an umbrella organization that included an organization I was once a student employee of years ago. At the time of my contributions, I thought the termination of my employment terminated my potential COI, as I was no longer financially involved with the organization or umbrella organization (and had never been financially involved with the article topic's organization).) Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 05:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all paid editing be disclosed, emphasis mine.
For editors with an unpaid COI, I would suggest it is a little more complicated and would depend on the nature of their COI and how much of their editing relates to it.In other words, this wouldn't apply to editors with a potential conflict of interest, and generally would only apply to non-paid editors whose primary purpose here is to make edits related to their conflict of interest.
Unsure if I'm doing this report right since I'm not familiar with the behind the scenes of Wikipedia, but I believe I've found a conflict of interest where the artist Romero Britto is editing his own Wikipedia page. This user has only ever edited Britto's page, generally to create a more positive view of him (removing references to being friendly with a right wing politician and explaining in the edit page that Britto is politically neutral, adding an article where Britto defends himself against allegations of being abusive to restaurant staff). When you click on the Geolocate links on the userpage ( [8], [9]), the IP address is based in Miami, where Britto lives, and it lists the ISP/Organization as "Britto". Maybe there's an ISP called Britto that I've never heard of, but I feel like this is enough to raise a few eyebrows. Soflata ( talk) 01:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Matthew T Rader appears to have a COI in editing article Sam and Nia -- both because of a personal connection (the user disclosed on his personal blog that he is Sam Rader's brother) and a professional connection (he is advertised as a professional photographer on his blog, on Instagram, and even on Wikimedia Commons). The user created the article Sam and Nia, has made the vast majority of contributions to the article (per Xtools, the user has contributed 83.5% of all characters and 63.5% of all edits), and is still active editing the article now -- especially now that a Netflix documentary about Sam and Nia was recently released. 2620:1F7:8B5:284B:0:0:32:386 ( talk) 17:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Update Since the user has confirmed COI above, I've gone ahead and added the appropriate tags to both the article and the article's talk. Would still recommend an Admin determine if further actions ( WP:PBAN, WP:BLOCK, etc.) are warranted. 2620:1F7:8B5:284B:0:0:32:386 ( talk) 18:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Nigel PG Dale is an author who is currently working with Bill Smith of the Bluebird Project on a book regarding his side of the restoration story. User:Nigel PG Dale is attempting to influence the Bluebird K7 Wikipedia page to reflect untruths and is in a conflict of interest situation.
80.3.122.252 ( talk) 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
A long term editor with an obvious undisclosed COI and possible UPE on multiple articles they have created and improved over time. Monhiroe initially uploaded File:Nivedhithaa Sathish image.jpg and File:Niveedha sathish1.jpg, which were deleted for copyright violation. They then proceeded to upload File:Sathish2024.jpg, which was verified through VRT. But when asked if they were the photographer, they proceeded to remove the entire thread from their talk page without replying.
Hi folks, I'd welcome input/help from editors more experienced with handling COIs here, I don't really have time for this (I just stumbled upon the problematic page when cleaning up a category of scientists!). In one sense, the COI is pretty open, given the user name matches the name of the subject, but still, even after a warning there's no attempt to follow COI policies.
As outlined on the article talk page, the issues with this page might be broader than just this one user's COI, but certainly a lot of edits over the past couple of years create the appearance of self-promotion and public relations / whitewashing – a long pattern of edits emphasising (sometimes hyping) the subject's scientific impact and de-emphasizing scandal. (The other users listed on the article talk page were active 2 years ago, and not since, so I've not brought them into this discussion.)
After I used Uw-coi on the user's talk page yesterday, the user made further edits implying an unwillingness to engage with this:
Joe D (t) 10:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Extra eyes on this article would be useful, please. 46.69.215.187 ( talk) 19:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear to me from this editor's behavior and the infomation on their user page that they are somehow affiliated with the subject or the subject's organization. They seem to be a single purpose editor who edited a few other articles for a brief period after creating their account, but now only edit the one article. Skyerise ( talk) 00:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Also note that the above editor is adding self-published (CreateSpace) books to the subject's publications. Skyerise ( talk) 00:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Axel Downard-Wilke is Schwede66 (userpage disclosure), a prominent New Zealander Wikipedian, administrator and member of Wikimedia Aotorea New Zealand's executive committee. Marshelec also sits on this committee (userpage disclosure). I couldn't find explicit onwiki disclosure of which member he is, so to be on the safe side I will not make a claim either way for now. Marshelec has a conflict of interest regarding Downard-Wilke/Schwede66 because of this relationship.
Marshelec made major contributions to Downard-Wilke's article without explicitly disclosing this conflict of interest. This included nominating the article for a prominent spot on the Main Page as DYK's image hook. My view is this is bright-line misconduct.
Wainuiomartian, the other major contributor, has had some interactions with Schwede66 [12] [13] and it would probably be best for them to clarify their relationship.
To be clear, Downard-Wilke/Schwede66 himself has not had anything to do with the article and does not seem to have done anything wrong here. I have only notified him for completeness' sake. – Tera tix ₵ 08:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I accept that I have a Conflict of Interest with regards to Axel Downard-Wilke, and that I should not have edited the article or nominated it for DKY. I regret this lapse of judgement, and I accept the criticism that I "should have known better". I have now belately added a COI declaration to my user page, and a connected contributor template to the talk page of the article. I regret and apologise for the disruption and extra work that this has caused for multiple editors. Marshelec ( talk) 20:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification on my talk page, Teratix.
Allow me to state that Wainuiomartian does not have a COI. My administrative work happens at WP:ERRORS, WP:DYK, and WP:ITN. Beyond that, I almost exclusively edit New Zealand content, where I create content, curate new content, help out other editors, and keep an eye on a watchlist that is just shy of 10,000 items. With some 235,000 edits, it’s virtually impossible that I won’t have interacted with any New Zealand editor who is active in one of my topic areas of interest. This is one of those normal interactions that is part of my Wiki work and it is a very far off from getting Wainuiomartian and myself into a situation that resembles a COI.
The other week, Wainuiomartian started making additions to many of the YYYY New Zealand census articles, which are all on my watchlist. I made some stylistic changes to her edits and when a question arose, they came to my talk page and asked some questions, presumably because they had seen that I had also edited the census articles. That was on 11 May 2024, long after she last edited my bio. Hence no COI here either; merely from a timing perspective. You may note that as part of my reply, I issued a thank you for “very good work on a certain biography”. Wainuiomartian and I have never met or spoken with one another apart from these two interactions.
One article that is not on my watchlist is my bio. My thinking here is that I should not watch something when I cannot and should not take any actions; if there are issues, I trust that the Wiki community will sort it out. Hence, it took quite a while before I noticed that Marshelec is editing my bio when clearly he shouldn’t. I stated to him that this concerned me and this was a month after the article had been nominated at DYK. I shall state that he hasn’t edited the article since.
The side issue of notability was raised. There are a couple of sources that would count towards establishing notability that are missing from the bio:
If anyone is keen to work those in, let me know and I’ll type up the relevant book passages. And there's heaps more; I have another good 50 sources that can be cited. Also, I’d appreciate if someone could cast their eye over the content that Marshelec has added to check that’s it complies with NPOV. If that includes any offline sources or stuff that comes from ProQuest, I can make that available. I hope this helps. Schwede 66 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I was asked to write the article and agreed because the subject seemed notable with regards to his invention for cyclists at wide intersections and for instigating the consistent use of macrons on Wikipedia pages. I do not believe I have a conflict of interest. I have never met Axel and was not even sure of his username when I created the article. I have since contacted him directly once with a question of style about New Zealand censuses which I am working my way through. Wainuiomartian ( talk) 22:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
isn't it the right thing to do to suggest to someone else without a conflict of interest to write it?In this case, the writer should be transparent and disclose they have not written the article fully of their own volition but have been prompted by someone with a conflict of interest. – Tera tix ₵ 16:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Please note that the New Zealand Wiki community has its monthly online meeting tomorrow. Anyone can join in and we usually have a few Australians turn up. I'll be talking about COI editing so that we as a community learn something from it, achieving broader understanding of how to manage this. Anyone watching this page is most welcome to join in: Wikipedia:Meetup/Aotearoa New Zealand Online/49#Conflict of interest editing. I'll ask the organiser to be on the programme in second slot so that there's an approximate time available for those who are only interested in this topic; tune in from 12:15 h NZT, which is UTC+12:00. Time zone conversion link for your convenience. Schwede 66 03:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Following up:
I made some stylistic changes to her editsHow do you know Wainuiomartian's gender? I don't see anywhere it's been mentioned onwiki.
this was a month after the article had been nominated at DYKcould you narrow that timeframe down a bit further? Does "a month after the article had been nominated at DYK" literally mean "7 May" or is it broader?
I am too close to him to write the article myself, indicating he was aware of COI issues as far back as 13 February, well before he started making contributions to the article and DYK nomination. Honestly, finding this has shifted my view on the matter from "unfortunate incident but seems like an honest misjudgement" to "there was definitely awareness, even at the time, that what was going on went against our guidelines". – Tera tix ₵ 10:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
This longtime user has recently appeared at AfD procedures where their battleground behaviors ( [14], [15], [16], [17]) have drawn the attention of several editors ( [18], [19]). The AfD on EcoCute was closed as merge to Air source heat pump; today it points at EcoCute (Japan) ( [20], [21] by Namazu-tron), a glance at the page histories will show tendentious and "I don't hear you" behaviors from this editor during the deletion discussions. The pages texts themselves are aggressively complimentary and the photograph of the product on the page is linked to the user above (from 2008). BusterD ( talk) 15:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Juanma281984 was previously blocked for UPE, which they admitted to (last diff [22], interested parties can read the entire discussion for context). They successfully appealed the block and have returned to editing, having now promised for at least the second time to declare all paid editing.
Thinkfree Office, created after the unblock, is not neutral. As I mentioned on the talk page, the article has no criticism or negative coverage. This is depsite one of the sources cited containing a healthy dose of criticism, which seems to me like deliberate omission.
This diff [23] removes sourced content (the quote at "tattooed" and the sentence from "Brown's last day at CNN") and adds unsourced content (e.g. "Reuters Institute"). That one diff is too expansive for me to get an overview of, but seems to be biased toward Brown. Also, this user's creation of Redkey USB Ltd includes a token "Controversy" section (albeit unsourced), but still largely seems like UPE for that company.
I don't see a COI/ UPE declaration for any of these three cases. A user unblocked after an indef for UPE is on thin ice – either they need to give a very good explanation and clean up after themselves, or I would support an admin getting involved. Toadspike [Talk] 20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Having identified themselves as an editor with a COI as a member of the party, this user has continually engaged in WP:IDHT behaviour on the talk page; firstly repeatedly making attempts to change "far-right" (the sourced description) to "right-wing" ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and even after being told on the talk page 6 before dropping in a flippant comment on the talk page), creating a draft for their youth wing (complete with a copyvio upload) before adding a great deal of cruft and when reverted, restoring it with ZERO edit summary once, twice, thrice, partially four times and now five times. In the interim, the user has accused me of attempting to make the party "look good". I usually wouldn't care so much about people editing the articles of parties they're involved with so long as it's actually done unbiasedly and without any WP:IDHT concerns but this is absolutely not the case, and enough time has been wasted on this user. Between COI concerns, repeatedly no-summary reverts and failure to WP:GETTHEPOINT, enough is enough. — ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 17:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Note that the party this editor is a member of is currently involved in local and European elections in Ireland, so this is particularly timely. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't mean to repeatedly bang the drum, but could someone please look into this? We've a self-professed member of a party making repeated disruptive edits and reverting without summary, over an elongated period, including during our ongoing election campaigns here in Ireland. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 13:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Maria-Ana Tupan (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
ForTupan (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) (and various IPs, see page history)
COI issues; Romanian IPs (likely ForTupan logged out, see
talk) making somewhat promotional edits to the page. ForTupan claims that the article is not about themself, and that their username was chosen out of respect for the author, because it was required to register a name when proposing the article for validation.
(This is my first time posting here, so please let me know if I did something wrong)'''[[
User:CanonNi]]''' (
talk •
contribs)
13:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
This started with some edits, including large-scale deletion, addition of unsourced text, and egregious violations of MOS, in the 125 SATA article. In the course of discussion with PRISH123, they stated, These directions have been received pan Indian Army to Update/Create a page of the respective units… If you will be kind enough to scroll through other pages, all the units are updating their data in the said format.
(diff) On review of other articles, I saw editing at 20 SATA by two editors—one now blocked, and the other, ArtyGunner12345—which follow the same pattern and indicate the same COI. Accordingly, I bring the matter here, since the scope is too large for a single administrator too monitor. —
C.Fred (
talk)
17:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Just adding a small something from SPI:
The SPI is broadly consistent with this being multiple dispersed people, thus CU is not going to be too helpful here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Addition of promotional content (including an image gallery which I have reverted). When I asked about COI on the user's talk page, their response was to delete my post without comment. My suspicion was aroused by a new account making multiple null edits, on this and other wikis, before starting on the article in question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I suspect that the 'IBG' in the username stands for 'International Brands Group', who own the IP of Totectors. Turned that article into a weird and unfocussed advert, was reverted and told about managing a COI, responded by adding the odd advert back again. 81.187.192.168 ( talk) 14:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Editing Rejoin EU and various parliamentary consistencies to add Rejoin EU party candidates with edit summaries mentioning "my party". Username suggests they are a candidate or party operative themselves. Went off the deep end at another editor when challenged about this yesterday, but then calmed down and seemed to accept the advice they were given, but resumed editing UK constituency articles this morning. 90.251.20.238 ( talk) 09:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats, NewPolitician (indef) and their IP (1 week) blocked for legal threats with a side order of DHT and NOTHERE. 90.251.20.238 ( talk) 15:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
I am bringing to your attention a dispute concerning the Hamis Kiggundu article, which has recently been reverted to its most recent edit prior to Davey2010's contested reversion. This reversion was necessary due to ongoing allegations of promotional editing and bias. I am now seeking a neutral review of the article to address these concerns and ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.
Background:
Concerns:
Policies Believed to Have Been Violated:
Request for Review:
Given these concerns, I am requesting a neutral mediator from the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard to:
I believe that a neutral review will help resolve this dispute fairly and maintain the integrity of the article.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 41.210.145.68 ( talk) 11:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
1. Promotional Tone Allegation:
The allegation of a promotional tone is subjective and requires specific examples to be addressed. The edits made over the last three years were supported by verifiable and reliable sources. These included:
- A chronological summary of a lawsuit and its resolution, documented by court records and news reports. - Detailed history of Hamis Kiggundu’s business journey, similar to those found in articles about other notable entrepreneurs such as Aliko Dangote, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg. - Philanthropic efforts, like the donation of 100,000 Royal Palm Trees to Kampala Capital City Authority, verified by government sources ( [27]). - Business achievements such as the redevelopment and grand opening of Nakivubo Stadium, covered by multiple reliable sources ( [28], [29], [30]).
If specific sections are deemed promotional, they should be discussed and revised rather than the entire article being reverted.
2. Allegations of Paid Editing:The assertion that this article is a result of paid editing should be substantiated with concrete evidence. Wikipedia permits paid editing, provided there is full disclosure and adherence to the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. In 2020, the user Mark Had disclosed his conflict of interest prior to the article passing Articles for Creation (AFC). However, despite this transparency, he was blocked, and an undisclosed paid editing tag was added almost a year later, in March 2021.
Wikipedia operates on the principle that "what is written is more important than who writes it," as outlined in its core content policies. This means that the focus should be on the verifiability, neutrality, and reliability of the content rather than the identity of the contributor. It is essential to respect the
Wikipedia:Assume good faith principle. If there are legitimate concerns regarding sockpuppetry, these should be addressed impartially and without bias through appropriate channels, such as
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. It is crucial that all actions taken are in good faith, ensuring a fair and collaborative editing environment.
3. Quality and Content Removal:
The reversion has significantly reduced the quality of the article by removing well-referenced and neutrally presented information. The edits made were in line with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, reliability, and neutrality. Removing such content without proper discussion and consensus is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.
4. Previous Discussions and Administrative Actions:
Previous discussions and administrative actions should be taken into account. A blanket reversion to a 2021 version disregards the collaborative efforts of multiple editors. The article should be reviewed for specific content issues rather than a wholesale reversion, which is disruptive and not in line with Wikipedia:Consensus.
Request for a Neutral Review:
Given these points, I request the following:
Policies Believed to Have Been Violated:
- Consensus: The reversion did not follow the principle of consensus-building ( Wikipedia:Consensus). - Edit warring: The repeated reversion without attempting to resolve the disagreement through discussion is a form of edit warring ( Wikipedia:Edit warring). - Assume good faith: Assuming bad faith without proper evidence or discussion contradicts the policy ( Wikipedia:Assume good faith). - Ownership of content: Acting as if they own the article by reverting to a preferred version without consensus ( Wikipedia:Ownership of content). - Disruptive editing: Removing significant contributions made over three years is disruptive ( Wikipedia:Disruptive editing). - Purpose and Five Pillars: The reversion contradicts Wikipedia's purpose and five pillars by restricting information and lacking fairness ( Wikipedia:Purpose, Wikipedia:Five pillars).
I believe that addressing the specific concerns through a neutral review will help resolve this dispute fairly and maintain the integrity of the article.
Firstly, User:Timtrent tagged all of the subject's media for deletion despite substantial permissions. When these deletions did not occur, User:Davey2010 proceeded to blank three years' worth of edits. It is noteworthy that both users are located in the UK, which raises the possibility that Davey2010 might have been influenced by Timtrent, as evidenced by reverting to Timtrent's revision.
These actions suggest a potential conflict of interest and might be perceived as being done in bad faith. The assumption of ownership over this content by a select group of users contradicts the principles outlined in Wikipedia's Ownership of content policy (WP:OWN). This policy clearly states that no one owns the content here and that all contributions are collaborative efforts.
Additionally, labeling every editor of this article as engaging in undisclosed paid editing (UPE) without substantial evidence seems excessive and contrary to the Assume good faith (WP:AGF) guideline. Not every notable figure's edits should be deemed promotional when they adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:V) policies.
It is also concerning that all recent editors have been submitted for sockpuppet investigations, which seems to target contributors unfairly. According to the Blocking policy (WP:BLOCK), blocks are meant to prevent disruptive editing and not to punish users. Repeatedly calling for investigations can discourage new contributors and create a hostile editing environment.
In light of these points, I respectfully request that unbiased and non-conflicted mediators be involved to ensure that this article is managed fairly and in accordance with Wikipedia's core content policies. It is essential that all editors are treated with respect and that any actions taken are transparent and justified.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in maintaining the integrity and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia
Thank you for your consideration. 41.210.141.54 ( talk) 13:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
User is editing page with a username that indicates association with the org. Did not respond to warning in February and has continued to edit. glman ( talk) 13:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Saw this editor add advertising language to Flexcar. I reverted and warned for COI. But going back to the article, they turned it into an advert back in March. I'm hesitant to revert further back because the article was a bit rubbish even before that and any attempt by an IPv6 editor to radically shorten the article would be reverted by a bot.
So, some more eyes, and some further advice (to me and/or Creativebuffalo), would be good, please. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:74C9:F21C:7D37:E976 ( talk) 21:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to self-report an incident that happened in 2016. I am not sure if it qualifies as a COI on Wikipedia or not. Back in 2016 I was still trying to figure out what kind of work was appropriate for me. Our HR person suggested that I work on a page for a donor to the library where I work as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, and I said I would try, but couldn't guarantee any specific kind of content (right, I should never have agreed to do that). I spent several weeks researching and creating a page in my sandbox for a man who made his fortune off of real estate (he's dead now). There were definitely enough sources on him for him to pass notability guidelines. One of my main sources was actually a biography commissioned by his trust. After I was happy with what I wrote in my sandbox, I sent it to the HR person, who sent it on to someone at the trust. The trust people hated it because I mentioned that the houses he built were not available to black people to purchase, as was the case with a lot of homes built then (a detail in the biography THEY commissioned, which I guess they also didn't like). Our HR person told me not to publish it. Was NOT publishing it a COI as outlined in our COI guidelines? Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 18:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)