Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days
archived by
Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{
subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
| ||||
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| ||||
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Search the COI noticeboard archives |
Help answer requested edits |
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{
edit COI}} template:
|
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)
I have come across an Indian company called Le Jolly Healthcare engaging in unethical behavior by forcefully inserting its drug's trade name, IsoJol at Inosine pranobex. I have encountered and removed this insertion in the past and most recently today (also discovered the name of the company). Upon further investigation, I discovered that the drug is actually contract manufactured by another company, Themis, for this brand. This practice is clearly predatory marketing by Le Jolly Healthcare. Similar instances of trade name insertion have been observed on other pages such as Diazoxide being labeled as Balila and Flucytosine as Cytoflu, where they even included the drug's price alongside the company name. It is quiet imperative that we establish a rigorous monitoring system to halt such practices, especially considering these are prescription drugs. The fact that a trading company, rather than the manufacturer, is engaging in such manipulative tactics clearly highlights the pervasive manipulative nature of the pharmaceutical industry. Charlie ( talk) 03:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
If someone feels like bonking a probable UPE tree, I noticed a new redirect from Danoy123 while doing NPP who very neatly added 10 short descriptions using a helper script to become autoconfirmed (most likely to game the system) and then immediately resume editing a draft which was previously declined at AfC (and unsurprisingly only edited by another SPA), moving it to mainspace and then back to draft shortly after. The interesting thing is that all of the articles that the account added short descriptions to are themselves mostly edited by SPAs and written in a promotional tone (including by ultimately blocked user User:Reddragon7 who was a disclosed paid editor) and in many cases those accounts have edited other promotional articles, and so on. I haven't tested how deep the rabbithole goes, but WP:DUCK makes me smell a rat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigadierG ( talk • contribs) 01:59, 3 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)
(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)
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)
Just found a cryptocurrency enthusiast article of Waqar Zaka. It looks promotional, and looks being updated by paid editors and being sued by some paid editors. Even after being two time AFD they saved it. Looks like this cryptocurrency enthusiast got another Article, and this one advertise him in different way. (This)
I only found this source reliable, but the content is just a short chit-chat interview. Other than that, not much was found. This seems old page which encourages COI culture. Please check. Lkomdis ( talk) 04:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Based on their replies to my simple and straight forward question asking if they are connected with Johnson University, it's clear that Etittle1978 is indeed closely connected with the institution. Indeed, they directly said that they are "higjly [sic] involved both financially and work with the University [sic]." It now appears that they have logged out to continue editing the article in ways that are blatantly promotional. One of their edit summaries even says that they are "a person authorized to make these changes on behalf of Johnson University."
I strongly recommend that they be blocked until they (a) stop editing this article with which they have a close, financial connection, (b) stop edit-warring to add promotional, POV material to the article, (c) stop using multiple accounts, and (d) acknowledge our COI policies and practices. ElKevbo ( talk) 02:13, 10 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)
@ 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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days
archived by
Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{
subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
| ||||
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| ||||
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Search the COI noticeboard archives |
Help answer requested edits |
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{
edit COI}} template:
|
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)
I have come across an Indian company called Le Jolly Healthcare engaging in unethical behavior by forcefully inserting its drug's trade name, IsoJol at Inosine pranobex. I have encountered and removed this insertion in the past and most recently today (also discovered the name of the company). Upon further investigation, I discovered that the drug is actually contract manufactured by another company, Themis, for this brand. This practice is clearly predatory marketing by Le Jolly Healthcare. Similar instances of trade name insertion have been observed on other pages such as Diazoxide being labeled as Balila and Flucytosine as Cytoflu, where they even included the drug's price alongside the company name. It is quiet imperative that we establish a rigorous monitoring system to halt such practices, especially considering these are prescription drugs. The fact that a trading company, rather than the manufacturer, is engaging in such manipulative tactics clearly highlights the pervasive manipulative nature of the pharmaceutical industry. Charlie ( talk) 03:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
If someone feels like bonking a probable UPE tree, I noticed a new redirect from Danoy123 while doing NPP who very neatly added 10 short descriptions using a helper script to become autoconfirmed (most likely to game the system) and then immediately resume editing a draft which was previously declined at AfC (and unsurprisingly only edited by another SPA), moving it to mainspace and then back to draft shortly after. The interesting thing is that all of the articles that the account added short descriptions to are themselves mostly edited by SPAs and written in a promotional tone (including by ultimately blocked user User:Reddragon7 who was a disclosed paid editor) and in many cases those accounts have edited other promotional articles, and so on. I haven't tested how deep the rabbithole goes, but WP:DUCK makes me smell a rat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigadierG ( talk • contribs) 01:59, 3 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)
(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)
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)
Just found a cryptocurrency enthusiast article of Waqar Zaka. It looks promotional, and looks being updated by paid editors and being sued by some paid editors. Even after being two time AFD they saved it. Looks like this cryptocurrency enthusiast got another Article, and this one advertise him in different way. (This)
I only found this source reliable, but the content is just a short chit-chat interview. Other than that, not much was found. This seems old page which encourages COI culture. Please check. Lkomdis ( talk) 04:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Based on their replies to my simple and straight forward question asking if they are connected with Johnson University, it's clear that Etittle1978 is indeed closely connected with the institution. Indeed, they directly said that they are "higjly [sic] involved both financially and work with the University [sic]." It now appears that they have logged out to continue editing the article in ways that are blatantly promotional. One of their edit summaries even says that they are "a person authorized to make these changes on behalf of Johnson University."
I strongly recommend that they be blocked until they (a) stop editing this article with which they have a close, financial connection, (b) stop edit-warring to add promotional, POV material to the article, (c) stop using multiple accounts, and (d) acknowledge our COI policies and practices. ElKevbo ( talk) 02:13, 10 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)
@ 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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)