Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Eqvinox (talk | contribs)
95 edits
No edit summary
Line 1,650: Line 1,650:


I have emailed paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org with off-wiki evidence of undisclosed paid editing. If anyone reading this has the relevant permissions to act on that, that would be great. [[User:Curb Safe Charmer|Curb Safe Charmer]] ([[User talk:Curb Safe Charmer|talk]]) 21:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I have emailed paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org with off-wiki evidence of undisclosed paid editing. If anyone reading this has the relevant permissions to act on that, that would be great. [[User:Curb Safe Charmer|Curb Safe Charmer]] ([[User talk:Curb Safe Charmer|talk]]) 21:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

== Bill Woodcock ==

* {{userlinks|Bwoodcock}}
* {{pagelinks|Internet_exchange_point}}
:* user requested "test" for CoI (after strenuous discussion in [[Talk:Internet_exchange_point#Misleading_first_sentence]])
:* Bill Woodcock is paid by PCH according to [https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/detailsPage?ein=943380476&name=Packet%20Clearing%20House%20Inc.&city=Berkeley&state=CA&countryAbbr=US&dba=&type=CHARITIES,%20COPYOFRETURNS&orgTags=CHARITIES&orgTags=COPYOFRETURNS]
:* According to its own description, PCH provides services and engages in advocacy for IXPs
:* PCH's funding, particularly as a non-profit, may be influenced by the broader public's perception of Internet Exchange Points, which the very article considered here describes.
–[[User:Eqvinox|Eqvinox]] ([[User talk:Eqvinox|talk]]) 22:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:50, 6 October 2021

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    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:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:260 Collins
    Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
    Talk:Pamela Anderson
    Talk:AvePoint
    Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist)
    Talk:BEE Japan
    Talk:Edi Birsan
    Talk:Adam Boehler
    Talk:Bunq
    Talk:Captions (app)
    Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:DEGIRO
    Talk:Dell Technologies
    Talk:Michael Dell
    Talk:Element (software)
    Talk:Etraveli Group
    Talk:Fitch Ratings
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel)
    Talk:Genuine Parts Company
    Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire
    Talk:Group-IB
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Andrew Hoffman
    Talk:Insight Meditation Society
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:Norma Kamali
    Talk:Khalili Foundation
    Talk:David Lalloo
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss
    Talk:Alexa Meade
    Talk:Metro AG
    Talk:Alberto Musalem
    Talk:NAPA Auto Parts
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:V Pappas
    Talk:Matthew Parish
    Talk:PetSmart Charities
    Talk:Sharp HealthCare
    Talk:Louise Showe
    Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa
    Talk:Lorraine Twohill
    Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science
    Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre
    Talk:US Wind
    Talk:Year Up
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    COI at AFD

    This relates to Wikimedia movement, which was recently AFD'd with a "no consensus" result, at which I and others raised a COI issue. I do not suggest that anyone participating in the AFD has done anything wrong; rather, the COI issue may be relevant if this article is ever AFD'd again. I don't think there is any existing global consensus about this particular scenario, which is why I raise it here for input. So, here is the multipart question:

    1. Is it a COI for an editor who is a WMF employee to (a) !vote in an AFD about the article "Wikimedia movement", (b) to "keep" based on sources written by WMF employees (themselves or others)?
    2. Same question as #1, but change either instance of WMF employee (obvi paid by WMF) to:
      Same answer or different answer? Note: I am asking to address the various combinations, such as a WMF employee !voting to "keep" based on a source written by a WMF trustee.

    Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Levivich 17:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • In my opinion:
    For #1, yes, it is, for an employee of an organization to !vote in an AFD related to that organization, as explicitly stated by WP:PAY. This naturally includes WMF employees. Further, how the individual !votes and the arguments they present isn't relevant to whether a COI exists. However, I will note that I wouldn't consider such work to be independent, unless it was written a significant amount of time before the individual began their employment at Wikimedia.
    For #2; yes, maybe, and no, in that order.
    For #2.1; Board of Trustees is the non-profit equivalent to the Board of Directors, and just as we wouldn't consider a Director to not have COI, we shouldn't consider a Trustee to not have a COI; in this case, the COI would be unpaid, but in many cases it would be paid.
    #2.2 is complicated, as while a grant establishes a financial relationship, it doesn't necessarily establish a "close financial relationship". If we consider a general grant, I believe we would consider a paid COI to exist if one of two conditions was met; if the goal of the grant is closely related to the granter, or if the grant makes up a sufficiently significant portion of an grantees income that they can be considered a contractor or employee. The grantees intentions around the grant should also be relevant; if they intend to renew it, then that strengthens any arguments for a COI, as they are to a certain extent beholden to the granters good will. In the case of Wikimedia, I feel only the first of these can be productively discussed in the general, and so I will set aside the later two.
    To do this, we need to consider the forms of grants available, but I must profess my ignorance; I have little knowledge of the Wikimedia grant program, and as such I will refrain from extensive comment, leaving that to those better versed in this area.
    For #2.3, "no", per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Wikipedians_in_residence,_reward_board.
    BilledMammal (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hi @Levivich: How goes it? Having read this about X times I would say that #1: Absolutely. #2.1 It would depend on a case by case basis (who is saying what on the day) and the relationships. Probably. #2.2 Depends what the relationship is and to a certain extent what the big grant is for and who gave it out. Perhaps. scope_creepTalk 20:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Similar to judicial recusal where judges are not required to recuse themselves when any possible judge would have a conflict of interest (the article gives the example of a case on the salary of all judges in the system), by definition any Wikipedia editor will have a COI in Wikipedia or Wikimedia-related articles. While WP:COI doesn't explicitly say it doesn't apply to topics specifically related to Wikipedia or Wikimedia, per WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE it clearly doesn't, or no editor would be able to participate. Although we're not all paid by WP/WMF, I'd certainly consider editing an article about a non-profit that you devote significant volunteer hours to to be a COI under ordinary circumstances even if you don't get paid for your time. But if we did that for Wikipedia/Wikimedia topics, it would apply to literally all of us. Simply put, we all have an interest in advancing Wikipedia, or we wouldn't be here. Smartyllama (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion started in another section

    Are Wikimedia Foundation employees required to disclose COI?

    In general, I would've thought that if an AfD is made about a corporation's product, or some kind of entity closely connected to a corporation, then employees of that corporation (especially ones that work in communications and would be classified as WP:PAID editors) should either a) not comment in an AfD about that entity; b) if they do, should clearly disclose their status as an employee.

    So I'm asking this question for if Wikimedia movement is nominated at AfD in the future... Several WMF employees commented at the AfD without disclosing their employment at the corporation. So I'm wondering, especially given that the phrase has strategic/fundraising value to the WMF and there is a serious dispute whether the subject of the article actually exists independently of the corporation, does WP:COI recommend that any salaried employee (or paid contractor) at the WMF clearly disclose their current (or previous) employment in the AfD? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @ProcrastinatingReader: I guess I should have picked a more descriptive heading for #COI at AFD. :-D Levivich 14:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't restate what I previously stated at #COI at AFD, but I do feel that this forum might not be sufficiently broad to properly discuss this topic. Perhaps an RFC would be in order, once we work out how to work it? BilledMammal (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a good idea. Maybe we should merge these two threads and make it an WP:RFCBEFORE discussion? I don't frequent this board so I'm not sure if that's an appropriate thing to do here. Levivich 16:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yours is more elegant than mine, I just didn’t notice it was there, so I’m happy for this to be merged in as a subsection and collapsed (I’d do it myself but on phone). I’m not sure an RFC is worth it, I mean it won’t create much binding precedent as it’s a very niche case, just a sample of opinions from COIN regulars. Since COI is ‘just a guideline’ and everything in it is just strong encouragements etc because (or so I’m told) the community failed to agree to make it formally binding, I figure it’s best if there’s enough opinions on the issue and then a future XfD could have a warning template at the top advising WMF employees of the results. I’m not sure if a stronger outcome is possible but if it is that would work too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've merged the other discussion into this one per PR's comments; if anyone disagrees with the form in which I have done so, please don't hesitate to change. I do think it is time to start thinking about an RFC; I plan to draft one and place it here for discussion before opening the RFC at the relevant location, probably Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. I'll get this draft done in the next day or so, unless someone beats me to it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Nalbarian


    I've just blocked this user based on nonpublic evidence of undisclosed paid editing. Any help reviewing his ~100 created pages for affected articles that need cleanup or deletion would be appreciated. I don't think everything he wrote was for pay, but some of it definitely is. – Joe (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    From the bottom up:
    Will continue, just posting now so that if anyone else is working on this they can start from the top and we don't duplicate work. BilledMammal (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Akana (village) - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI.
    • Pajipar - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI.
    • Parowa (village) - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI.
    • Marowa - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI.
    • Deepamoni Saikia - article doesn't come across as promotional, but the simple existence of it may be; the citations don't come close to suggesting they meet WP:GNG. Plausible COI.
    • Anupam Nath - article doesn't come across as promotional, but the simple existence of it may be; they might meet WP:ANYBIO due to their TIME photography award, but I'm not confident they meet GNG. Possible COI.
    • Baralia River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
    • Pagladiya River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
    • Jatinga River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. Previously pinged for copyvio.
    • Dikhow River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
    • Gabharu River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
    • Haribhanga, Nalbari district - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI. Could be renamed to Haribhanga (village).
    • Kulsi River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
    • Jiri River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
    • Chowki picnic spot, Baksa district - since turned into a redirect. No evidence of COI. Original has no apparent copyvio.
    • Billeswar Devalaya - Hindu temple. I have serious questions about notability, but won't comment beyond that as I suspect there may be sources in Hindi. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
    • Aie River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
    • Champabati River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. Copyvio, with phrases like " in south west direction and entered into Bengtal Sanctuary taking Khungrung river at its right in Hantupara" being directly copied.
    • Embassy of India, Pyongyang - likely meets GNG, no evidence of COI. Possibly copyvio - table is copied directly from [here https://eoi.gov.in/pyongyang/?4098?000], and other text is copied directly from [here https://eoi.gov.in/pyongyang/?4179?00001]. However, I'm not certain of the copyright status of this content, given it was produced by the Indian government.
    • Royal Bhutan Consulate, Guwahati - turned into a redirect. Origional has a possible copyvio with the phrase "The Royal Bhutanese Consulate General in Guwahati, Assam is one of the diplomatic missions of the Kingdom of Bhutan to the the Republic of India with concurrent consular jurisdiction over Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and Nagaland. It was inaugurated on 2 February 2018." being too close to the sources wording: "The Royal Bhutanese Consulate General in Guwahati, Assam with concurrent consular jurisdiction over Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and Nagaland was inaugurated on 2 February 2018". As it has already been turned into a redirect, probably safer just to blank the original.
    • Archana Mahanta - reads slightly promotional, but given the individual is deceased, that the article was created after their death, and is heavily sourced to non-paid obituaries, I think that is just a consequence of the chosen sources, rather than evidence of a COI. Easily meets GNG. No apparent copyvio.
    • Adya Sharma - no apparent COI, meets GNG, but has copyvio, directly copying phrases like ["One of his remarkable achievements was staging Titanic in Kohinoor Theatre, one of the leading mobile theatre groups in Assam." https://www.telegraphindia.com/north-east/cultural-icon-passes-away/cid/1528681] from the Telegraph India.
    • Jenny Atkinson - Might just scrape GNG, but they would need an additional source to do so, a source I haven't been able to find. No particular evidence of UPE, but the uniqueness of it - the sole article the user created that is not related to India - makes me suspect there is a UPE. Might be worth sending to AfD to get their feel for it.
    • Jiadhal River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
    Stopping for now, will continue later. BilledMammal (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jiadhal River - Seems ok.
    • Adya Sharma - Seems ok.
    • Archana Mahanta - Seems ok.
    • Embassy of India, Pyongyang OK
    • Champabati River OK
    • Aie River OK scope_creepTalk 23:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dikrong River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
    • Borgang River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
    • Basudev Devalaya - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Not confident it meets GNG.
    • Nona River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
    • Ganga Pukhuri - [copyvio http://nalbari.nic.in/ganga_pukhuri.html]. No apparent COI, but I am not confident it meets GNG.
    • Asha Bordoloi - Content does not appear promotional, but the individual might fail WP:BLP1E.
    • Thetha Gohain Than - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Not confident it meets GNG.
    • Archana Borthakur - Reads slightly promotional ("She is known for her social works ..." without the source making such a statement), and the evidence she meets GNG is slim; possible COI. No evidence of copyvio.
    • Kushal Konwar Sarma - Comes across as slightly promotional, but I believe that is due to copyvio from a source that comes across as promotional, rather than COI.
    • Ravi Kannan R - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Meets GNG.
    • [Bhaskar Jyoti Mahanta]] - No apparent COI, probably meets GNG, the "education" section is a copyvio.
    • Surjya Kanta Hazarika - No apparent copyvio, doesn't read in a promotional manner, so no apparent COI. However, very unlikely to meet GNG.
    • Shyamkanu Mahanta - Some minor copyvio, such as the line "Mahanta passed out in engineering and later did management course." being directly copied from the source. No apparent COI, probably meets GNG.
    • Mayur Bora - Likely COI. Signature and photograph are presented as "own work" (not a new editor error, they have previously correctly attributed images), while the article reads vaguely promotional. No apparent copyvio, and possibly meets GNG.
    • Manoj Gogoi - No apparent COI, but copyvio, with sentenced like "Gogoi decided to become a full-fledged environmentalist after a chance meeting with Kedar Gore, director of Corbett Foundation." directly copied from the source.
    • M Kamalathal - reads promotional, using words like "selfless" that are not used in the sources. However, they likely meet GNG; all in all possible COI, but it might not need to be acted upon. No apparent copyvio.
    • Bharalu River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
    • Jhanji River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
    Pausing for now, will continue later. BilledMammal (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilledMammal: Suggestion: next time use the article links template and list the concerned articles at the top. I've redirected one article, but to indicate that I would have had to edit your post. --- Possibly ☎ 02:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Possibly:; to be clear, you mean this template: {{pagelinks|article name}}? Thank you for the suggestion, I'll do that next time; I can see the benefit. For the moment, I have no objection to people editing my post to note that a certain action has been taken on a given page. BilledMammal (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilledMammal: yes, exactly. There is also a template for userlinks. Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 04:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just looking at the above reviews, I am wondering if Nalbarian's block was justified. It just seems like a person with a passion for local places and people in India. They may have made a few copyvios in the process and the articles may not have been interesting enough for other WP editors to collaborate and form fully vetted articles. But COI? Indefinite block? Seems a stretch to me. SVTCobra 01:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said, it was based on compelling nonpublic evidence. Most of his likely-commissioned articles were deleted before the block. – Joe (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Junmoni Devi Khaund - no apparent COI, but heavy copyvio, with most of the text being directly copied from [Assam Tribute], with the only differences being a change of tense.
    • Shubhankar Baruah - reads mildly promotional, and they appear to fail GNG, possible COI. Bigger issue is the copyvio; content is copied directly from the subjects radio profile
    • Dudhnoi River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
    • Krishnai River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
    • Mrigen Talukdar - cricket player for played in tier one domestic matches, meets WP:NCRICKET. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
    • Suresh Ranjan Goduka - doesn't appear promotional, probably meets WP:GNG. No apparent COI, some copyvio in the lines "Goduka's forefathers migrated to Assam from the erstwhile Rajputana a century ago" and "Goduka gave up a documentary filmmaking career in New Delhi and he started writing poetry and other literary works. He went back Assam in 2004 to start Jeevan (Jeevan means Life in Assamese), a monthly Assamese magazine, which seeks to explore the diversity, beauty and infinite possibility of life"
    • Raijor Dal - minor political party, probably meets WP:NCORP (has a seat in Assam), no apparent copyvio. I am worried about the lack of sourcing for the lede, though.
    • Maitrayee Patar - some copyvio issues, such as the copying of this line "have been translated into other Indian and foreign languages like Italian, Nepali, Hindi, Tiwa and Malayalam." I'm also not sure they meet GNG, but I see no evidence of COI.
    • Ranganadi River - almost entirely unsourced, with the one source not fully supporting the sentence it claims to. Further, it is claimed that the source was accessed in 2010, but it was added to the article in 2020. However, meets WP:GEOLAND, and I see no evidence of COI.
    • Raijor Dol - redirect to Raijor Dal
    • Tipkai River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
    • Tuni River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
    • Sauvik Das - meets WP:NCRICKET. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
    • Diju River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
    • Maguri Motapung Beel - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
    • List of lakes of Assam - probably meets WP:NLIST. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
    • Silsako Lake - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, some copyvio such as copying almost without alteration this sentence: "The Beel runs through the heart of the Guwahati city surrounded by villages like Satgaon, Hengrabari, Mathgharia."
    • Gas-assisted injection molding - no apparent COI, some copyvio in the advantages section. Topic is likely sufficiently notable to deserve its own article separate from Injection moulding.
    • Kapla Beel - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, copyvio in the aquafauna paragraph (from "is the habitat of a number of species of indigenous fishes like kawai, magur, singi, sol, puthi, khalihana, barali etc.")
    • Dora Beel - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
    • Micro injection molding - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Unsure if it meets GNG, might be worth taking to AfD.
    • Urpad Beel - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
    • Purging (manufacturing) - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Reads as a how to guide, and I have serious doubts about its notability. Probably fine to delete.
    Almost done, will finish later and create a sub-list of which ones need some sort of attention, cutting out those I believe can be left as is. BilledMammal (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tanmaya Bhatnagar - Comes across a little promotional, but appears to meet WP:GNG. Copyvio issues, such as copying and pasting this fragment: "Her mother would sing, play the guitar and write poetry. This inspired the young Tanmaya in no small measure.".
    • Samaguri Beel - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Insufficiently cited, but not a major issue.
    • Morikalang Beel - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
    • Buli Tsho - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
    • Jimilang Tsho - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
    • Ranjitsinh Disale - Comes across a little promotional, but appears to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO#1. No apparent copyvio.
    • Ranjitsinh - Surname disambigation page, no issues
    • Cube mold technology - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Some questions about notability.
    • Munin Barkotoki - No apparent COI, extensive copyvio. While the individual is probably notable, the article should be deleted as there is insufficient material to support it without copyvio.
    • Prabhat Sarma - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Probably notable.
    • Apurba Kumar Saikia - No apparent copyvio, possible COI; no clear notability, and includes information that is unavailable at the provided sources.
    • Kumud Das - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Possibly notable.
    • Mer Beel - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
    • Tukreswari Temple - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. References do not indicate notability.
    • Sanjeeta Bhattacharya - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Probably notable.
    • Ramcharan Bharali - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Probably notable.
    • Mohan Bhaira Memorial Award - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Probably not notable.
    • Anima Guha - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Likely to be notable due to the number of independent obituaries.
    That's all of them. I'll produce a summary list of the ones that needs attention later. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've set a list of articles that either have copyright violations or possible COI's at the top of the page. I can go through and remove the copyvios, before linking the diffs that need to be hidden here, but unfortunately I won't have time to do that for a few weeks. BilledMammal (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Posting to keep this alive; still planning to come back and clean out the copyvios. BilledMammal (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Qatalog and other paid edits

    Although, a useful contributor to Somali topics, they are doing peculiar edits from some time (and go extra mile to defend the spam). I have evidence to proof my stance that they have done paid edits on above linked pages. I think they have to read WP:COI/WP:PAID to familiarize themselves that they can't do such edits directly and have to use talk page.

    Examples of them defending their edits (suggests strong COI), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Ahanchian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopaccino, Talk:Non-fungible_token#Film_soundtrack, and a corporate page Qatalog. 2407:7000:9D08:BE00:F843:A120:6535:58CA (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I have done many edits on Somali topics, I am just trying to branch out and cover new areas to expand my Wikipedia experience, that is all, what is peculiar about this? I am not doing paid edits. This user is accusing me of 'defending' my edits. I put a lot of voluntary work into my edits of Wikipedia and if my work is reverted or nominated for deletion I like to understand why, so that I may improve, this is why I question unexplained deletion or reversion of my work. I always learn a lot by questioning rather than just accepting when no proper explanation has been given. If it turns out that I am in the right, then I won't stand for my work being deleted by other editors who have not given me good reason either. I do not have a conflict of interest. The editor is also obviously stalking me on Wikipedia. It may be they who is doing paid edits and I have inadvertently stepped on their toes, so they now have it in for me. They have gone through my contribution history to find this list of pages I have recently edited. I object to my contributions being stalked in such a manner. Please see WP:HOUND. Amirah talk 12:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Draft:Rhys William, spam again. You have to disclose when you do paid edits. I won't remind you next time. 2407:7000:9D08:BE00:40CE:A129:14E2:35D9 (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are doing is harassment and is against Wikipedia policy. I believe that is why you are not using a logged in account to do it. You have given me no reason why you flagged the draft page as paid editing. You have no reason. You don't even have the courtesy to explain why you believe the article to be spam. I am editing Wikipedia in new areas which I have not edited before and I am trying to learn. Instead of assisting me you are just repeatedly accusing me of 'paid editing' with no valid grounds for your accusations. This is harassment. You are following me around through my contribution history and doing this with every new page I publish. As I said, I have been trying to learn and you are simply trying to crush my progress and destroy my contributions to Wikipedia. Amirah talk 11:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can anyone who reads this give me advice as to what I can do to stop this harassment? Amirah talk 11:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There have been other issues with possible WP:COI, see this deleted thread from their talk page earlier this year. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That does come across as very suspicious; "I will speak to him myself about it" implies either a certain degree of familiarity or an excessive level of confidence that a stranger is able to have a conversation with him. To me, the former seems considerably more likely.
    The article for Qatalog reads like something straight out of their product promotion guide (link above corrected; it is currently in draft space), while the rest come across as slightly more objective - although the mere existence of a page can be promotional. I am also curious at the diverse range of topics covered, particularly given the obscurity of each of these individuals. Amirah, can you give us some insights into how you came across each of these topics and why you decided to branch out and write articles on them?
    Finally, I will note that WP:HOUNDING only applies to inappropriate uses of a users contribution log; reviewing it as part of a COI investigation is not inappropriate, so long as they do not raise a frivolous complaint - and while it is possible that this complaint is incorrect, it is clearly not frivolous. In general, I would be a little more careful throwing around such accusations in the future; I've noticed you do it semi-frequently, and when used inappropriately it could be a WP:CIVIL violation. BilledMammal (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In answer to your question about why I have decided to branch out and cover other subject areas, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Both for readers and editors there is no reason why a person shouldn't try to broaden their scope and broaden their mind by covering diverse topics. Also, when I have looked at requests for admin, I am under the impression that in order to progress an editor should edit articles on a variety of different subject areas. To try to say that a person should be restricted to editing just one subject area, just because they have previously done so, is not correct. I came across these topics through search engines using keywords and checking news sources. I have been trying to expand my experience of new page creation, and looking for topics to cover. I have spent quite a lot of time searching for potential topics for new articles only to find that they already have an article. I have deliberately chosen to edit a variety of topics, to gain more experience. Is there anything wrong with that? If I had thought that an article was promotional or did not achieve notability then I wouldn't have published it. This is why I have asked for explanations where articles have not been accepted, so that at least I can learn and move forward. Why do you find the Qatalog draft so promotional? The editor who nominated it for deletion explained why, and I removed the content which they complained about from the article. If you still find it promotional please tell me why. There is not much point in editing if an editors work is deleted and they don't understand why, is there?
    I was also under the impression that using a persons contribution history to follow them around Wikipedia was WP:HOUNDING. If I am wrong about that then I may be mistaken. I have not deliberately been uncivil to anyone. I try to be civil even when I feel that others are not being civil to me.
    The link above where I said 'I will speak to him myself about it' is referring to something which occurred some time ago and something I explained at the time. It does not indicate a conflict of interest, as it does not indicate having had previous contact with the person. There was at the time and still is no conflict of interest.
    There have been no talk page discussions about COI on any of the articles which are listed at the top of this discussion. I understand that editors are only supposed to open a discussion on this noticeboard when talk page discussions have been attempted and failed to resolve an issue. Amirah talk 19:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for explaining why you wished to branch out, but I wasn't actually asking about that; I find it entirely understandable that you wished to branch out. I was asking why you choose three obscure topics to do so, and what caused you to select each of those three rather than unspecified alternatives.
    For the Qatalog draft, the aspects that come across as promotional to me are Using, Interface, Costing, and, to a lesser extent, in the "History and Funding" section. BilledMammal (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for explaining this, I will edit the Qatalog draft accordingly to make it less promotional. About the topics, I chose quite obscure topics (as you put it) because, as I said above, I spent quite some time searching for less obscure topics to create articles on. I found the less obscure topics I checked to already have articles. I wished to create articles to round off my skills at editing Wikipedia. As there are already over 6,000,000 pages on English Wikipedia, it stands to reason that a lot of less obscure topics will already have articles.
    Having said that, I did not think that these topics would be so obscure as to not achieve notability, as it turns out some of them have been. I have successfully published 23 articles on Wikipedia over the seven years I have been editing, and only 3 of them have been deleted. Out of those 3 one of them I deleted myself because the name was spelt wrongly and at that stage I didn't know how to do a page move.
    I have also only recently began to create drafts. Up until recently I created all those articles directly in mainspace, but as I have been branching out into new subject areas, I felt that creating drafts and working on them would be a safer way of doing it. I also never used Articles for Creation before up until now, but as I had a couple of articles deleted (the Ahanchian article and the court case) I decided to start using AfC to try to get some feedback on areas that I may not have so much experience on. My earlier article topics had qualified for notability I suppose because I had just picked subjects which were notable rather than studying and understanding notability guidelines.
    4700 character essay
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    These deletion discussions have really taught me a lot about Wikipedia guidelines, particularly notability. It is only through questioning that I have learnt. The way that the Op has worded this discussion has made me feel intimidated about questioning why if my work is deleted. Especially as this noticeboard discussion was sprung on me without prior talk page discussions about COI. They have written at the top of this discussion 'Examples of them defending their edits' as if asking why another editor wants to delete an article I have published is a crime, and what's more, they haven't had any prior discussion with me to ask me why I questioned these deletions (if they found it odd that I did) before posting here. That is why I was so shocked to be notified of this discussion. At the point in time when the anonymous editor who started this post went through my contribution history there was no COI investigation and they had not made any attempt to discuss any concerns with me at all before posting here.
    I would also like to add that just because other editors cannot understand someones choice of topics, doesn't show that they have a conflict of interest. It is common for people with autism to have 'special interests' in topics which others may find obscure or cannot understand why it interests them. It is also common that these special interests may be very intense for some time and may change from time to time. A person who has autism may go through a time when they have a loss of interest in something and are searching for new interests, which also may appear 'obscure' to the neurotypical mind. They cannot usually explain why they've lost interest in something, it has just gone. It is not something I should have to explain here, and it is not something which an editor should have to justify or have to feel that it casts doubt over their reasons for editing a subject area or possible COI. Autism is a relatively common condition and there are likely to be quite a number of people with similar tendencies who edit Wikipedia. We should not have to justify why our interests are different from yours or be pressured into disclosing a disability or feel mistrusted because you do not understand the way our minds work and find the topics which interest us to be 'obscure' to you. It's not usual for a person with autism to be able to explain why they find a particular subject or topic interesting, they just do. The reasons I have given above are also part of my reasoning for exploring new topic areas, some of which you may find 'obscure'. If you don't understand what I am talking about, then I suggest you Google 'Autism Special Interests' and you will find plenty of articles which will explain that. I also have diagnosed complex PTSD which is connected to my autism and lack of diagnosis when I was younger. If I find something disturbing I may just drop it and explore another area. Could be something like the use of the word 'tortured' here [1] has triggered me, which made me feel like leaving a subject area to explore something more mundane. PTSD sufferers can find that if something happens which 'triggers' them in a particular area, their lives get narrower and narrower, until they reach a point they don't even walk out their front doors. Exploring new areas of interest may be a kind of therapy for having lost interest in other areas, particularly mundane aspects of life such as cooking, film and TV, reading books etc. which are the subject areas most of my recent articles cover. The software articles, are not a new interest to me, as it is in my career history to develop software. It is just that I have not edited or created software articles on Wikipedia before. Practically the whole of my editing history has been on Somalia, other than my very first edit to Wikipedia and my very first article, which was which was under an abandoned profile name (my birth name account) which was on terrorism in Nigeria. My reasons for starting to edit Wikipedia in the first place were because I felt that many things were happening that were just not going down in the history books, every day when I turned on the TV or the radio, I would here accounts of whole villages being destroyed. This is why I didn't have to study notability guidelines, and was just automatically choosing topics were notable. I didn't even realise that guidelines existed on Wikipedia for several years after I first started editing. So at least when some of my edits have been challenged, I have learned about guidelines and policies which I was unaware of before. That is a good thing, and
    I should not be made to feel like I have done something wrong because I have questioned it. Amirah talk 23:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Operation Red Card

    Websites
    Accounts
    Articles (non-exhaustive)

    In March 2020, Graphika published a report about the takedown of an influence operation (code-named as Operation Red Card by the researchers) involving various fake news outlets, as well as accounts on Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, etc. The operation focused on promoting Qatar interests, attacking the UAE and Saudi Arabia, and had a particular focus on association football and human rights. The listed websites in this thread are those named in the Graphika report. mirrorherald.com, truenewssource.com, and asktruth24.com ceased operations after being exposed and are now offline. I'm not sure if today's raventribune.com is the same website it used to be in 2019-2020 since old references to it are not found.

    At the time, there were at least 3 accounts on English Wikipedia focused on adding content from these websites. I have only listed articles where the named accounts introduced links to the listed websites, but there are other edits that merit scrutiny too (e.g. Saudi Aramco, Hazza Al Mansouri, 2019 FIFA Club World Cup).

    There's also a known UPE sockfarm (Radovicdarko538) that seems to be the same group, picking up this work after the other accounts ceased activity, but I'll open a separate thread about that.

    Any help reviewing and cleaning up these contributions, and removing the references to these websites, will be appreciated. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for highlighting this. Qatar-related (as well as UAE-related) articles have a lot of weird patterns of editing, with frequent editing by accounts that exclusively seek to whitewash the authoritarian regime in the country. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarioGom and Snooganssnoogans: Would the websites be good material for blacklisting? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mikehawk10: I don't know. There's obviously a pending clean up of all links to these sources, as well as information supported by them. But it's unlikely that new references are added, since the sites are dead (except Raven Tribune, which seems to have changed owners). I wouldn't oppose blacklisting though. MarioGom (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mikehawk10: Thinking again about this, would blacklisting help drawing attention to them and accelerate clean up? MarioGom (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Tactical Fiend

    Quick notification that I blocked a fairly large and sophisticated UPE farm yesterday, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tactical Fiend. I don't have the time to go through all edits and page creations, so additional eyes would be appreciated. Best, --Blablubbs (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a table of the pages they contributed to, with some gnoming filtered out:

    contribution table
    Page Users Edits Size
    Molecular sensor 1 6 36147
    Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law 1 10 18450
    Aerion AS2 1 28 16908
    Flag of Russia 1 15 16447
    Tiffany & Co. 1 41 15629
    Amdocs 1 33 13930
    Repton School 2 34 11625
    Entertainment One 1 40 11574
    Goldman Sachs 1 9 11548
    Corpus Christi FC 1 7 11433
    Ronald Burkle 1 34 11430
    Standard Industries 1 23 11207
    The William P. Clements Jr. Center for National Security 1 8 11082
    Clayton, Dubilier & Rice 1 16 10210
    Roomkey 1 10 10132
    Tidal (service) 1 25 10066
    FEMSA 1 18 9771
    Eurostar 1 6 9324
    Wes Edens 1 10 9322
    Thomas Ligotti 1 10 9028
    Hannah Shaw (internet celebrity) 1 18 8984
    Som Livre 1 10 8767
    De Beers 1 16 8698
    Abbott Laboratories 2 18 8658
    Acumatica 1 16 8439
    Sears Hometown and Outlet Stores 1 1 8091
    Evan Low 1 8 8073
    Alnylam Pharmaceuticals 1 3 8058
    Hyperpop 1 6 7956
    Dave Finocchio 1 15 7914
    Dakota Access Pipeline protests 1 4 7874
    Strayer University 1 6 7828
    Kenneth Polite 1 6 7801
    George Gilder 1 14 7744
    Mike McKool 1 3 7486
    MNRK Music Group 1 27 7235
    Ryan LLC 1 20 7103
    LyondellBasell 1 17 7055
    End Citizens United 1 2 6945
    Ellen Spiro 1 10 6895
    American Repertory Theater 1 23 6861
    Benjamin Crump 1 15 6839
    Hinge (app) 1 20 6721
    Michael Kempner 1 13 6687
    CloudBees 1 10 6641
    Strategic Education, Inc. 1 4 6597
    Liberty Global 1 17 6448
    John Rakolta 1 31 6407
    Sotheby's 1 16 6234
    Unit4 1 22 6170
    Fashion Nova 1 14 6021
    Andrew Weiss (guitarist) 1 9 5967
    Leonid Radvinsky 1 1 5923
    Stephen Slick 1 11 5821
    Gino Pozzo 1 12 5675
    DaVita Inc. 1 3 5496
    CellResearch Corporation 1 1 5420
    Draft:Wonolo 1 14 5347
    Popcorn Time 1 12 5331
    Steve Ritchie (businessman) 1 12 5132
    Moderna 2 8 5095
    Johnson & Johnson 1 11 5019
    Vacasa 2 16 4918
    Addepar 1 11 4865
    WeWork 1 11 4829
    Eric Greitens 1 11 4780
    Devex 1 9 4728
    Don Blankenship 1 7 4617
    Enrique's Journey 1 5 4615
    Bleacher Report 1 5 4595
    ViaSat-3 1 5 4472
    Six (musical) 1 4 4340
    Kronos Incorporated 1 10 4337
    Talkspace 1 21 4310
    ClimateCare 1 6 4259
    MikeWorldWide 1 1 4137
    Viasat (American company) 1 8 4125
    Last Days (Evenson novel) 1 11 4086
    Meshuggah 1 10 4083
    John Davis (entrepreneur) 1 4 4061
    Michel Teló 1 7 4017
    Karma Automotive 1 12 4016
    Antonio Weiss 1 6 4011
    Cintas 1 7 3970
    Draft:Dheeraj Pandey 1 8 3867
    BioMérieux 1 6 3785
    Denise White 1 17 3717
    Gaia hypothesis 1 3 3631
    Aleksandr Golovin (footballer) 1 15 3602
    PJ Raval 1 6 3515
    OnlyFans 1 5 3487
    Rainbow Warrior Case 1 6 3434
    Whitney Wolfe Herd 1 5 3389
    Farmers Business Network 1 6 3349
    Sumit Singh (businessman) 1 5 3309
    Papa John's Pizza 1 8 3252
    Backpage 1 12 3232
    Coca-Cola FEMSA 1 5 3105
    Depeche Mode 1 5 3024
    Aerion 1 9 3020
    Chuck Palahniuk 1 8 2965
    Choate, Hall & Stewart 1 5 2890
    Nifty Gateway 1 4 2871
    Waves Audio 1 7 2867
    Sleep (band) 1 8 2853
    Tom McGrath (media executive) 1 13 2811
    Zander Lurie 1 2 2736
    G. Brint Ryan 1 10 2672
    Empower Retirement 1 3 2656
    Balbir Singh Sr. 1 4 2510
    Braze, Inc 1 12 2479
    Uncut Gems 3 5 2445
    Kepa Arrizabalaga 1 8 2409
    Facing History and Ourselves 1 3 2377
    Henry Schein 1 6 2367
    Meltwater (company) 1 7 2365
    Zebra Technologies 1 8 2350
    Great-West Lifeco 1 3 2347
    Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 1 5 2305
    Bagration Bridge 1 2 2275
    Klimovichskiy Uyezd 1 1 2238
    Dan Harmon 1 10 2222
    Hernando Courtright 1 5 2215
    ZeroAvia 1 6 2210
    The Beverly Hills Hotel 1 2 2186
    Neurocrine Biosciences 1 1 2166
    Kraftwerk 1 5 2158
    Before You Know It (2013 film) 1 2 2153
    W. Mark Lanier 1 3 2148
    Michael Morell 2 5 2143
    Andrew Alexander (producer) 1 5 2139
    Joseph Einhorn 1 6 2089
    Willy Caballero 1 4 2084
    Diamond Fund 1 13 2076
    Gemini (company) 1 4 2058
    Soused (album) 1 9 2037
    Fiat Chrysler Automobiles 1 2 2031
    Fortress Investment Group 2 8 1980
    Global Work & Travel 1 12 1976
    Gregg Renfrew 1 7 1969
    The Atrocity Exhibition 1 9 1967
    Cecil Rhodes 1 5 1967
    Berlin Trilogy 1 11 1900
    Adhesive 1 1 1884
    Beautycounter 1 4 1851
    Station to Station 1 4 1845
    Stromae 1 5 1790
    Andrew Beal 1 10 1780
    Janna Levin 1 5 1754
    Byron Cook (politician) 1 4 1743
    Music of the Final Fantasy series 1 2 1734
    GAF Materials Corporation 1 7 1711
    The Second City 1 5 1680
    José Antonio Fernández Carbajal 1 5 1675
    Dynamic routing 1 2 1653
    Zynn 1 10 1634
    Momentive (software company) 1 10 1620
    Shake Shack 1 2 1606
    John Gore (theatre producer) 1 1 1600
    Rodney Rothman 1 1 1585
    Kabbalah Centre 1 1 1576
    OSI Group 1 5 1569
    Sujit Choudhry 1 12 1563
    Another Side of Bob Dylan 1 7 1548
    SoftBank Group 1 6 1518
    Joe Abercrombie 1 5 1510
    The Eyes of Texas 1 3 1502
    David F. Swensen 1 2 1491
    Christie's 1 4 1486
    Trend Micro 1 2 1472
    Storm Thorgerson 1 2 1440
    Casper Sleep 1 3 1420
    South Central Siberia 1 7 1418
    Tony Hwang 1 1 1401
    Oral Roberts University 1 3 1384
    Qualys 1 1 1353
    Chemoreceptor 1 1 1353
    Louis E. Sola 1 1 1336
    Chewy (company) 1 8 1317
    Mário Fernandes 1 6 1313
    Twitter 1 2 1308
    Thermo Fisher Scientific 1 2 1300
    Pornhub 1 1 1291
    Alejandro Betancourt López 1 5 1274
    AbbVie 1 3 1254
    FC Zenit Saint Petersburg 1 4 1249
    LP record 1 3 1249
    Soulslike 1 2 1247
    Booking.com 1 5 1218
    Orchestre Poly-Rythmo de Cotonou 1 13 1205
    Nissan 1 2 1201
    Crash (1996 film) 1 3 1196
    Director of Central Intelligence 1 1 1187
    COVID-19 vaccination in the United States 1 2 1182
    Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the environment 1 1 1157
    Yelena Gagarina 1 2 1149
    Compass, Inc. 1 5 1140
    Michael H. Herson 1 1 1139
    Mohali International Hockey Stadium 1 3 1123
    Robert Bosch GmbH 1 2 1112
    Igor Akinfeev 1 5 1099
    Alrosa 1 5 1097
    Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine 1 2 1089
    Freelancer.com 1 1 1085
    Tago Mago 1 6 1081
    Hipgnosis 1 1 1073
    Andrey Andreev 1 5 1063
    Andrew Neil 1 1 1062
    Buff Bagwell 1 2 1061
    Tinkoff Bank 1 2 1055
    Wormrot 1 2 1050
    Strangeways, Here We Come 1 5 1039
    Molekule 1 2 1035
    SN 1054 1 5 1030
    McLaren Group 1 2 1030
    J. K. Rowling 1 1 1024
    Politics of J. K. Rowling 1 1 1023
    Chirag Paswan 1 1 1008
    Kate Holt 1 2 1006
    List of video games considered artistic 1 1 1001
    EasyJet 1 2 999
    Chris Mack (basketball) 1 1 991
    Brightline 1 4 988
    Uber 1 2 987
    Navya SAS 1 2 986
    Steve Albini 1 3 966
    Justin Roiland 1 1 963
    Stewart F. Lane 1 2 958
    National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art 1 2 954
    Cancer Treatment Centers of America 1 1 952
    Nathan Myhrvold 1 1 950
    Department of Energy (South Africa) 1 1 944
    Thirst (2009 film) 1 2 931
    James Strachan (programmer) 1 2 920
    Holland Park School 1 3 911
    Zero Hedge 1 1 911
    Ross Levinsohn 1 5 903
    Master Quality Authenticated 1 2 900
    Federal Perkins Loan 1 2 895
    Alex Pall 1 3 894
    No Country for Old Men (film) 1 2 881
    Alexander Ovechkin 1 2 881
    Rail transport in Russia 1 10 879
    Philip Rivers 1 2 879
    Anthony Rose (entrepreneur) 1 4 874
    Sharjah 1 1 865
    Arch Mission Foundation 1 1 865
    Music of Benin 1 4 862
    American Psycho 1 2 849
    Strava 1 3 848
    Z-Rock Hawaii 1 2 846
    Yuri Zhirkov 1 1 825
    State Highway 3 (New Zealand) 1 1 825
    Duit on Mon Dei 1 3 821
    Adam Lyons 1 2 810
    History of American Airlines 1 1 809
    Nora Ephron 1 6 805
    Dark Souls 1 4 799
    Alliance Française of Port Elizabeth 1 1 797
    Mathieu Darche 1 1 795
    Umidigi 1 2 791
    Solar Power (album) 1 1 788
    Odell Beckham Jr. 1 3 782
    ThoughtSpot 1 4 778
    The Mollusk 1 8 776
    Kotor 1 1 774
    Tim Cain 1 1 768
    Moscow 1 1 768
    Coca-Cola 1 1 768
    China Girl (song) 1 6 759
    Yogi Berra 1 1 759
    The Zebra 1 2 754
    Brexit negotiations 1 1 752
    Picotechnology 1 5 747
    Cooper Hefner 1 2 742
    "Heroes" (David Bowie album) 1 1 742
    Lossy compression 1 1 728
    Burmese pythons in Florida 1 2 726
    Space Jam: A New Legacy 1 1 721
    Badoo 1 1 721
    Lee Kun-hee 1 1 719
    Moscow Kremlin Museums 1 1 714
    Nvidia 1 4 712
    Pete D'Alessandro 1 2 712
    Concierge Auctions 1 1 711
    Fidel Castro 1 3 693
    List of largest Internet companies 1 2 693
    Carlos Tavares 1 3 691
    Jimmy Johnson (American football coach) 1 1 686
    Bruce Springsteen 1 1 676
    Elric of Melniboné 1 1 671
    Genevieve Morton 1 3 670
    The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch 1 2 667
    IPCom 1 1 665
    Pinecraft 1 2 662
    National Football League 1 1 660
    2015 World Championships in Athletics – Men's 4 × 100 metres relay 1 2 655
    Scanners 1 2 650
    Killer application 1 4 649
    Altus Group 1 1 647
    Evita (musical) 1 2 643
    Matīss Kivlenieks 1 1 640
    Boom Technology 1 6 625
    David Eagleman 1 8 623
    Vinny Curry 1 2 619
    Neiman Marcus 1 3 614
    Jason Heyward 1 3 612
    South by Southwest 1 1 611
    Kingsport Road Warriors 1 1 605
    Shock rock 1 2 603
    Wormwood (short story collection) 1 4 602
    CBC News 1 2 600
    Daniel Vaudd 1 1 596
    Adam Peaty 1 1 592
    Larry Fitzgerald 1 3 591
    ACAPS 1 1 591
    Salt and Sanctuary 1 3 582
    Fourth-generation warfare 1 2 576
    Nikon 1 1 574
    Dan Reynolds (singer) 1 8 570
    Isolar – 1976 Tour 1 1 566
    Konrad Zuse 1 4 565
    2020 Summer Olympics opening ceremony 1 1 565
    Mike Tomlin 1 2 562
    Yungas Road 1 3 560
    Blasphemous (video game) 1 2 560
    Kayvon Thibodeaux 1 1 559
    FedEx 1 1 558
    Watford F.C. 1 3 555
    Moscow Canal 1 1 552
    File:Last Days book cover.jpg 1 1 552
    File:Malvernpanalytical.png 1 1 551
    Heartburn (novel) 1 3 547
    John de Jongh Jr. 1 4 546
    St. Petersburg, Florida 1 1 545
    Welcome to the Machine 1 3 544
    Talk (Coldplay song) 1 1 544
    DreamCrew 1 1 543
    Dharendra Yogi Goswami 1 2 540
    Elvira Dyangani Ose 1 2 539
    Ju-On: The Grudge 1 3 538
    National Hockey League 1 1 536
    File:DDB Logo 2019.png 1 1 535
    John Romero 1 1 531
    Bret Easton Ellis 1 3 526
    Damn (Kendrick Lamar album) 1 2 526
    Liu Cixin 1 5 523
    Jaboukie Young-White 1 1 523
    InvenSense 1 1 523
    Hunter Biden 1 1 522
    File:Corpus Christi FC logo.png 1 1 518
    Pfizer 1 1 514
    Tim Gane 1 4 513
    Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? 1 2 510
    Circuit of the Americas 1 2 510
    Morrissey 1 1 510
    Isaiah McKenzie 1 1 510
    PSA Group 1 2 507
    Tottenham Hotspur Stadium 1 1 506
    Save the Children 1 1 505
    CIA in fiction 1 1 505
    NODAPL 1 5 504
    File:OMD.com 2020 Logo (OMD Worldwide).jpg 1 1 504
    Boeing 1 1 503
    Amalie Arena 1 1 502
    Phoenix Suns 1 2 497
    George W. Bush Presidential Center 1 1 494
    Kyrie Irving 1 1 493
    SpringHill Company 1 1 491
    Fiverr 1 2 489
    Something Just Like This 1 2 488
    File:Hawkers Company Logo.png 1 1 487
    Julian Jaynes 1 1 486
    Tampa Bay Lightning 1 1 484
    M Shed 1 1 479
    File:ThoughtSpot logo.jpg 1 1 478
    USA Baseball 1 1 477
    Ron Berkowitz 1 1 477
    Richard Ettinghausen 1 1 477
    File:Empower Retirement Logo.svg 1 1 474
    1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. 1 1 474
    File:Apache Nitrogen Products Logo.jpg 1 2 472
    Rudy Giuliani 1 1 470
    Barcelona Museum of Contemporary Art 1 2 468
    Univers Zero 1 1 468
    Mark Ella 1 1 468
    Stafford Loan 1 2 467
    Michael Dickson (American football) 1 1 463
    Rugby Australia 1 2 461
    Meat Is Murder 1 5 460
    Rose Art Museum 1 1 457
    Jack Hadley 1 1 456
    Progressive Slovakia 1 1 448
    Nattens madrigal 1 1 447
    Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball 1 1 447
    ANSER 1 2 446
    FC Lokomotiv Moscow 1 8 444
    Godzilla vs. Kong 1 1 444
    Bill Belichick 1 2 440
    Cody Bellinger 1 1 440
    Savage (song) 1 1 439
    Instacart 1 1 439
    Drake (musician) 1 1 439
    File:Fashion Nova Logo.svg 1 1 437
    Cleveland Museum of Art 1 1 437
    File:Drive.ai logo.png 1 1 436
    Hunter's Point South 1 1 434
    File:CloudBees LOGO.jpg 1 1 434
    Chemosensor 1 1 433
    Amazon Appstore 1 1 431
    Tool (band) 1 3 430
    Nonagon Infinity 1 2 430
    Toby Marlow 1 1 429
    Stephen O'Malley 1 1 428
    File:SCOR SE Logo.png 1 1 427
    Louvre 1 1 426
    Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot 1 1 425
    LeBron James 1 1 424
    Hard science fiction 1 6 423
    UC Davis Aggies baseball 1 1 422
    Voskhod 1 1 1 421
    Mike Dee 1 1 421
    Forest and Bird 1 1 421
    Android 11 1 1 421
    Hawkers (company) 1 4 417
    Self-driving truck 1 2 417
    Charles Bierer Wrightsman 1 2 411
    DigitalOcean 1 1 411
    Hubert Davis (filmmaker) 1 1 410
    Dubai International Terminal 3 1 1 410
    University of Phoenix 1 5 408
    Central Intelligence Agency 1 7 406
    Big Mouth (TV series) 1 1 406
    Jack Whitt 1 1 405
    File:Vacasa Logo.svg 1 1 404
    Hurricane Dorian 1 2 401
    Mac DeMarco 1 5 397
    H. R. Giger 1 5 390
    Denver Broncos 1 4 384
    SkyMiles 1 2 384
    Aeroflot 1 3 383
    Silent Hill 2 1 3 381
    Renault 1 2 381
    Magic Leap 1 3 379
    Yotsuya Kaidan 1 2 376
    Seven Up (album) 1 2 376
    Antoine Griezmann 1 5 374
    Tim Stokely 1 2 368
    Iowa State Patrol 1 2 362
    Meanings of minor planet names: 109001–110000 1 2 361
    Sung Tongs 1 4 355
    Eleni Gabre-Madhin 1 2 351
    Beal Aerospace 1 2 350
    Manila galleon 1 3 343
    Russians 1 3 331
    Roman Abramovich 1 4 284
    33⅓ 1 7 280
    Malvern Panalytical 1 8 267
    Kylian Mbappé 1 5 226
    McKool Smith 1 9 153
    Out of Focus (band) 1 7 131

    --MarioGom (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This sockfarm seems to be involved primarily in reputation management, like suppressing or watering down information about scandals. They are fairly competent and sometimes subtle. When they know they cannot completely remove something, they will tone down in subtle ways, with a superficial appearance of policy compliance. MarioGom (talk) 09:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    International Conference on Climate Change

    User Jlakely would appear to be Jim Lakely of the Heartland Institute The Jim Lakely reference was easy to find simply by going to heartland.com and clicking on "About Us" -> "Who we are". Jlakely is editing numerous articles related to the Heartland Institute often with a considerable bias. Example: Revert by Jlakely of Peter Gleick and the revert by Dave souza

    • I've posted a COI warning on their page, one that asks them to not edit until they have responded to it. It seems pretty clear cut that they are acting with a paid conflict of interest, but I want to see if they communicate once it is made explicitly clear that they are expected to. If they don't, then perhaps a ban to get their attention would be in order?
    I will mention that it is possible that identifying the editor like this might constitute outing. While that is obviously not your intent, could someone with more experience in this area clarify whether outing applies to such obvious connections (I would find it useful both for this discussion and in general), and if it does constitute outing rev-del the relevant sections? BilledMammal (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jlakely seems to have been identified or identified himself by early 2013, I had a look at past edits and before getting that far back found self-idenfication when he uploaded this file in April 2019 with the statement "Picture taken by myself (a Heartland Institute employee from 2008 to the present) of the Heartland Institute building in Arlington Heights, Illinois. The photograph was taken from public, not private, property. Author: Jim Lakely (jlakely on wikipedia), Director of Communications at Heartland since 2010." His current user page says "a former print journalist and VP of a nonprofit organization based in Illinois". . . dave souza, talk 15:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Serosoft

    User has attempted to create multiple articles for their client. I did a bit of digging on the net and found them to be a digital marketer associated with the tagged article as well as PIBM Guwahati (article attempted multiple times as per user talk page). I've added a COI notice to their talk page as well as on the article (planning to take this to AFD due to multiple issues). Appears like the user is not here to constructively contribute to WP, but satisfy their clients. MT TrainTalk 12:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Life settlement COI

    Based on their username, contributions, and a Google search, I believe Jhickey94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is affiliated with a life settlement company that is a competitor of those mentioned in the Life settlement article.

    Due to the promotional and unflattering tones of the edits, I removed all mentions of specific companies. My recent edits to the Industry challenges section were immediately reverted and said section of the page is currently not up to Wikipedia's standards as a result. I have not received a response from the editor regarding the issue.Heartmusic678 (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is literally the OPPOSITE of promotion. Yes - I work in the industry - which is why I am knowledgeable. Below is what this individual keeps deleting. I don't understand why someone would want to remove this information. This industry is marred by scandal, and it's important to address it. These were HUGE scandals that landed on the front page of major publications like WSJ.
      I am not getting paid for this. Now, I would put the question back on the person asking - as it is VERY weird they pushing this agenda of redacting important information. Are you getting paid? Why are you so focused on the suppression of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhickey94 (talk • contribs)
    Text added to article need not be repeated here.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    While the life settlement industry has dramatically cleaned up, there were multiple controversies in the early days. Most notably was the bankruptcy of Life Partners in 2015. Life Partners effectively bought policies off a long life expectancy and re-sold fractional shares to individual retail investors, using a much shorter internally generated life expectancy to justify the significant mark-up.[11] As a result, over 80% of the insured lived past the life expectancy - generating shareholder lawsuits and regulator attention - especially since they were selling to retail investors.[12] However, they were not the only fraudulent life settlement fund. another notable fraudulent fund was A&O Life Policies, which defrauded life settlement investors of over $100M.[20]

    The second major scandal was STOLI. STOLI is any act, practice, or arrangement, at or prior to policy issuance, to initiate or facilitate the issuance of a life insurance policy for the intended benefit of a person who, at the time of policy origination, does not have an insurable interest in the life of the insured under the laws of the applicable state.[13] This includes an arrangement or other agreement to transfer the ownership of the policy or the policy benefits to another person.[13] The main characteristic of a STOLI arrangement is that insurance is purchased as an investment vehicle, rather than to provide for the insured's beneficiaries.[14] STOLI arrangements also may be called "zero premium life insurance", "no cost to the insured plans", "new issue life settlements", "high-net-worth settlements", or "non-recourse premium finance transactions".[14]

    Prior to 2008, STOLI was popular because investor demand dramatically exceeded supply, and this was a way to manufacture product (albeit illegal) to meet demand. In many ways, it was effectively a victimless crime because everybody benefited in the short term. The investor got to deploy capital, the insured/policy owner made money from selling the policy, the insurance agent got a commission, and the insurance company grew their business. However, this all collapsed in 2008 when funding dried up and regulators took a closer look at the practice. Additionally, STOLI policies turned out to be poor investments, so long-term investor demand dried up.

    The third major challenge has been self-dealing by life settlement providers and brokers - to the detriment of policy owners and investors. Most notably, Coventry was fined $12M by the state of New York for deceptive business practices.[15] Coventry also settled a lawsuit with AIG (a large life settlement investor at the time), where Coventry would use multiple shell companies to disguise policy ownership when reselling to AIG to obtain a higher profit.[16] However, these activities are not just limited to Coventry, as other life settlement brokers and providers have engaged in similar activity, albeit on a much smaller scale.Although it has dramatically improved, the life settlement industry faced challenges early on. One challenge is aggressive and deceptive marketing motivated by high sales commissions for providers and brokers. As the market for policies grew more competitive, these intermediaries gained the potential to earn as much as 30 percent of the sale price of a life settlement. This incentivized intermediaries to push life settlement sales in the secondary market, despite policyholders' level of interest in selling, surrendering or lapsing their policies.[21]

    In addition, the industry has struggled with false life expectancy evaluations, poor premium reserves that increase investor costs, false promises of high profits with low risk, clean-sheeting (not disclosing a life-threatening illness in a policy application), dirty-sheeting (falsely claiming a life-threatening illness in a policy application).

    Life settlement regulations have been adopted across the Unites States to prevent fraud and promote fair practices. As of 2010, 44 U.S. states adopted a form of the model uniform law developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Federal level regulations were developed under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). [21] Sig by 14:49, 23 September 2021 user:Jhickey94. Added by scope_creepTalk 14:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyon

    There have been repeated recent attempts by several accounts to promote some primary research papers from the early 1980s that with 20-20 hindsight can be seen as related to anyons. These highly technical papers in mathematical physics are not helpful in explaining anyons nor were they helpful to actual anyon researchers who neither read nor cited these early technical papers.

    These three SPAs have little interest in helping to describe anyons; their primary concern is to mention the names of certain authors as having done early work on anyons:

    The pattern of these edits does not seem aimed at improving the article anyon. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    And another new account has entered the talk page discussion--Doctagon. "Doctagon" account was created at 11:24 (five minutes after the latest push by QuantumQuench to include 1981 Goldin et al. And Doctagon with a detailed first edit made at 11:53 argues that even more papers with Goldin as a coauthor should be included. In fact, according to Doctagon, a 1985 Goldin et al. paper is also not just too important to omit but "credit for non-abelian anyons is due primarily to this group." HouseOfChange (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Remedy sought: Topic ban from anyon for SPAs, whose coordination suggests at least canvassing and probably several accounts run by one person. Their sole interest is to demand inclusion of little-cited Goldin papers as important to a now-popular topic. The Gish gallop at Talk:Anyon establishes only that Goldin et al have (sometimes) been mentioned in discussions of anyon history--as have dozens of other more cited, more relevant, also-early papers that aren't in the anyon article. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Varsity Spirit

    Article has been repeatedly edited by users to add PR-based wording and downplay references to notable controversies faced by the company. The user Klwerling94 also used the pronoun "we" in a talk page post warning me about my edits, which also threatened to "get Wikipedia involved to help mediate our fact-based content updates" (comments I am deeming to be a potential legal threat). ViperSnake151  Talk  15:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A little googling shows that Klwerling94 has a high probability of being paid to edit the wikipedia. Trying to avoid WP:OUTING but there's a clear connection if you look for it. I've given her the paid editor first notice. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 18:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting how Klwerling94 also referred to the article as "our corporate page". Miracusaurs (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My own search shows the same connection for Klwerling to Varsity Spirit, while Blondsquad5678 strongly suggests a similar connection. I think we can reasonable conclude there is a paid conflict of interest and require them to request edits to be made, rather than directly implementing them, if it is appropriate for me to make such a suggestion. BilledMammal (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    John Yorke (producer)

    This diff shows that the subject has requested for his page to be updated. I gave a COI notice and placed a tag on the article, but they have both been ignored and the editor has continued to add to the article. – DarkGlow • 19:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Emjron has disclosed on their user page and said that they will use the talk page to request edits going forward. --- Possibly ☎ 23:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Walter Soriano

    I believe these three users are the same person/organization trying to publish biased content about Walter Soriano. I have put some findings on the talk page. I just want to correct the COI edits, but no one is agreeing with me. The site (the7eye) they are using is also a subject in the lawsuit Soriano filed. So it is like the defendants in the lawsuits are working together. Shouldn't their edits be reverted? Thank you SAMsohot (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The users mentioned above (Scottstedman, 183.182.122.247 and 103.1.30.166) have not edited since May 2021, so it seems like undoing any damage they may have done is the only issue here. --- Possibly ☎ 23:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Possibly: Yes! That is what should be done, but apparently no one agrees with me and I have been involved in an edit war now. As they are COI, shouldn't their edits be reversed? The page should go back to this edit: "20:40, 14 January 2021‎ Yobot talk contribs‎ m 15,894 bytes −14‎ References after punctuation per WP:REFPUNCT, WP:CITEFOOT, WP:PAIC + other fixes undo Tag: AWB." After this edit, there was COI and then me and the edit war.SAMsohot (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't delete COI contributions by default; COI edits that are valuable do not need to be reversed. Those that are self-serving, promotional or damaging in some other way can be reversed. --- Possibly ☎ 00:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Possibly: Aren't COI supposed to proposed their changes on Talk Pages rather than directly edit? The edits they made are biased and unfactual. They have played with their words. Like saying at least 10 lawsuits and Slapp-suiter, etc., these statements are nowhere written on the references provided.SAMsohot (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's like I said. COI edits that are valuable do not need to be reversed. There is a mandatory policy requiring disclosure, but there is actually no policy to stop COI editors from editing pages directly or requiring them to use talk pages for requests. We only have a guideline that suggests they use talk pages for requests. --- Possibly ☎ 12:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Possibly: So vandalising a page is accepted? Nice! SAMsohot (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said vandalism was OK? --- Possibly ☎ 16:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what they have done. They have put false information. @Possibly: SAMsohot (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Panhandle Milling

    Likely undisclosed COI and sock/meat-puppetry at play here. Much of DarkMilly's initial edits were adding mostly useless links (example) to build enough edits to create articles, which have since been moved to draft space. LedgeStuff subsequently appeared and continued editing those other pages, and also created Draft:PHM Brands, the overarching company for Panhandle Milling and Viobin. Despite a COI warning, LedgeStuff has not disclosed any COI. SpencerT•C 02:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Civic Center (Shenzhen)

    In light of these facts, I think an ostensible COI connection to Barnes (and John Ming Yee Lee at the very least) is clear. Filetime (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not think it unreasonable to connect voluntarily-disclosed information on en.wiki to voluntarily-disclosed information on Commons in this circumstance. —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, reading this COI passage,"COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. " That doesn't say it's illegal. Also,"If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts." What disruption? Which really is just arbitrary, non-policy nonsense. If adding content about relatives or someone you met is an absolute policy violation, like 50% of wikipedia violates it's own standards. Wikipedia violates it's own standards about ITSELF when it discusses the Talk:Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español#Good riddance-a competitor. So, don't lecture me about COI. Just pull the trigger, since it's a totally subjective call by moderators who are on power trips. I suggest you read https://www.clicdata.com/blog/when-did-wikipedia-become-evil/, or how wikipedia became evil. Synopisis? Arbitrary policies and moderator chaos. Cocoablini (talk). 23:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cocoablini: you have not made clear on your user page which articles you have a conflict of interest with. Can you post that? That way we will know which articles you are connected to via family, friends or professionally. Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 00:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Civic Center (Shenzhen) could be construed as a COI, but I did not write the content. I edited an existing page and clarified it. I also added my photos. The Edward Larrabee Barnes contributions, I have mostly added content about Ed Barnes, whom I am not related to but have access to his son's information which I have added his input by proxy. What they call, "research" by most adults. Cocoablini (talk). 21:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cocoablini: Research is not allowed because it is unverifiable. I hope you understand why. Anybody could claim to have access to certain information. --SVTCobra 23:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I added plenty of citations and proof, including NYTimes and LATimes and Progressive Architecture and Architecture Magazine and Rizzoli. The citations of the partners and associates are also cited from US Government, and the above. The ask of the Barnes' son was to remove a building from the gallery, which was clearly the wrong building as I said in the check in. Or building that are not of importance to modernism. If people want a specific citation on a topic, that should have been in a notification. There was no discussion about this until a bad moderator (@Filetime)blew away my gallery additions with no warning and no discussions. And when I called him out on it, he used his moderator abilities to flag and abuse the system because...I called him out. Petty and destructive behavior. The best and brightest of Wikipedia I guess.Cocoablini (talk). 00:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cocoablini: you are wasting a lot of valuable editor time here by not following our very simple COI guideline. It seems you have a COI relationship with some of the subjects you write about, but we still do not know what it is. You've been asked to place a note on your user page indicating which pages you have a COI with, but have not done it. We plainly do not want users here who conceal their COI with the articles they contribute to. Refusing to make clear which articles you have a COI with is disruptive.It's also a major time-waster of the good faith editors you are dealing with here. --- Possibly ☎ 03:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How many free massages and gym memberships did you get for posting this? You clearly have not read the threads. Please go educate yourself on this matter and architecture please. I have as much time as possible to expose corruption and incompetance. Cocoablini (talk). 04:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cocoablini: Please refrain from insults. The request is for you to post on your user page that you have a conflict of interest for certain articles. A conflict of interest does not mean that all your edits are invalid, only that they need to be more closely scrutinized. A judge in a court case might have a COI. Sometimes they recuse themselves, sometimes they don't. But it is entered into the court docket. It's not a perfect analogy, but if you take care of this one thing first, I will look into what you are talking about regarding image galleries, etc. --SVTCobra 04:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    All you need to do here is post a list of articles you are connected to on your user page, and then use talk page edit requests on those articles. Instead, you are insulting other editors and wasting time by filing retaliatory COIN reports as below. COI is pretty simple to deal with. If you can't manage that, you are perhaps WP:NOTHERE. --- Possibly ☎ 11:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Doreen Group

    User has denied UPE despite the username and admitting that he/she is editing "on behalf of company". Continues to add promotional content after multiple warnings.-KH-1 (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Reported to WP:UFAA and now blocked by an admin. --- Possibly ☎ 12:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    State Oil Fund of Azerbaijan

    The user SOFAZ01 uses the acronym for the State Oil Fund of Azerbaijan in their username. The account is removing reliably sourced content from the SOFAZ page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The user's edit summary of choice, "prevent dissemination of information", is also very telling. --SVTCobra 17:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Just advised user of 3RR, including that they may be blocked indefinitely from the article in question, because of their apparent COI. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I added an IP which may be editing in block evasion. I did not request checkuser. --SVTCobra 04:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit skeptic that a COI editor would use this edit summary, so it could be a joe job. Anyway, the username is not valid, and the account should be blocked. MarioGom (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added OngoTard, whose first and only edit is to sumbit an edit request to whitewash the page by replacing the paragraph SOFAZ01 and the IP tried to remove. Miracusaurs (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Rennita Shannon

    I suspect that User:Jk6ge and User:2601:C0:C280:8100:1D8F:F43E:91A4:2B69 are COI editors and/or paid editors. Jk6ge is a relatively new editor who edited the page with the content violating WP:NPOV within a matter of hours after account creation, with the edits to Renitta Shannon being their only edits. User:2601:C0:C280:8100:1D8F:F43E:91A4:2B69 is an IP editor whose only edits are the violating edits to this page, and appears to be located in the state house district that Renitta Shannon represents. These edits were made mere weeks before Renitta Shannon’s announcement of her candidacy for Lieutenant Governor of Georgia today. Muhibm0307 (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I also note that the Commons accounts named J6kge uploaded an image which is claimed to be directly from Shannon('s office or campaign), which is now used in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really sure what I can do to prove that this was not a COI and that I was not paid to do so. I have sourced and cited all materials because there is a lot written about Shannon throughout the last few years. The photo was taken from her official website. I'm quite new to being a wiki contributor so I'm all for correcting any mistakes, but I need to know what exactly those are in a constructive manner, not accusatory. Jk6ge (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the image, it was deleted from Commons on 10 September and is obviously not currently used in the article. And as a note for Jk6ge, just taking images off of websites is not to be uploaded to Commons, unless they are specifically marked with a compatible and free license. --SVTCobra 22:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone and cleaned up the article - or more precisely, gutted it, as a large amount of content was sourced to primary sources, or were outright copy violations. I still don't believe the article is in compliance with NPOV, but it's better.
    If an admin reads this, can they please revdel between [2] and [3], inclusive, in order to hide the copyvio content? BilledMammal (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Edward Larrabee Barnes

    Moderator @Filetime has removed content. After looking at his personal submissions, it appears moderator is a Rhode island preservationist and dislikes Architect because of the modernist addition to waterfront. I suggest this moderator not be allowed to oversee this page Cocoablini (talk). 01:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)cocoablini[reply]

    Parastoo Hashemi

    IP belonging to Imperial College London extensively editing article about a senior lecturer at the college. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    notable, citations for most cited papers,445 226, 202, 201. Most of the additions are helpful. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Jsmith0909

    User:ElKevbo added a COI notice to their talk page in 2019, but the editor did not respond to it and continued editing. I added a second COI notice today, after which Jsmith0909 disclosed they are employed by Georgia College & State University. Jsmith0909 began editing in 2019, and this is the only article they edit. Today, they attempting to add a very large, promotional edit to the Georgia College & State University article, and it was reverted. Jsmith0909 then added their edit back two more times. I attempted to discuss the matter on their talk page, writing "I'm not sure if you read the details of COI editing, but adding an enormous promotional edit to the Wikipedia page for your employer is kind of a no no. Will you be willing to revert your edit, and instead propose the changes you wish to see, on the article's talk page? Thank you." My message was deleted. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted their 64k addition as well. Clearly, as a paid editor, they should not be making edits like that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Magnolia677 pointed out to me that I needed to disclose the fact that I am an employee of Georgia College. While I am an employee and have disclosed that, Georgia College has not influenced that information that we placed in the article. Instead we were asked to update it to make it more reflective of the campus and more informative for people unfamiliar with the college. Our edits were based on University of Georgia which is also in our system of schools. Since their information was sourced and not removed, we wanted to model our page in a similar manner. We have gone out of our way to source and write the information in a non-biased way and we were not paid any handout for the article. I am fine with going through the proposed method which is standard on Wikipedia if someone can point it out to me. I am not as experienced as some users on here so I apologize in advance for not following some of the protocols. I would also like to point out that Magnolia677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does have a history of being antagonistic with users who are trying to make good faith edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmith0909 (talk • contribs)

    @Jsmith0909: If there are other editors contributing with you on this project, those accounts need to disclose their connection as well. —C.Fred (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:C.Fred I am the only editor that contributed to this project and I dont mind being as open as possible. I am more in line with the University Editors mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_cry_COI.
    @C.Fred: I also dont mind going through the proper channels per Wikipedia guidelines and procedures. I am sorry if I missed those and will follow them immediately if the content I have proposed can be vetted properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmith0909 (talk • contribs)
    @Jsmith0909: The "we" in your prior message implied that you were working with other people.
    The page WP:COI, which you were provided a link to on your user talk page, includes instructions on going to the talk page of the articles in question and using {{Request edit}} to request edits. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jsmith0909 please see my comments on the article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiki Scribes and Elite Wiki Writers

    First things first - I previously e-mailed paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org about this and ticket 2021082810000152 was opened (by Joe Roe, I believe), for anybody who has access to that. Secondly, there are many more articles (and drafts) than the ones I listed above, these are just a sampling that I've looked at. I'm opening this thread in order to get some more eyes on the sourcing specifically.

    Collapsed Info that was less relevant than previously thought

    I checked all the sources in all the articles and drafts listed above using Wayback Machine. Admittedly Wayback Machine is not perfect, but it's something. Anyway, below is what I got from Wayback Machine.

    Lunchclub, an article started in May 2021, has nine sources. Of the nine, six were last revised in May 2021 and one was started in May 2021.

    Michelle Hanlon, an article started in May 2021, has eighteen sources. Of the eighteen, eleven were last revised in May 2021 and three were started in May 2021 (two of which list a much earlier publish date at the top).

    Papier (company), an article started in May 2021, has twenty sources. Of the twenty, seventeen were revised in May 2021, two were started in May 2021 (including one which lists a much earlier publish date at the top), and multiple other sources include dates at the top the predate Wayback Machine's first archived version by years).

    Katie Knipp, an article started in May 2021, has twenty sources. Of the twenty, fourteen were revised in May 2021 and three were started in May 2021 (again, some with wrong dates at the top).

    Elyse Walker, an article started in May 2021, has thirty-one sources. Of the thirty-one, twenty were revised in May 2021 and eight were started in May 2021 (again, some of which have wrong dates at the top).

    Draft:Martin Toe, a draft started in May 2021, has thirteen sources. Of the thirteen, ten were revised in May 2021, two were started in May 2021, and multiple have dates on the top that predate Wayback Machine's original version.

    Draft:Harry Nathan Gottlieb, a draft started in May 2021, has ten sources. Of the ten, eight were revised in May 2021 (or more recently) and two were started in May 2021, with multiple having dates on the top much earlier than Wayback Machine's original version.

    These are all the ones that I've had time to check. I also haven't had time to dig into the exact changes between versions listed on Wayback Machine to see what, exactly, was altered. There are about fifty other articles and drafts that I haven't been able to examine more thoroughly yet to see if their sources will have similar results.

    I would like to get some more eyes on the sources and, again, please see ticket 2021082810000152 for more information. Useight (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, thank you for notifying me of this discussion. I just used the Wayback Machine to compare what had actually been changed on some of the articles. I compared the first snapshot with the last snapshot and the two most significant changes (as indicated by the variation scale). I used three of the pages listed by Useight (talk · contribs) as a sample and ran two sources on random from each page through the comparison tool of Wayback Machine.
    Here are my findings:
    • Michelle Hanlon: Sample A, ads changed on the page. Sample B, ads changed and the feature image seems to have been given a caption that wasn't there at the time of publication.
    • Lunchclub: Sample A, ads changed on the page and WSJ's top menu bar seems to have different buttons. Sample B, the time of how long ago the article was published and there are other changes on the TechCrunch website, the article remains the same.
    • Katie Knipp: Sample A, website was redesigned while the article remains the same. Sample B, changes to the website structure and menu.
    My assumption is that other articles would have similar changes to them, as well. An experienced editor/admin would be able to better clarify things on this. Please let me know if I can be of any help. BettytheBeth (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For context, the issue here is that Wiki Scribes claim (in off-wiki communication) to be able to manufacture sources for clients who are not notable. I think they're making that up, but it does imply that the outfit is not as squeeky-clean as they make out to be. – Joe (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is an accurate summary. I wasn't certain how much context to specifically give in this thread. The question is whether Wiki Scribes' claim is legitimate or marketing, which goes hand-in-hand with determining whether the sourcing on the articles/drafts are legitimate. It has come to my attention that Wayback Machine may be of limited use in this particular situation, based on what kicks off its timeline for crawling particular webpages. Useight (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    manufacture sources for clients who are not notable I don't think that is necessarily true, and hasn't been for some time. I think with the right skills, with enough moxy and good budget it is possible, and in many instances, is probably quite easy. In the last two years, it had became increasingly difficult to delete these types of articles, so it doesn't a lot of references to sway the argument. One or two stories, put in by the connection, with the right money, is all it needs to the sway the argument. They are becoming increasingly sophisticated in the methods. There is several examples of this on Youtube. One of them, a kind of trickster, tried to make himself notable. Eventually he was on the radio and got a story written about him in mainstream news. It was innocent. scope_creepTalk 15:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure this is news for AfD regulars. But placing stories in the media is one of the primary functions of most PR agencies, from the cheapest ones to the most expensive and reputable. The line between native advertising and space-filling articles is really not that clear. Positioning a company in 3 borderline reliable sources is relatively easy with some money. MarioGom (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarioGom: He wasn't a PR person, just a young guy of 19-20, an influencer type, making a vlog and trying it out. That was point. It seemed to be really easy. scope_creepTalk 09:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Useight: I think you might have misunderstood how the wayback machine works. Using this as an example you will see at the bottom it says This calendar view maps the number of times <link> was crawled by the Wayback Machine, not how many times the site was actually updated (emphasis mine). What's more, you'll also see on that page it says Fri, 21 May 2021 23:28:46 GMT (why: wikicollections, wikipedia-eventstream, wikipediaoutlinks) - this means that the reason it was crawled in the first place was because it was included in a Wikipedia article and this does not mean that it did not exist before that date. SmartSE (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartse:, indeed. I am now aware that the Wayback Machine is not going to be reliable in determining if the problem exists (see Joe Roe's comment for a succinct explanation of the potential problem). Wiki Scribes claims to be able to create/modify sources to falsify notability for their clients. The question is whether this is marketing puffery or if they are actually doing this. Unfortunately, it seems Wayback Machine is less helpful than I previously thought at determining this. However, we need to not get caught up in that and keep the real question in mind: is Wiki Scribs' claim of being able to falsify notability actually happening? And, for that, we need more eyes on the sources. Useight (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't find it surprising at all that they make the offer - I've seen enough people get paid articles before where they've also hired people to publish some pieces on them to establish notability. It doesn't need to hold up to close scrutiny at AfD - it just needs to be enough that no-one thinks to propose it. There was one case where the subject hired people to write reviews and articles about them and their work, hired people to create the WP article using those as references, hired more people to remove tags, and then hired someone to delete it years later when they decided that they didn't want the article anymore - specifically arguing at AfD that the sources are not very good and/or wrong. There is nothing stopping an organised group managing the entire thing, from establishing notability through to ongoing maintenance. - Bilby (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Francisco Rodríguez (economist)

    Earlier this year, Naldox revealed having interviewed the subject of the article in December 2019, whose picture was uploaded by the user and is currently included in the page's infobox. Francisco Rodríguez is currently the article the user as edited the most in, and they have rarely edited in other articles besides Rodríguez's. Despite being created in 2010, Naldox started expanding it substantially on April 2019 (before the interview took place); as of this date, they stand as the user that has included more than half of its content and has the most edits in the article.

    Considering this information, I'm opening this discussion after Naldox tried removing the COI tag placed in the article. Best regards. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know if this is a common thing, but I will disclose this onformation. In April 2019, I Was transitioning from a position as Digital Editor in Ecuavisa (Guayaquil, Ecuador) to a position in América Digital in Caracas. I had a ton of free time (which is a rarity for me) and I stumble upon Francisco's Wikipedia page. I met Francisco in September 2017 in Caracas, but didn't have a chance to interview the guy. But he left mark. I believe he is one of the most intelligent people I have met. So I did my research. The number of edits is actually a reflection of thorough work because I, being a journalist, dislike typos and sentences that could be written in a better way. Also is because Venezuelan Wikipedia editors seem to have a bias problem. A political bias problem, to be precise. You can check out the edits. It could've been two or three, and not ten or 15 if not because editors wanted to be right. My Caterina Valentino project had four edits. It could have been the same thing here. Political discussion (in the case of Rodríguez) takes time. And I have the page under surveilance. I can say it out loud, I like the things I right, I believe they are not biased in any way and clearly reflect the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, I do have a job. And being a journalist (and soon a book writer) takes time to edit Wikipedia. I do have two interviews with Rodríguez. One for print in September, 2019 and one for TV in December, 2019 (the one I took the picture associated with his profile). But I do not have interviewed the subject since. I have read his papers, yes. And I haven't updated his profile since, although the guy has done some heavy criticzing of the interim government and the Maduro's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic because I don't have time (and sincerely I do not want to, this has been a horrible experience overall). The Spanish Wiki was untouched by me until Monday, because a third-party pointed me to it. SO, I sincerely do not care anymore. Congratulations, you sucked the joy of editing some things due to your diligent approach on Wikipedia editing. It is a shame, Venezuelan articles need better editors. FAR BETTER. --Naldox (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear @Naldox:, I'll include a response to this also as a follow up to your message in your talk page. Please do not take this notice personally: this discussion only has the purpose of determining if your relation to Rodríguez constitutes a conflict of interest. As I have mentioned before, you are still allowed to freely edit and improve the article (as you have done up to this date). --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:UPE

    Initiator of thread blocked for sockpuppetry. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    I’m not sure the correct avenue for this question, so please direct me if I should post this elsewhere. I’ve seen a lot of pages with this flag and I was trying to figure out what the process is for A) resolving the issue, and B) removing the flags once the issues have been resolved.

    The template documentation doesn’t provide any guidance on how to actually address the issue. The template itself says “It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.” It doesn’t look like WP:CLEANUP is the proper avenue because it clearly states that is not for COI issues. This led me to WP:NPOV. So am I correct in interpreting this to mean that the article just needs to be reviewed to ensure it meets the following criteria at WP:NPOV?

    • Avoid stating opinions as facts.
    • Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
    • Avoid stating facts as opinions.
    • Prefer nonjudgmental language.
    • Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.

      Or does it involve additional steps (ie. removing content added by concerning editors regardless of neutrality/sourcing)? Lastly, is there a noticeboard where editors can post requests for others to review an article specifically around neutrality issues? Thank you. NQUENTas (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hi NQUENTas - for info on the COI policy, look here. As for articles with a UPE flag, there are a couple things that need to happen. First off, the article needs to be reviewed by non-COI editors, to see if it meets NPOV, notability, etc. It's possible that the paid contributor's edits are all entirely value-add, without any POV, puffery, etc. In that case, the article doesn't need to be changed. In my experience, that's rarely the case. Second, if there's an acknowledged paid contribution, then the article's talk page should get a Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag. Once the article meets WP standards for quality and NPOV, then the UPE tag can be removed. In terms of neutrality issues, if there's a dispute around the neutrality of an article, and it hasn't been resolved on the talk page, then there's the WP:NPOVN noticeboard. If the dispute is with an editor that you believe has a COI, then this board is the best place to report it. Hope this helps! BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Fallen Fruit art collective

    Normally I would wait to see what an editor says about a COI template, but this is blatantly obvious. Since 2014, user SNisMagical has focused largely on the above three articles; Burns and Young are the founders of the Fallen Fruit collective. The very stale account Davburns1970 (1970 matches the bio details in the David Allen Burns draft) was the original creator of Fallen Fruit, and also uploaded most of the images. Just your basic artist promotional work, but it has gone on for far too long without any disclosure. --- Possibly ☎ 01:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Nano-oligosaccharide factor (NOSF)

    I came across this article because it got linked into Dressing (medical), presumably to keep it from being an orphan. This is a very technical, obscure medical topic, which just happens to be a product from one company, linked in-line in the article, and the one ref is a paper whose final author works for the company in question, and for which I do not readily see any disclosures of conflicts of interest from any of the other authors: [4]. A quick gander through Timpo's edits shows nothing remotely similar in the last two years. Per WP:DUCK, it's hard to imagine any other prompting for this editing other than undisclosed paid editing. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a bit of an odd subject, that nano-oligosaccharide page. However the user's contributions are overwhelmingly positive and do not look self-serving. --- Possibly ☎ 06:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the creator of this article, a retired British subject living in Spain where this product was prescribed for me by a medical professional. I always check before committing to new treatments and did not find anything on Wikipedia, so published my investigation as best I could as a non-specialist, long-time Wikipedia:WikiGnome with no commercial or professional axes to grind! Timpo (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    General Motors do Brasil

    User claimed WP:COI and proceeded with personal attacks in edit summaries. LTA - did a similar thing in my talkpage. Andra Febrian (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Home-Start International

    a trustee of [5] Home-Start International has completely changed the article to add promotional content after a draft here Draft:Home-Start UK was declined. Theroadislong (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If nothing else, it does appear to be WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM, something that it might be worth warning the editor over, if I am allowed to suggest such an action (seriously, someone please tell me if this is out of line). However, as much as the existence of the COI makes me wish otherwise (a bias I probably should work on), it does appear that the content they added is sufficiently verifiable for inclusion under the broader heading of the international organization per WP:BRANCH.
    As such, I'll go copy-edit the article now to remove the more advertorial aspects, and perhaps it should be moved to Home-Start Worldwide, but apart from that I am not seeing much we can do. BilledMammal (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done some extensive CE; hopefully it reads less like an advert now, but I'll leave the current tags there so that another editor can assess. BilledMammal (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. This episode feels like harassment. I always use my real name; I first read the COI policy, posted my COI and then wrote a draft piece for review by others. Unfortunately honesty does not seem to be the best policy. It was immediately slapped with a banner with a dollar sign suggesting undisclosed payment, despite the fact that I had declared my role as an unpaid Trustee exactly on the Talk page as required by wikipedia policy. That was clumsy, hurtful and wrong, a polite message would have sufficed. It was also libellous, it is accurate to say, I am glad it has disappeared. That editor said the piece read like an advert, which was a clear-cut exaggeration. He asked that it be written by some-one else, ignoring the central issue - no-one in a decade has written anything on this notable organisation on wikipedia. On rewriting the piece under the defunct Home-Start International page, as he suggested in one of the many banners, I was accused of "WP: gaming the system". This is one of repeated references to imminent WP warnings and cautions, which are intimidating. Why resort to jargon and threats so readily? The editors responses were imperious, curt and thoughtless. No credit was given for responding positively with laborious re-writes, clearly prompted by the viewpoint given by the editor. I received exactly zero acknowledgment, just more censure. I am an unpaid charity Trustee who naturally wishes to see the work of thousands of volunteers get a fair mention on wikipedia. I am still being seen as a Board member of a for-profit company, which is not remotely an appropriate comparison. You are not dealing with a devious paid corporate marketeer, so please stop treating me like one. If asked to make amendments I am always happy to do so. Why not respond to my repeated request and suggest the kind of things that need amendment? As volunteers on wikipedia, your attachment to its purposes (in this case the understandable preoccupation with paid commercial postings) is just as likely to cloud your judgement, which in my eyes explains the rather toxic culture I have strayed into. The quick edits made by others without subject knowledge have not been too good, IMHO. We are left with a rather poorly written page, in terms of grammar and content, which I am not allowed to correct, despite being the only person involved with any knowledge of the subject matter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Sugarman (talk • contribs)

    you are welcome to make a formal edit request ·(click for instructions) on the article talk page, detailing changes you feel are needed, preferably sourced to independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Philip Sugarman: Regarding expertise in the subject area, this is not a necessity as we simply restate what others have already said. Regarding your COI, we are simply alerting you to our COI guideline. The three editors you have been dealing with, myself included, have no personal interest or other COI in Home-Start. As someone with a COI, if you continue to directly edit Home-Start articles, this will create continued problems. If you can commit to use talk pages for requests, and avoid editing any Home-Start article(s) directly (except for very minor non-controversial edits), there will be no problem. --- Possibly ☎ 07:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @possibly Please be assured I have got the message about not being allowed to edit. I do feel I have been rudely treated, and you saying that others were "simply" doing this or that is no substitute for reflecting on your editing culture, in which provoking others seems to be part of the game, it feels like gaslighting. Philip Sugarman (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @theroadislong I am troubled that at no point have you responded to any of the substantive issues I have raised about the article or the way you have dealt with it; but you are motivated to send me obscure corrective messages about tildes. The edit request policy seems long technical and complicated, it would be so much simpler if you had allowed me to re-edit a draft, prompting me with some of the examples that you felt were promotional. You could have done this, as your fellow says, subject matter expertise is not a necessity. Perhaps you might consider as an editor dealing more constructively with others in the future Philip Sugarman (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit request facility is quite simple, you suggest changing x to y and give a reliable independent source for the change. The "obscure corrective messages about tildes" is to ensure that we know who has written what on a talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Philip Sugarman thank you for engaging with us here, and apologies if my comment came across as imperious or curt, as well as for the associated commentary which upon reflection would have been better left out of this forum.
    In terms of the quick edits I made and bringing the article up to standard you are satisfied with; any edit requests you make that involve prose and not content or tone changes will likely be seen as uncontroversial, even if they are a substantial rewrite. In terms of content, if you request alterations that are reliably SOURCED and balanced, they are again likely to be uncontroversial to implement. For context, I will note that the content I removed was because it was not sourced, while the largest area I rewrote - regarding the effectiveness statistics - was because of an apparent lack of balance caused by including the most positive figures from the '82 study, and not the less effusive figures from the volunteers and social workers. BilledMammal (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your response. The imperiousness and curtness was from the main initial editor, calling himself "the road is long", who seems unable to admit any fault except on my part. You seem willing to reflect on your part, which is very refreshing.
    The imbalanced reporting of the 82 study was in the long-standing text of the Home-Start International page, I did not input this and had no particularly reason to check that paper or doubt the summary. I do not dispute your re-edit which may well be accurate.
    On further edits, I am waiting for a friend to send me a pile of cuttings about Home-Start, as unfortunately I can find very little on-line to fill out the article if Home-Start data can 100% not be reported in any way at all. To be honest, I do think the page reads so blandly now that a reader might feel the charity was hardly worth bothering with.
    If you compare, say, the page for Oxfam, it re-states their mission and values and masses of other corporate material. Same is true for NSPCC, a family/ child charity smaller than Home-Start Worldwide. Why are NSPCC Royal Patrons discussed at length, drawn from NSPCC publications or unreferenced, but a bit of the same is removed for Home-Start? Why is such gross inconsistency stark in the first two charity pages I checked? Surely your take on what is promotional/verifiable is not "simply" following COI policy, it is discretionary. It is clearly gaslighting if you say such comparisons are not relevant or not allowed because of another " WP: arbitrary rule you have not heard of which suits my argument".
    In truth others have treated charities in a relaxed way, whereas you have taken a stance as if it were a commercial venture. All this won't affect me personally, but Home-Start across the world may see a few less volunteers and donations. So I do think Home-Start and the families it tries to help have been rather punished here by overzealous rulings.
    I would be pleased if you tried to address not avoid the substantive points here. Philip Sugarman (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause which says “We do not exist to promote your "brand", and will not tolerate efforts to abuse this project with that goal in mind.” Theroadislong (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Philip Sugarman: seriously, quit complaining. We caught you editing the Home-Start International page, for which you had a very strong COI as a board member. Now that that is dealt with, instead of letting everyone move along to other topics you continue to complain about your treatment. Nobody owes you any kind of explanation here; Wikipedia is voluntary, and everyone you have interacted with has done so within policy. Further, this is the Conflict of Interest noticeboard; we have determined you have a COI and you have agreed not to edit the page directly. Issues about article content that are not COI-related and about your AFC review does not belong here, take it somewhere else. --- Possibly ☎ 03:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @possibly. Thanks for the put down. I was answering the rather politer note from Billed mammal. Here is an answer to you. A few facts. You did not "catch" me, that is your fantasy about what you do. I declared my full name, COI upfront and asked for a review of a page for Home-Start UK. The reviewer suggested the page be folded into the Home-Start International page, and I did so, omitting what I guessed he felt was promotional. Secondly I am not a board member of Home-Start International, you have that muddled. It remains that my really substantive points about what you guys have deleted when it is routinely allowed elsewhere have been avoided by you; you seem unaccountable for this. Your point about the nature of this particular noticeboard is a perfect example of " WP: arbitrary rule you have not heard of which suits me". I would be more impressed if you used your real name, answered my points, and considered whether the article is as good and fair as it might be. Philip Sugarman (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. --- Possibly ☎ 10:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    C. S. Burrough

    QLitBabel has created a promotional biography of an author C. S. Burrough of questionable notability. I looked and saw what to me was a conflict of interest and tagged the page and QLit's talk page.

    QLitBabel says there is no conflict of interest. "I am aware of the COI guidelines and assure you there is none involved in any of my Wikipedia articles, including this one. I have no close connection with my articles' subjects," [6]. Xe went on to say my "unfounded ‘COI accusation’ is personal, presumptuous and out of line." and that I was the one with "some ‘reverse’ COI", asking "So again, who has the COI here?" [7].

    If we look at the portrait used on this page we will see it was QLitBabel's own work and QLitBabel is the copyright owner. If we check references provided in the article we will find that same portrait on his profile at his publishers website [8] (© Silky Oak Press 2013) and his goodreads profile [9].

    Maybe there is no COI, maybe xe created that page because they are so alike. Like said author QLitBabel was born in Britain in 1959 and relocated to Sydney in the 80s. They both studied Performing Arts in the UK and worked in theatre before becoming a writer.

    What do others think? Am I way off base here? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    QLitBabel, before I comment further, could I ask how it came about that you owned the copyright to the images at C. S. Burrough and Peter Draffin? BilledMammal (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    BilledMammal Thanks for your question. I’ve attended dozens of arts and literary festivals over decades and, like hundreds of fellow audience members, photographed podium speakers and others appearing, as well as close-up shots of said artists in various settings. If our photos were posted on blogs and social media, then whoever chooses to use them may do so (including the subjects or their affiliates). Photos from our phones are ours to put where we like. (NB The C.S. Burrough photo is searchable online with two slightly different facial expressions as Burrough speaks – the other version is someone else’s, not mine.) Sincerely, QLitBabel (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that none of the three photos identified by duffbeerforme are identical, though clearly taken at the same session. @QLitBabel: I noticed someone on Commons tagged both the portraits of Peter Draffin and C.S. Burrough for speedy deletion due to lack of permission. If you are indeed the photographer, you should follow the instructions for challenging the speedy deletion. --SVTCobra 14:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that, I don't think there is an issue for us to address here. However, I note that the tone in both the C.S. Burrough article and the Peter Draffin article could be improved, as it currently comes across as a little advocational, particularly with lines such as His books remain in Australia's State and National Libraries, while his portrait remains with the National Museum of Australia. BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BilledMammal, so you don't think that someone writing a promotional autobiography is a coi issue? duffbeerforme (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe we have sufficient reason to believe there is a COI at the present time. It is possible that it exists, and future articles with a similar tone and questions about notability will add weight to that possibility, but for the moment I don't believe there is an issue for us to address here. I did, however, forget to note that I don't believe that C. S. Burrough meets GNG or BLP, and as such would support deletion if it is brought to AfD.
    PS: For some strange reason I didn't receive that ping. BilledMammal (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Call me dense, but there's something puzzling about the studio photo scenario. Are literary festivals are providing multiple photographers a well lit studio setup to photograph the author? I'm talking about this image. Call me old, but in the old days my recollection was that only one photographer was invited to each photo session. The author bio image above, as well as the slightly different Commons image are both prepared lighting shots, not some off-the cuff photos. I'm straining to see why these would not be by the same photographer using the same camera under the same light. And if that is the case, then QLitBabel has provided numerous official portraits of the author. How could that not be a COI? Doing so has to involve some back and forth communication. QLitBabel are you in touch with C. S. Burrough, or have you been in the past? --- Possibly ☎ 04:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I interpreted the explanation as the individual giving a talk from a podium, with them talking to a bunch of people standing/sitting who might be taking pictures with their phones during the event, possibly during a period where the author stops talking to pose for such photos. However, your comment has given me cause to reconsider, and on reflection this neither meshes with their full explanation (as well as close-up shots of said artists in various settings) nor the appearance of the photos, which suggests that they are all taken from the same location.
    Further, examining the data, it doesn't quite mesh with what QLitBabel was saying; they were talking about Photos from our phones, while the data states that it was taken with a Canon EOS 60D. It seems I may have leapt to AGF a little too quickly. BilledMammal (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken a look at the data for the Silky Oak Press image; it was taken using the same camera, with the same settings, one minute apart. Then, just over a year later, both photographs were modified just ten minutes apart in Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows. I think the only reasonable conclusion is that they were taken by the same person, and I definitely leapt to AGF too quickly; thank you for making me reconsider Possibly. BilledMammal (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilledMammal: thanks for looking at the EXIF data! This is starting to get clearer now. We just need to hear from @QLitBabel: an explanation for why the photo they uploaded to Commons is from the same camera, a minute apart, as the one used as an official bio photo by the author. --- Possibly ☎ 11:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I had also looked at EXIF data, and found that the image on Amazon was taken with the same camera (Body Serial Number: 0480203317) as that on Commons; however, I didn't find any evidence that it was not copied there from us. QLitBabel, please respond here to the question above, and note that communication is required – you are expected to reply truthfully to reasonable questions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RightDigital – A Republican Party-aligned "digital PR agency"

    I've raised concerns about editing on the Frank LaRose page before, see this[10]. The editing by these accounts bear all the hallmarks of a COI: removal of reliably sourced content, addition of poorly sourced puffery and trivia, and addition of photos and personal content about the subject. I raised the question of COI at the talk page for 'RightDigital'. Rather than answers whether they had a COI, they wanted to interact with me through email.[11] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I've changed the title. This seems like a much serious problem now. The username "RightDigital" refers to a PR firm by that name that bills itself as "Ohio's #1 GOP digital agency." This, along with weird patterns of editing on Wikipedia pages related to Ohio politicians, suggests that a PR firm might be engaging in a coordinated campaign to edit pages for pay. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Response

    The edits to the Frank LaRose page were simply to remove politically biased content that was clearly written by a staffer at the Ohio Democratic Party or known affiliate with the intended purpose of damaging the reputation of this person. The edits made were simply to remove the content that was not objective or properly sourced. There was no addition of extra content and no wiki rules were broken. The goal of each editor should be to provide objective, neutral and factually honest content. --RightDigital (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ...and adhere to the discretionary sanctions in place in the topic area. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Antonio Giordano

    FYI I've just locked a bunch of sockpuppets and SPAs pushing this article crosswiki, all of them active here on en.wiki. Vituzzu (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have emailed paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org with off-wiki evidence of undisclosed paid editing. If anyone reading this has the relevant permissions to act on that, that would be great. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Bill Woodcock

    • user requested "test" for CoI (after strenuous discussion in Talk:Internet_exchange_point#Misleading_first_sentence)
    • Bill Woodcock is paid by PCH according to [12]
    • According to its own description, PCH provides services and engages in advocacy for IXPs
    • PCH's funding, particularly as a non-profit, may be influenced by the broader public's perception of Internet Exchange Points, which the very article considered here describes.

    –Eqvinox (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1048601447"