Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 168

Archive 165

Archive 166

Archive 167

Archive 168

Archive 169

Archive 170

→

Archive 175

CAT:EDITREQ backlog and an otherwise not-very problematic kind of request

User:Cf2022 has made many many requests where the question is either adding some reliable source or the like or adding a sentence or two. Now, while it technically falls under paid-editing, it isn't as far as I understand editing done to promote or advertise a subject (at least, I haven't come upon such an example so far). The main (if any) problem with their requests is usually minor issues of wording or style, which can get fixed easily enough - not enough, in my opinion, to warrant having each and every one of them go through the process of being delayed for a while while somebody takes the time to clean the backlog of other COI requests. Is there some other suggested solution to this situation (I frankly don't have a problem with just checking each edit manually after it's done if anybody insists: not much different than patrolling recent changes, and also more pleasant since it very likely won't involve silly trolling by the average schoolkid vandal)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I counted something like seven (!) articles that they requested changes be made to, on the same day (January 24th)! My two cents would be that they should not be making so many requests. That is obliquely mentioned in the COI guideline "you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise." Possibly (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said, it would be much simpler just to review the seven edits manually than having the COI queue continuously grow. @Cf2022: What do you propose to solve this little issue you've gotten us into? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I sympathise with @RandomCanadian:, but @Cf2022:'s requests involve adding sources in which they have a COI. I recommend that they continue using the request edit system to ensure their prose represents the source's information and we are not putting WP:UNDUE weight on their sources.

I disagree with @Possibly: about the number of requests Cf2022 is making. CF's requests seem simple to assess and implement, and there are other editors who have numerous requests that take a lot longer to fulfil. I hope Cf will continue to be mindful about how many requests they have in the queue to avoid overloading it. Z1720 (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Yes, but at CAT:EDITREQ there is no way to distinguish their requests from all the others and its somewhat discouraging. Anyway, the COI they have is not very problematic (they're employed by a library - basically WP:Wikipedian in Residence - its not the same thing as COI John Doe working for a PR company...), and coming up with a better solution is certainly possible, if we're willing to make an exception: as I said, checking a diff for a mistake or two takes much less time than having to parse it from the request manually. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Here are their requested edits for one day (January 24th):

• Greenwashing
• Carbon Neutrality
• Drinking water supply and sanitation in the United States
• Delegation (law)
• Bill (law)
• Legislation
• CARES Act
• Evidence-based legislation

They also appear to have added directly material by Boston University authors, without going through Requested edits, to Stereotype threat (diff), Water scarcity (diff), Son of Sam law (diff) and Working class (diff). It's not hard to see that they are here to use Wikipedia to promote the reearch and publications of Boston university law faculty. Possibly (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

This (Stereotype threat) is not from a Boston university publication (its from Georgetown University Law Center, FFS). Really, even if them adding references to academic publications held by their library, some of which happen to be published by the authors from the university, somehow fits under some form of the definition of "promotion" or of COI, this is clearly not as problematic as you make it out to be. In fact, given what we know about reliable sources and how academic publications are usually closer to the better end of the spectrum of reliable sources, I don't see what the problem could be, unless they were personally a researcher citing their own papers, which is clearly not the case here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

So I'm concerned that Cf might be adding material to articles using sources they have a COI with. If they are doing this, I strongly encourage them to return to using the request edit template. I disagree with RandomCanadian's suggestion to just check the diffs; I think it would take me roughly the same amount of time to check the diff than it would to check an edit request. The difference is the diff, which may have problems in it, would be live on Wikipedia for months before it was assessed. I am not OK with that. I also don't want to separate COI requests into "approved COI editor" category and "not yet approved" categories. The backlog is long, it sucks, but I hope more reviewers will help us clear the backlog. Z1720 (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC).

Good afternoon, In order to avoid any issue with COI, I was previously told to only use the Request Edit function by other Wikipedia editors. I do not want to be in violation of any Wikipedia guidelines, so I am happy to comply with whatever everyone believes is best. With regard to the edits I made to the Stereotype threat (diff), Water scarcity (diff), Son of Sam law (diff) and Working class (diff) pages, I did request edits and received approval by an editor to make the changes. My requested edits were reviewed and approved before I was allowed to made the changes (see talk pages for articles). The editor who reviewed the changes simply told me to "Hi @Cf2022: Please proceed with making the edits above. Thank you!" Please let me what would be the best way to proceed. Cf2022 (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Cf2022

I think the work that Cf2022 is doing is rather interesting and I would like to know more about whose idea it was etc. Might reach out to her with a Wikipedia e-mail as I find it an interesting concept. I first came across her edit suggestion on the talk page of Water scarcity in Africa. To me it seems all quite legitimate so far. Wouldn't it be sufficient if she just proposed her edits on the talk pages of the respective articles (rather than adding to a COI resolution queue) and then the people who are watching the page can decide for themselves (and make the edit for her or let her do the edit)? EMsmile (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

wikiprofessionalsinc redux

• Ave Kludze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Scientisted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Richard D. Hansen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Mayafan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nancy Polikoff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Five Below (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Qontis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A follow up to this thread on the agency Wikiprofessionals_inc], whose FAQ creatively declares that they avoid paid editing rules via our WP:IAR policy. A claim was made in this ANI thread that the agency had been paid to edit W. Mark Lanier's page. The previous COIN case mentions a number of articles; the testimoney section includes some new ones that may be worthy of scrutiny.

• Ave Kludze
• Richard D. Hansen

Mayafan2

• Nancy Polikoff
• Five Below
• Qontis

Looking at the first one, Ave Kludze, I see a series of possible COI edits from new user User:Scientisted. I haven't had a chance to look closely at the others yet, but wanted to make a note of this now. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: as has been mentioned before, you need to notify the user of a discussion here. Possibly (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that, was in a hurry and forgot. I've added another WP:SPA-like account under Hansen and notified them. For the other mentioned accounts, WP:SPA patterns aren't as clear. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment I have to say, that FAQ really is quite the kicker. Creative application of wp:IAR is an understatement. Thanks for pointing this out, i've added these articles to my watchlist, and will keep an eye out for their long-term abuse characteristics. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 00:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ronald Kessler

• Ronald Kessler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Minuetta Kessler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Greg Kessler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• KesslerRonald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Extra eyes please, perhaps with more COI experience than I have. User: KesslerRonald had been editing pages such as Ronald Kessler (author/journalist), this includes removing content from that talk page, (these are older edits, but the page still needs to be sorted out, and we don't want to see anymore edits like that) and pages Minuetta Kessler (Ronald Kessler's mother) and Greg Kessler (another possible relation). He has added content to several articles that includes multiple mentions of "Ronald Kessler" (I can add diffs if req'd, but virtually every edit he makes seem to all be along the same lines), as well as adding photos of "Ronald Kessler with [article subject]" (yes, his name is always first - 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5), adding multiple "Ronald Kessler" refs to multiple articles, and (this is what first caught my attention), "updating" some of these sources to include links to Amazom pages where one can purchase the book by "Ronald Kessler" (1 & 2). These last two edits were made after a COI notice was placed on this user's talk page. To me there seems to be an on-goign campaign of self-promotion here, but I would be interested to see what others have to say. Thanks - wolf 03:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You could also drop a note at WP:UAA. Our username policy requires that editors editing with what appears to be a real person's name either provide evidence that they are that person or clearly state on their User page that they are not that person. Editors who do not comply with that policy are blocked. I am not saying that this editor necessarily needs to be blocked but it would be very helpful to know for sure if this is the subject who is editing his own article. ElKevbo (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done - wolf 07:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

User KesslerRonald was warned about COI back in 2008. During the time they have been on-wiki, they have made:

465 edits to Ronald Kessler,

44 edits to Minuetta Kessler and

36 edits to Greg Kessler.

Such a large number of edits has the appearance that it would impact the neutrality of the wiki. A WP:PBLOCK seems like it would put a stop to that appearance. Possibly (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've declined the UAA report. This was the username policy as of the day this account was registered. Real names were encouraged, and nothing was said about using the name of a well-known person. At the very least they deserve a chance to resolve this without being blocked first. I would consider this an entirely separate issue than the one reported here. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. As I stated, I posted here seeking advice from those more versed in COI policy than I. UAA was advice I received (and appreciated). I see you left a lengthy post on his talk page, and that is also appreciated. His username was not so much of an issue as the obvious disregard for the guidelines, (despite being repeatedly advised of them), the blatant COI edits, sales pitches and boastful self-promotion. - wolf 09:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that the UAA instructions indicate that real names are not grounds for a report, even if the user has not verified his identity. Coretheapple (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional example: came across this comment (from 2018, but currently posted) on the Mark Felt talk page ; Talk:Mark Felt#Jarring, strange placement for Kessler mention. In the article, Kessler's name is mentioned in the body twelve times, including an image caption (five of them linked). He has two books cited a combined six times, out of 114 refs. (fyi) - wolf 10:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Mr. Kessler did contact OTRS and I have marked his account as verified, which should address the UPOL/UAA concerns. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

RESPONSE: I am mystified by the claim that contributing verified, relevant material based on my journalism or about my relatives who are already the subject of Wikipedia articles is a conflict of interest. All of the material I have contributed over the years is from major publications such as the Washington Post or New York Times or from unique interviews or consists of unique photos of historic interest published in my best selling books. It seems to me that the only criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia articles should be and always has been whether the material is a relevant addition and whether it is verified with a citation, as has always been the case with my contributions. Most of the items mentioned here by Thewolfchild were contributed years ago and were approved multiple times by dozens of Wikipedia editors. If such material cannot now be included based solely on who contributed them rather than the relevance and veracity of the information, it seems to me a large portion of Wikipedia knowledge would have to be deleted, nor could such information be posted in the future. Moreover, if such a rule were to be imposed, any individual could post the same material on behalf of the individual involved and no one would be the wiser. To characterize material quoted from the Washington Post or New York Times or from unique interviews with major historic figures or that consists of unique historic photos as "sales pitches" or "self-promotion" seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the way journalism works and, if adopted as policy, would radically undermine the usefulness of Wikipedia, which we all love. Note that with the exception of one item decades ago, I have never deleted material posted by others, but rather in a few cases I have replaced items that I or others have written with exactly the same information written better in order to improve clarity.--Ronald Kessler — Preceding unsigned comment added by KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) 09:52, February 1, 2021 (UTC)

I am mystified that an experienced journalist would have such a poor understanding of basic conflicts of interest. I strongly recommend that you review not only our policy but also broader material about this very common phenomenon.

Of course we wonder about, question, and sometimes challenge the underlying motivations and unspoken reasons for some editors choosing to contribute (or delete) material to articles! It would be the height of foolishness and irresponsibility not to! And it's only human for all of us to allow, sometimes despite our best intentions, our emotions to play a prominent role in our editing. Having a conflict of interest is not a bad thing; it's completely natural and inevitable for everyone. It's how we deal with them that matters. ElKevbo (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Thank you for this perspective. All of my contributions cite major media sources such as the Washington Post or New York Times or major published books and therefore conform with Wikipedia policy below. That is why dozens of Wikipedia editors have approved the contributions literally hundreds of times over the years.

"Problems in an article about you: If Wikipedia has an article about you, we want it to be accurate, fair, balanced and neutral—to accurately reflect the sourced, cited opinions of reliable sources."--Ronald Kessler [KesslerRonald] — Preceding unsigned comment added by KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) 11:41, February 1, 2021 (UTC)

If you have or think you might have a COI with subject, it's always best to post a request or suggestion in the article's Talk page so that other editors can evaluate it and possibly carry it out themselves to minimize the possibility of a conflict of interest. I'm sure you'll find that most editors are very appreciative of helpful suggestions and request, especially those accompanied by high quality sources! ElKevbo (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Thank you! Will you be removing the warning label at the top of the Ronald Kessler Wikipedia article, including the absurd statement, "This article relies too much on references to primary sources?"--Ronald Kessler [KesslerRonald] KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) February 1, 2021 (UTC)

@KesslerRonald: you do not need to write "RESPONSE" every time you respond. We generally indicate response by the indentation level. Regarding the tags, I placed those. The COI tag that is there says something like "this article has been extensively edited by the subject". Is that true? Yes, you edited the article 465 times (and twice today). The other tag says "this article relies too much on primary sources". Now, are you cited excessively in the article? I can say, yes, as I stopped counting after about a dozen. So that tag is also correct. Finally, I do not think you understand that the general message of the COI policy is that you need to leave your own article alone. If you can commit to using the talk page to make edit requests on your article and on your family's articles, and to following WP:SELFCITE when inserting sources that are your own work, we are golden. Can you commit to that? Possibly (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I commit to that one hundred percent. I misunderstood and thought "primary sources" referred to first hand sources, not the subject of the article. Thank you for your advice and help!--Ronald Kessler [KesslerRonald] — Preceding unsigned comment added by KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) 13:46, February 1, 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Possibly (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@KesslerRonald: Jtbc that SELFCITE applies to all articles you may be editing, not just articles about you and your family. There are still issues that are outstanding, that you either don't grasp, or don't wish to grasp, given your statement above; "To characterize material quoted from the Washington Post or New York Times or from unique interviews with major historic figures or that consists of unique historic photos as "sales pitches" or "self-promotion" seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the way journalism works and, if adopted as policy, would radically undermine the usefulness of Wikipedia, which we all love."

Do I really need to point out all the problems with that sentence? There are multiple issues with your edits and the way you seem to be constantly promoting yourself, ie; adding your name multiple times into non-Kessler articles, adding your photos as well, adding links to sell your books, and I supported all this with multiple diffs. Nothing you've said here seems to acknowledge any of that, or commit to stopping it, or address how these articles are going to be fixed. - wolf 02:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I think you have got to assume some good faith here, especially given their declaration. I asked KesslerRonald that he follow WP:SELFCITE, which covers all of Wikipedia, and he agreed. So your statement "Nothing you've said here seems to acknowledge any of that, or commit to stopping it" is really incorrect. He's agreed to not directly edit family articles, and he's agreed to not insert his own work into articles in violation of SELFCITE. If, in the future, KesslerRonald decides to return to inserting his own work into multiple articles, and to edit his family's pages, then it's probably time to ask for an editing block. Possibly (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly: I saw the replies, and was addressing additional issues, but... fair enough, I agree with you that AGF is important. That leaves clean-up, ie; articles like Mark Felt will need some tidying, and the Ronald Kessler tp should be reconstructed and archived. But, I'll wait awhile and see what further responses there are here, or progress made on these and other pages. And then I'll take it from there. Thanks to you and ElKevbo for all your assistance. - wolf 03:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that, as agreed, I will only be submitting proposed possible additions to my Wikipedia article or other articles that cite me on the talk page, I respectfully request that you remove the tag at the top of my article citing possible issues, as you suggested you may be doing. I now realize that the reason it appeared that I had submitted so many contributions to my own article and other articles is that, given the arcane nature of Wikipedia citations, I have, especially in the past, in some cases submitted as many as 10 or 20 submissions for one contribution until I got it right! In any case, what counts is that each submission has conformed with Wikipedia WP:SELFCITE guidelines, which require that contributions be relevant and based on a solid source. The 63 footnotes in my article all cite major media sources such as the Washington Post and New York Times and have been approved by multiple Wikipedia editors over the years. Moreover, my article now contains a lengthy criticism section. Note also that I have made only a few contributions to my mother Minuetta Kessler’s Wikipedia article, such as a link to her papers at the Boston Public Library. Ninety-nine percent of her article was written by yoninah17@gmail.com, who did prodigious research to compile it. The multiple submissions from me again constitute my failed attempts to get the Wikipedia citations right. Please consider removing the tag on her article as well. As for the separate complaint that citation of material from major media sources constitutes “self-promotion,” most of Wikipedia would be wiped out if this complaint were taken to its logical conclusion. Further, I’m sure a large portion of material on Wikipedia comes from the subject of an article but was submitted by a professional or a friend or family member, so no one knows that it originated with the subject of the article. Again, as requested, in the future I will only propose additions to my article or articles that cite me on the talk page and will not make any changes to my article or other articles that cite me. I believe we have resolved the issues, so the tag can be removed, as you suggested you might do. I appreciate your help and understanding.--Ronald Kessler [KesslerRonald] KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) February 2, 2021 (UTC)

CORRECTED: Now that, as agreed, I will only be submitting proposed possible additions to my Wikipedia article or other articles that cite me on the talk page, I respectfully request that you remove the tag at the top of my article citing possible issues. I now realize that the reason it appeared that I had submitted so many contributions to my own article and other articles is that, given the arcane nature of Wikipedia citations, I have, especially in the past, in some cases submitted as many as 10 or 20 submissions for one contribution until I got it right! In any case, what counts is that each submission has conformed with Wikipedia WP:SELFCITE guidelines, which require that contributions be relevant and based on a solid source. The 63 footnotes in my article all cite major media sources such as the Washington Post and New York Times and have been approved by multiple Wikipedia editors over the years. Moreover, my article now contains a lengthy criticism section. Note also that I have made only a few contributions to my mother Minuetta Kessler’s Wikipedia article, such as a link to her papers at the Boston Public Library. Ninety-nine percent of her article was written by yoninah17@gmail.com, who did prodigious research to compile it. The multiple submissions from me again constitute my failed attempts to get the Wikipedia citations right. Please consider removing the tag on her article as well. As for the separate complaint that citation of material from major media sources constitutes “self-promotion,” most of Wikipedia would be wiped out if this complaint were taken to its logical conclusion. Further, I’m sure a large portion of material on Wikipedia comes from the subject of an article but was submitted by a professional or a friend or family member, so no one knows that it originated with the subject of the article. Again, as requested, in the future I will only propose additions to my article or articles that cite me on the talk page and will not make any changes to my article or other articles that cite me. I believe we have resolved the issues, so I believe the tag can be removed. I appreciate your help and understanding.--Ronald Kessler [KesslerRonald] KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) February 2, 2021 (UTC)

@KesslerRonald: That tag will eventually be removed by another editor. You could suggest its removal on the article's talk page; this is not the place to request article edits. See WP:REQUESTEDIT for how that works. Thanks. Possibly (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@KesslerRonald: I just wanted to make a general comment in a perfectly friendly way, as I am just watching this page and am not involved in your article. Please look at it from the perspective of Wikipedia editors. We volunteer our time without compensation for any number of reasons, but in the vast majority of cases we don't have a conflict of interest. We're just interested. Time spent dealing with interested parties (in the COI sense) such as yourself can be stressful and, I must emphasize, time consuming. When it is perceived that time is wasted, or unnecessarily consumed dealing with conflicted editors, it can create tension. Dealing with tense and unhappy editors is not in your or anyone's best interests. Large blocks of text (as you have added above) take time to read. That doesn't help. I strongly recommend that you keep these factors in mind going forward. Thanks for listening, Coretheapple (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

KesslerRonald submitted a request edit on Talk:Ronald Kessler to remove the autobiography and primary source tags at the top of the article. I declined the request because I think the tags are still relevant. KesslerRonald is welcome to use the request edit template to suggest changes to the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Rex Gatchalian

• Rex Gatchalian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Elanicoll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user seems to be trying to promote this politician. They keep adding a very long list of "awards" received by the city and most of the refs do not even mention the mayor by name. I have removed the list several times to no avail. COI message on user TP ignored. MB 05:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Reverted and warned about edit warring.They have made some huge edits..one of them was +45Kb. Possibly (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

They have said this on their user page, and I advised them how to disclose on their user page: "I am an employee and was tasked to put the awards on both Wikipedia pages. I am being compensated for my job, not for editing here. I was just tasked to update the Wikipedia every now and then." I can't remember what we do when we catch UPE: we let them continue given proper disclosure, or do they get blocked?Possibly (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that blocks are "preventative not punitive", why would we block such a person, after they have made a proper disclosure? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

International Swimming League

There seems to be an ongoing issue with the International Swimming League using Wikipedia pages for self-promotion. There are several instances where there is blatant edits made by employees of the league or its owners, including:

• User talk:MWellmann (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• MWellmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Konstantin Grigorishin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dellano Silva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• International Swimming League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dellano Silva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Michael Chadwick (swimmer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and others)
• JayneECB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not trying to out anybody in violation of rules, but, in many cases, they have used their names in their usernames. Dellano Silva is the name of someone who works for Konstantin Grigorishin, the founder of the league, Maike Wellmann is an agent for several pro swimmers and a member of the staff of the New York Breakers, the name of the Toronto Titans' Director of Marketing is Jayne Brintley. The list goes on and exists for most teams.

Rolling off that, there are plenty of other examples of users who have gone through and done the same for other teams.

There are other less obvious examples of this.

One such editor, seemingly clueless to the rules, acknowledged that she was a team manager and that the ISL had instructed teams to update their athletes' pages (MWellmann)

There seems to be a concerted effort to fill Wikipedia with links and team listings for credibility. Is there a way to deal with this on a large scale, or does the discussion need to be had page-by-page? Some have been dealt with, others have not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HatBucketBalls (talk • contribs)

@HatBucketBalls: you need to notify any user that you mention here. See top of this page, where it says "subst:coin..." Possibly (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion at this noticeboard about this editor on or about 29 November 2020. In other words, this isn't new. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Tom Kirkwood

• Tom Kirkwood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• LexaDlawok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User adds large content in consent with Tom Kirkwood on the article Tom Kirkwood: [1]. The edits are largely unsourced or not sourced to independent and reliable sources (13 out of 18 references where publications by the article's subject). User has been warned by four other users already. NJD-DE (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The link indicates this editor also puffed up the lead (he's now a "major" contributor to his field), so there is self-promotion as well as BLPSOURCES issues here. Coretheapple (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

LexaDlawok has explained on their talk page that "I have ABSOLUTELY no financial interest in modifying this page. Instead Tom Kirkwood is a colleague of mine and he asked me if I could update this page about him. I'm doing this as a favor without receiving any money or other benefits." Possibly (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, there is no self-proclaimed paid editing situation but apart from that I think their statement is beside the point. Coretheapple (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: ? Their statement confirms their COI, and makes it clear that they should not be editing the page. Possibly (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I was acknowledging that. My point was that they thought that not being paid was exculpatory. Coretheapple (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Varapuzha Former Cathedral

No, friends, not an article name, it's a user name: Varapuzha Former Cathedral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is going around and reverting my requested moves, etc. Elizium23 (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: You don't appear to have talked to them about COI on their talk page, you also did not notify them of this discussion. Both are required, see the top of this page. Possibly (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

An agent for people in the film industry

• Draft:Sagar Desai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Raj Acharya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Randeep Jha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Vaibhav Raj Gupta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Sandesh Kulkarni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Sagar Desai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Smithsonutivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He admits to being an agent for all the persons who he has created an article for. That's a clear case of promotion, to create articles for them. Granted a couple of them do pass notability standards , but there is a bit too much COI here. Daiyusha (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Daiyusha: Did Smithsonutivich say they were an agent on Wikipedia? If so, can you provide a diff of a link to the declaration? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: if you look at Smithsonutivich's contribs, it is declared in the edit summaries. Possibly (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Possibly, I did not see the declaration in the edit summaries. I posted information on declaring COI on Smithsonutivich's talk page. I also added paid COI banners to the talk pages of the drafts that they created, as they made the declaration in the edit summary. Z1720 (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Emil Kirkegaard

• Emil Kirkegaard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BerlinburgerTor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user in question has admitted on another website (RationalWiki, a wiki which has a much more critical article on Kirkegaard) to creating the article in question on behalf of its subject. (Redacted) He admits that his motivation for writing the article was that the RationalWiki article was too critical, meaning the Wikipedia article was intended as a puff piece. It’s perhaps worth noting that the article has been deleted before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Kirkegaard. I believe it should be deleted again, but I’m unsure if I should make a post in Articles for deletion (and unsure how, given that one already exists) or if this is enough for someone to delete it. Throwaway314 (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Off-wiki items redacted, per WP:OUTING. The redacted links suggest BerlinburgerTor is working on behalf of Emil Kirkegaard. On the one hand, plausible; on the other hand, anyone could have written that. BerlinburgerTor, do you have any COI to disclose? Possibly (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

”Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph”. The links revealed nothing fitting those descriptions, and no other sensitive personal information. As of writing the original comment, the two links I provided were the only two edits on his newly created account, although he has now started to argue in the thread he made. Throwaway314 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• the Emil Kirkegaard page has been referred to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Pseudoscience so we are just waiting for @BerlinburgerTor to disclose what seems top be likely COI. Possibly (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

User:TwinTurbo

• Toronto’s Entertainment District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (newest article creation)
• Prime Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Big Lean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Doap Traffiking: The Rise and Fall of Darth Nixon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Celph Titled discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gray Poupon (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sour Diesel (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Baptism By Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Demigodz Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hopsin discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Syamsul Yusof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hip-Hop Linguistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Prayer for the Assassin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Vinnie Paz discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• It's the Bootleg, Muthafuckas! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Samurai Jack: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Poison (Chamillionaire album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Midnight Club 3: DUB Edition soundtrack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• God of the Serengeti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Amalie Bruun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fast & Furious (score) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (Original Motion Picture Score) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ammunition EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (oldest article creation)
• TwinTurbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have blocked the above editor for UPE, proved beyond reasonable doubt by the use of fake news black hat SEO sources and spam blacklist evasion on Draft:Craig Davis (entrepreneur) and Draft:Fast Wave Communications. They have over 8500 edits, so other contributions need intense scrutiny. MER-C 13:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I added their article creations, which go back to 2012, to the list above. They also created something like 300 redirects--not sure if those matter. Possibly (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)