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
Line 273: Line 273:
Ample off-wiki evidence exists proving Turninghearts' financial connection to WikiTree. This evidence has been e-mailed to the paid-en-wp address. On 14 August 2023, I posted <code><nowiki>{{uw-paid1}}</nowiki></code> to Turninghearts' Talk page. Two days later, Turninghearts deleted the template rather than responding to it. Having failed to open a dialog about the apparent UPE, I brought it to this noticeboard. [[User:MundoMango|MundoMango]] ([[User talk:MundoMango|talk]]) 19:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC) (former member and frequent critic of WikiTree)
Ample off-wiki evidence exists proving Turninghearts' financial connection to WikiTree. This evidence has been e-mailed to the paid-en-wp address. On 14 August 2023, I posted <code><nowiki>{{uw-paid1}}</nowiki></code> to Turninghearts' Talk page. Two days later, Turninghearts deleted the template rather than responding to it. Having failed to open a dialog about the apparent UPE, I brought it to this noticeboard. [[User:MundoMango|MundoMango]] ([[User talk:MundoMango|talk]]) 19:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC) (former member and frequent critic of WikiTree)
: I've made a post at [[WP:UAA]]. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
: I've made a post at [[WP:UAA]]. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:User was indefinitely blocked 26 August 2023. [[User:MundoMango|MundoMango]] ([[User talk:MundoMango|talk]]) 15:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


== Didier Guillon ==
== Didier Guillon ==

Revision as of 15:57, 1 September 2023

"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:AvePoint
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:Fitch Ratings
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:Grammarly
    Talk:Holly Ham
    Talk:Brian Hamilton (businessman)
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Infillion
    Talk:JLL (company)
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Ontario Nurses' Association
    Talk:Operation Santa Claus
    Talk:Alain Pellegrini
    Talk:Philip Morris International
    Talk:Minouche Shafik
    Talk:Sittingbourne
    Talk:Surgical Care Affiliates

    Glitch: The Rise & Fall of HQ Trivia

    There is reason to suspect that the editors mentioned above have a conflict of interest regarding the film "Glitch: The Rise & Fall of HQ Trivia," given their implied connections to the podcast "Boom/Bust: The Rise and Fall of HQ Trivia." Prior to the following edits, they had made three other edits to the film's page that were subsequently reversed. These previous edits entailed linking to the podcast, utilizing an image of the podcast's logo that was not free to use, and citing deprecated and untrustworthy sources.

    This raises suspicion that they are attempting to undermine the film and drive attention towards the podcast instead. The podcast and its host have no formal ties to the film other than the same subject matter. Yet, they are mentioned just as many times as Scott Rogowsky and Rus Yusupov on the film's page. Additionally, the users' contributions to the page, which all center around supposed controversies, make up half of the entire article.

    Despite flagging this in the Talk section of the film's article, the following categories have been added and are excessive:

    Unethical Production Practices: Two former HQ employees served as producers on the film, but their involvement was limited to the ideation phase. CNN Films does not grant editorial control to anyone other than its directors.

    Biased Nature: In the film, Scott Rogowsky is one of the main talking heads, and his side of the story is clearly presented. This section draws primarily from the film's only negative review, and overlooks other critical reviews that praised Rogowsky's candidness. If Kroll were still alive and/or Yusupov had participated, there might have been more to reveal. However, this is the nature of any documentary film. It is also worth noting that Rogowsky declined to participate in the podcast's final episode, so there may be some personal conflict of interest against Rogowsky here.

    Omission of Key Perspectives: It has been publicly reported that the director of the film reached out to Sarah Pribis, Rus Yusupov, and Scott Rogowsky during pre-production. However, Pribis' story was editorially excluded from the final product, as the film features two Host POVs in Rogowsky's and Sharon Carpenter's. Yusupov declined to participate, and Colin Kroll passed away in 2018.

    Plagiarism Claims: Production for this film began in 2019, before the podcast was even announced. Therefore, claiming that CNN plagiarized the podcast without evidence is a serious allegation, especially against an acclaimed news network. It is common for different forms of media, such as films, podcasts, books, or articles, to cover the same story and share similarities. However, there is no evidence of plagiarism in this case.

    Opening Paragraph: The article's second sentence intentionally misleads readers by referring to this film as one "produced by former HQ Trivia employees" without mentioning the other producers. The film was also produced by Emmy nominees Ken Druckerman and Banks Tarver of Left/Right, as well as Exceptional Merit In Documentary Filmmaking Emmy winners Amy Entelis and Courtney Sexton for CNN Films. To avoid bias, the article should either name all of the producers or none of them, rather than selectively naming only two to shape a specific narrative.

    Leflop (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Several users have made edits related to the discussion of controversies around the film. Only reliable sources have been cited in that discussion. Mentions of the podcast have been included because coverage that has criticized the documentary has also mentioned the podcast. It's fine if these things are edited and made more succinct.
    A note about COI:The user who brought this complaint appears to be invested in communicating the positive reception of the documentary, as evidenced by edit history in which they insert the words "award-winning" ahead of the director name, and have removed the existence of controversies altogether. More information is better for Wikipedia visitors, not less. A Wikipedia article about a documentary should include the discussion around that film, including all good and bad commentary, and any discussion of about ethics surrounding it. Especially if that commentary has been included in the discussion of the film in publications such as Rolling Stone, The Daily Beast, PrimeTimer, and Film Fugitives.
    Responses:
    Unethical Production Practices
    Your feedback introduces new info that does not appear to be publicly available. Specifically: "Two former HQ employees served as producers on the film, but their involvement was limited to the ideation phase. CNN Films does not grant editorial control to anyone other than its directors." Is there a source for this information? Why not cite some of these claims within the article itself? More information would better inform Wikipedia visitors. Ideation is one of the most important phases of a project, so it is relevant to viewers that two former HQ executives were involved in that stage.
    Biased Nature/Omission of Key Perspectives:
    The co-founder of HQ Trivia Rus Yusupov said that he declined to participate in this film, citing potential conflicts and bias. This concern has been echoed in two other reviews of the documentary and a former employee who was interviewed during production but not included. It is not unreasonable to include criticism that the film relies too heavily on Rogowsky's perspective.
    Plagiarism Claims:
    I agree the use of the word plagiarism is a strong one, it looks as though it was included by user 2600:4040:99DD:2A00:C906:CD9B:4D96:658D. Maybe this section would be more appropriately titled, "Similarities to Ringer Podcast." It is still relevant to mention this issue given its coverage in Rolling Stone and the online conversation it generated.
    Opening Paragraph: The second sentence of the "unethical production practices" section reads "Rolling Stone reported that several former HQ employees pitched the documentary to CNN Films, with former HQ executives Dylan Abruscato and Brandon Teitel serving as executive producers." The rest of the producers of the documentary are listed on the top right of the page, per normal Wikipedia formatting. This is not misleading, just the origin of the project. It does not discount the work of the other producers. Respectthedrip (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am curious to hear thoughts from an unbiased third party, which is why I am posting this here. Rolling Stone, The Daily Beast, and PrimeTimer each mention and recap the podcast host's Twitter thread that calls out similarities between the film’s initial trailer (not even the final film) and the podcast. However, they are not independently covering these issues, so it is all just coming from one source — the podcast host's Twitter thread. Whether Film Fugitives is a reliable source or not should be determined by Wikipedia guidelines. Additionally, we cannot confirm whether Respectthedrip and User 2600:4040:99DD:2A00:C906:CD9B:4D96:658D are the same person or not. They both seem keen on editing the film's article with the same accusations, which raises concerns about a WP:SPA who is obviously closely connected to the podcast. Leflop (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been following these conversations and the concerns raised about possible COI. As we delve into this lets keep in mind Wikipedia's core principles: verifiability, neutrality, and reliable sourcing.
    1. Sourcing and COI: It's a key aspect to back up content with reliable sources, and this aligns with Wikipedia's ethos. It's important to not jump to conclusions about contributor's intentions based solely on the sources they cite. For example, claiming an editor is biased because Rogowsky did not participate in a podcast episode is pure opinion and speculation. Broad generalizations like this have no place on Wikipedia.
    2. Handling controversies: Including controversies is a part of presenting a comprehensive view. Just ensure that the sources meet Wikipedia's standards. In this case they do.
    3. The podcast: If reliable sources connect the podcast with the film and its criticisms, it's valid to mention them.
    4. Neutrality: This community thrives on neutral and balanced content. While personal opinions come naturally, it's crucial that the content is grounded in well-sourced facts and doesn't lean towards generalizations.
    To me it is clear the editors have been adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. 2600:4040:99DD:2A00:F87E:20F0:87B:5289 (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The title 'Plagiarism Claims' might be strong if it's not entirely supported by the sources. However considering the podcast creators statement that they deserve credit on the film the title 'Plagiarism Claims' does hold merit. Plagiarism occurs when someone takes another person's work, ideas or intellectual property without proper attribution or permission, presenting it as their own. In the context of the film, and the podcast, the claim of deserving credit suggests that the podcast creator believes their work has been used without appropriate acknowledgement in the film. 2600:4040:99DD:2A00:F87E:20F0:87B:5289 (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to draw attention to a new piece of information that could be relevant to the ongoing discussion about potential conflicts of interest. User Leflop, who is part of the current discussion, has created a Wikipedia page for Party Round, a financial services startup. Further research indicates that an employee of Party Round (now known as Capital) also holds a position as an executive producer of the film in question. Here is a link to the Capital Team page. This discovery raises notable concerns regarding possible conflicts of interest. Lastly, user Leflop is also the original author of the article for the film in question.
    Considering these new details, it might be worthwhile to explore the potential impact of these connections on the neutrality and integrity of the discussions around the film's article and the concerns raised. I encourage a thoughtful examination of this information to ensure transparency and uphold Wikipedia's principles of neutrality and accurate representation. 2600:4040:99DD:2A00:F87E:20F0:87B:5289 (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by Leflop's activity and comments, they looks very likely to be connected with the creation of the documentary 82.3.217.251 (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    New spammer

    Hi. Can anyone please take a look at this spammer? Social Innovation Academy is obviously a spam, so it should go through WP:AFC. 2.50.33.72 (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    First, you are an IP editor from the UAE. I have been having IP editors like you vandalizing my work for the past few weeks. Stop it now!Showmesicily (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Madel, PE, COI

    A few days ago, Aleana Grande (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) dropped in Draft:Christopher Madel with one edit (no other edits) for an attorney with no relevant google results indicating notability, and using attorneyatlaw.com, a commercial source characterized as churnalism. Aleana Grande put a lot of effort into promoting one run-of-the mill solo practitioner and his run-of-the mill cases. They did not respond at User talk:Aleana Grande to COI queries.

    The first draft was deleted for copy-paste copyvio.

    Today, 149.135.26.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) dropped in a similar draft, also with copyvio, also using attorneyatlaw.com.

    I don't believe this can go to WP:SPI because SPI won't identify IPs, but for an Australian IP to re-submit a draft previously submitted in one edit by an editor with no Wikipedia history for a Minnesota attorney is highly suggestive of WP:PAY. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks as though the draft has been created off-site. scope_creepTalk 16:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's curious that a "top lawyer" is associated with so many bios from for-pay sites or other dubious listings. Maybe he wants to run for office or something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    He's back. See Draft:Chris Madel created by an IP, now Florida, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:58B:87F:7C30:39E6:F264:48CF:ADBA still with non-RS attorneyatlaw.com, still WP:NOT a directory, still with copyvio; looks like a persistent paid editor. I pinged Jimfbleak. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've deleted and protected the new title, and blocked the editor as NOT HERE Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Jude Brewer and his podcasts

    Nearly all the editor's contributions since starting here in 2019 have been to promote Mr. Brewer's career and podcasts. All three articles were created by Honeybee716, and the biography is especially name-drop laden. If this isn't a WP:WALLEDGARDEN, then each would at least benefit from increased scrutiny and de-puffing. No less concerning is the long list of articles that have been linkspammed to include mention of the podcasts. There are dozens of examples, but the product placement in the lede of Tommy Davidson suffices to represent all. A lot of clean up may be warranted. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a regular listener of the show Darknet Diaries, which was my first page created, and have been working on several other podcast pages which I hope to create in the next several months. Storybound and Storytellers were practice pages I've kept up to date on since Darknet Diaries now regularly receives updates (not by me). I will reread the content policies and make sure I'm following them correctly. Thank you. Honeybee716 (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Edward Forman

    Recently a new editor asked for help at the Teahouse, saying that she wanted to hire a freelancer to manage the technical aspects of making Edward Forman. The Teahouse discusion is here, and additional discussion was on the user's talk here. Multiple editors then worked to improve the article, write additional content, and post it to mainspace. Unfortunately, this wasn't what she was looking for, and subsequently a job was posted on Upwork here to hire someone to edit the article instead. On August 8 a contractor was hired, and on August 15 they were paid for 7 hours work on the article. So clearly someone has been doing the work. On August 8, just after someone was hired, User:Sabih omar started working on it, and Sabih omar has made extensive changes to the article. No other editor has worked on it other than Sabih omar and the original editor, in spite of a contractor being paid for successful work. There has been no disclosure. Sabih omar originally denied being paid in relation to a different article, Uma Preman, but subsequently admited that they were paid. Currently Sabih omar has been saying that they don't do paid work, (except for Uma Preman), but instead find jobs on Upwork which they then do without bidding for them, even though people are hired to work on them, and in some cases they create the articles from Upwork even though they know that the subject is non-notable. This makes no sense to me, especially in light of later admitting to being paid. I have flagged the Edward Forman article as possible UPE based on the job, but there is a dispute about whether or not the flag should stay. I do have additional information about Sabih omar which leaves me in no doubt that Sabih omar was hired for this and other jobs, but which I am reluctant to post here as it may constitute outing. I passed that information on to paid-en a month ago without a response. - Bilby (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Use the email link under tools to email an admin, if you have information that shouldn't be published here. Mathglot (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am an admin. - Bilby (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So you have access to the admin IRC channel, which might be a good place to discuss details that shouldn't be widely published. Mathglot (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sabih omar:, you could save everyone a lot of needless discussion, if you would comment here, and WP:DISCLOSE on your user page regarding any possible COI issues with the Edward Forman article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disclosed in both user and article talk pages. I understand that this will potentially lead to the termination of my account and I accept it. But I have one request-- Could you please help update the two pages Edward Forman and Uma Preman for neutrality and help remove the "paid content" banners? There are so many badly written articles in Wikipedia for non-notable people, while these are two articles that deserve to be on an encyclopedia and deserve to be well-written. The updates I made were in good faith, unlike the response to Bilby's queries.
    I am impressed by Bilby's detective work. I do some snooping for article requests as well (especially non-notable ones) on Upwork/Freelancer for my personal amusement. I recently submitted a few AfDs based on that as well. Assuming I will lose my account, is there a contact where I can email bad faith requests like this if I come across them? - Sabih omar 02:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sabih omar, I'm not an expert on this, but being a paid editor is not prohibited at Wikipedia, it merely comes with some restrictions. Now that you have fulfilled this, I don't believe there's anything actionable here and you are not at risk of losing your account, I don't believe. As far as I'm concerned, you can keep editing, even for pay, as long as you continue to meet the requirements of the WP:COI policy, chief of which is WP:DISCLOSURE, as I understand it. Hopefully someone more expert than I will comment here.
    Bilby, afaic, this settles the issue of the banner, which should remain in place, or be restored if it's been removed. Mathglot (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sabiah omar, you need to disclose all of the jobs you have been hired to do, not just two of them. Can you provide a full list? - Bilby (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my user page. I have updated all if them. Sabih omar 07:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you got to say about DIRECT EDITING of articles by paid editors? It is strongly discouraged. Graywalls (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wrong—the banner should not remain, as it is about undisclosed paid work, and that is no longer the case. I will go remove the banner now. There is another banner about coi editing that may be added to the Talk page, but I don't know what it's called; feel free to add it. Mathglot (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You beat me to it; thanks. I think we're  Done. Mathglot (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sabih omar:, You asked if you could "email bad faith requests like this if I come across them" in your response above. I believe this is referring to your AfD work. I am wondering if you consider your nondisclosure of paid editing bad faith. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time, I was considering requests as bad faith when they were blatantly promotional (non-notable subjects, asking to remove scandalous info etc.). Now I understand that any COI edit can be construed as "bad faith" even if they are not promotional. Sabih omar 14:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the answer puzzling and not direct. Do you consider your failure to disclose your paid editing bad faith editing? When you say "requests as bad faith when they were blatantly promotional" is not exactly true. I monitor freelancing sites and saw one of the ads which you then sent to AfD. There was no specific requests made in the posting so the only way you would know if they were "blatantly promotional" would have been to respond to the ad. It gives the appearance that your AfD recommendations are not in good faith and that there is an ulterior motive. Also, prior to going to ANI and requesting formal restrictions to your editing, I am hoping you can provide some clarity. How do you plan on handling edits going forward with regards to regular edits, your own COI edits, and AfD participation? --CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do consider the failure to disclose as "bad faith". As for AfDs, I did not send pages to AfD only for bad faith requests made on freelancing sites, I looked at the articles and tried to figure if they were "sneaked in" with "bad faith" editing in the first place or if they just do not belong in Wikipedia. And some of them did appear to have evaded review for a long time. Not trying to score a point here, but the motivation was not very different than Bilby's.
    If I am allowed to keep my account, going forward here's what I will do about my COI edits-- 1. Refrain from making any edits to existing pages, make requests in talk pages with disclosure if needed. 2. Create new articles only through drafts and with disclosure. 3. Refrain from submitting AfDs altogether, as this seems problematic. Sabih omar 23:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a list of AfDs I picked up from Upwork/Freelancer.com (looks like I was right in most of the cases in detecting non-notable articles)--
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen P. MacMillan
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Userful
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Manning (photographer)
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Hoss Schiller
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Masouri
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Binau Sabih omar 23:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are these your competitor's? If you're doing this as a competitive edge sharpening, this needs to be disclosed. Graywalls (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were so concerned about the "sneaked in" of pages, you could have come to COIN to report it. Instead, you took them to AfD while at the same time failing to disclose your paid affiliation with others. Unfortunately, I do not have faith that you are here to help the Wikipedia project and instead only here for financial gain. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not even know about COIN before I appeared here! And why would I flag them for COIN, I was submitting AfD based on notability concern. To answer Greywall's question- I got involved with freelancing activity in the last two months only. So do not know any other freelancer to compete against. These were all just poor judgement on my part, but I understand the concern and will accept whatever action you want to take. Actually could you explain to me why we are discussing the same thing over and over again? What is the next step? Sabih omar 07:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What is a COI editor doing DIRECTLY editing any article anyways? Graywalls (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment @Sabih omar: From now on you will need to start using the Edit Request mechanism to update the article. This is the standard way for paid editors to update the articles they wish to work on. No more editing these directly please. scope_creepTalk 10:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I have started making requests in talk pages. Sabih omar 15:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Speaking of edit requests, could you please help review my suggestions on Talk:Edward Forman? Sabih omar 15:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      When you make edit requests, they're visible to a pool of people who watch all sorts of "edit requests" as they go into a list of requests even i they don't visit here or the article's talk page. This is why edit requests is the preferable way to do things. Changing a photo within the article for the reason such as the other person in photo with the article subject having criminal records (as you mentioned in talk page) is not an acceptable reason to remove it and in fact, it's considered white washing. A conflict of interest exists when alteration of the article is to make it favorable to subject's reputation. Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED, and removing or substituting contents for the purpose of managing subject's reputation is censorship. Removing clutter like "subject has been on tour with big names, A, B, C, D,E,F E and G" though does not add to encyclopedic value and such removal is not censorship. Graywalls (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Understood. I should have proposed the alternatives in talk page (which I did) and not edit myself. Sabih omar 14:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I just have one question. Jon Bon Jovi wants PR? Is there a tour coming up? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No, he (or his PR team) wanted to correct some factual errors. And I made some edits on my own (like updating number of albums sold etc.). Very legit edits. Sabih omar 15:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Not sure if it should be proposed here or ANI, but I would say that user should be required to use talk pages to request all COI edits like COI editors who have been following the rules. I would also recommend a ban on all AfD work as it is suspicious to me that someone wants to help rid Wikipedia of "bad faith requests" while they themselves are operating in bad faith. If they feel there is something on a freelancing site that needs addressed, they can raise the issue here for the community to address. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Registered user "Nanang27"

    The user account was created 30 July 2023. Sat on it for two weeks. 15 days later, this account's very first edit was the creation of Steven A.Y. Poelmans which is heavily ref bombed. Appears to be a compartmentalized single purpose account of a puppeteer. The knowledge and skills are not consistent with anyone's very first edit. Since they do not do a single account report over at SPI, I'm wondering if people here recognize this account's characteristics. Graywalls (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Graywalls, I saw your message on my notification and I was wondering what does this mean? because I was not paid to do Dr, Steven's page. I know his birthday because I was working with Antwerp Management School that's a long story but I saw that his contribution are enough to have a wikipedia page. Nanang27 (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your relationship to the AMS or the the author Steven Poelmans? Graywalls (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthew Goodwin

    See also Diannaa's talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    These accounts have been removing coverage of criticism of Goodwin and adding promotion Account name suggests this is autobiographical editing. 148.252.128.51 (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree the account is likely the article subject and shouldn't be editing on his own page. However, at the same time I see the current disputed contents in the page is not sufficiently sourced and I agree with not being there. Graywalls (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been persistent long-term COI editing at Matthew Goodwin, since its 2010 inception, and enduring through today with an IP now accounting for a significant portion of the content even after considerable removal of promotional content. The article is still quite promotional in tone. Please see Talk:Matthew Goodwin for list of past COI issues. IP148 has not declared a COI best I can tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with response here from Diannaa; some cleanup is needed here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not have a conflict of interest. 84.66.89.167 (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm 148... But now editing from another device.84.66.89.167 (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    fwiw, I just accepted National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy, by this IP (84.66.89.167), and it appears frank rather than promotional in tone. -- asilvering (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you asilvering. I've been trying to explain that what I added to the Goodwin article was far from promotional, but people seem to be getting the wrong end of the stick and removing it as promotional, which ironically made the article more promotional.... 😖 POLSone0one (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    An SPI is probably warranted here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ive now created an account because I was told this gives me more privacy. POLSone0one (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Biographies of writers created by Slowking4 sockfarm

    Probably needs a look. Why? See prior report of lit. article funkiness that brought up this sockfarm's name. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps Mary Childs should be reverted to this version and rev-deleted instead. Graywalls (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maritza McCauley may be notable as per this bio of her for the University of Missouri, where she's an artist in residence. I'm referring specifically to the sentence "She has received a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, and awards from Best of the Net, Independent Publisher Book Awards, Academy of American Poets and a Pushcart Prize Special Mention." - further confirmation of these awards will be needed, of course. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TindDIrving at North Highland Way

    Despite warnings at User talk:TindDIrving, TindDIrving continues to engage in COI, promotional editing at North Highland Way. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The response to my message by an IP at User talk:TindDIrving (whom I presume is just the user logged out) demonstrates WP:DONTGETIT and a clear disinterest in working with others to amicably solve the content dispute. I would recommend a pblock if their disruptive editing continues. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for reverting their recent edits, Drm310. Yes, I presume the same, after the slightly odd replies where the editor claimed not to be the person whose account they were using and the "I would not spell my own name wrong" comment. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Warren Farrell

    Farrell is a man who has reincarnated himself over the years... from a feminist to a founder of the men's rights movement and now to a couples' counsellor with a new book coming out. Close connections of Farrell have edited the page in significant ways over the years, including adding personal info, family names etc [1][2] as well as large chunks of text about his books.e.g. [3] In the last 5 years, the above editors have been endeavoring to massage the article towards one more appropriate for a couples' counsellor. Other editors have described the article as "comically unbalanced" towards the man.[4].

    • User:Unseen remnant admitted being a paid editor- [5] they basically only edited Farrell articles and Oncoplastic surgery which Farrell's wife promotes [6][7].
    • User:AOEA23 claimed initially to be a former assistant of Farrell's[8] but when improving the picture suddenly admitted to being their assistant.[9] They disappeared when challenged as to whether they had previously edited Unseen remnant
    • User:Hiking Mountaineer appeared on the talkpage today, claiming to be proposing a "win win situation" which involves reducing the mention of Farrell's involvement with the men's rights movement in the lead (as AOEA23 has tried to do). Unfortunately for the editor, they hit save before noticing that they had included a little note in the middle from Farrell himself, asking "J" to include some links to "my" forthcoming book.[10] They noticed it quickly and deleted but of course it is all in the history[11] It seems clear that Farrell wrote the whole text and is seeking again to influence the article without being upfront and honest about his identity.

    Suggestions? Slp1 (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    the Queer Trans Project

    Hello. I am seeing a probable COI edit on an article that I'm writing, the Queer Trans Project. Could someone with experience in such matters contact the editor, please?AGW8899 (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    George Goodman (RAF officer)

    SPA created many years ago for the sole purpose of WP:OWNing one aspect of the life of RAF air ace George Goodman {his nationality). Fifty-seven edits in 12 years, all on that subject. Account adds original research and personal opinions and removes WP:V sourced content, most recently taking out material from a historical journal which he deems "not true"[12] Was warned about COI by Cabayi [13], which account denies. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that Goodman died in 1941, it is hard to see how a conflict of interest could possibly be involved. I'd suggest you try explaining Wikipedia policy on sourcing further, and inform MarkRS53 that they need to resolve this through discussion and/or dispute resolution. If they won't engage, and continue removing content, take it to WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, I have had uncles who died in 1912, 1944, & 1945. I don't think I can agree with the limits you're placing on a familial COI. Cabayi (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) That effort is being engaged in. However, I beg to differ that COIs are impossible for long-dead persons. We had a similar problem in William Uanna a while back. But that was disclosed and this can only be surmised by behavior. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Irene Triplett, the last civil war pensioner only died 3 years ago. Direct family links (& COI) go back a loooong way. Cabayi (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, let's try this again. Is there any actual evidence, beyond a disagreement over the nationality of Goodman, that there is any conflict of interest here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit summary, "The family contradicts these statements" was my trigger for starting the thread on MarkRS53's user talk. Cabayi (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but if that is all you have to go on, I'd have to suggest that this looks to me very much like an attempt to win a content dispute by alleging a CoI. Holding an opinion on something, even an unfounded one, does not constitute a CoI, and MarkRS53 seems to be suggesting that there is verifiable documentary evidence that Wikipedia has this wrong. Come to that, if Wikipedia has got this wrong, a relative of Goodman is perfectly entitled to tell Wikipedia it is wrong, even with a 'CoI'. This is a content dispute, treat it as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't my report. I just had an issue with the limits on familial COI you used to close it down. I'm content with the discussion on Mark's user talk page where he's engaging with the idea that as the author he needs to provide the sources, and not expect the user to go search for them. Cabayi (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor is a long-term SPA who is engaged in WP:OWN behavior and cites nonpublic sourcing and purported actions by the Goodman spouse. That is the evidence of COI, specifically a family relationship of some kind. I do not think his denial of a COI is credible by dint of his edit history. My experience with the Uanna article, which I mentioned above, is that these types of family COIs are very thorny and should not be dismissed as "content disputes." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Our first duty, as Wikipedia contributors, is to readers, and to getting article content right. Which we won't do if we refuse to engage with people who present evidence that an article may be wrong because we suspect a CoI. I see no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to engage with MarkRS53 before you slapped a CoI warning on their talk page today. MarkRS53 may very well misunderstand Wikipedia policy, but the way to deal with that is to explain it, rather than to dismiss their arguments. Contributors with a CoI (especially a distant one, which seems to be all that is alleged here) are fully entitled to raise issues regarding article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the initial COI warning was by another editor. I have attempted to engage the editor in question on the article talk page and I have received no response. We shall see if he produces the sourcing that he claims to have for his assertion that a journal article "makes things up." I am not arguing that COI editors have no right to edit. I have considerable (though not recent, admittedly) experience in this area. But they must provide sources and we are awaiting that here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are strongly reminded to AGF, if an editor claims a COI we address it on those grounds... It can't just be dismissed as false (and note that someone making false claims like that should be summarily blocked, so if thats the way you want to argue this it doesn't end in engagement). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but I don't understand you. I did not seek a block. Cabayi, who warned him initially on the COI, had the power to block but did not do so. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC) On second thought, after perusing recent replies on the user page, I tend to agree with AndyGrump's initial comment that ANI may be a better forum and this, not so much. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Siagoddess, promotional photos and edits

    While following up on my close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMY Africa Awards, I noticed this prior inquiry from around a year ago on Siagoddess's talk page. While the discussion is stale and long abandoned, I believe that Praxidicae and MrsSnoozyTurtle's concerns are valid, and that Siagoddess's explanations are inadequate, in particular as they relate to the inclusion of photos they took in press packages for individuals they have written about on Wikipedia. Prose contributions include very promotional text that is also suggestive of UPE. Given my involvement in closing the AfD and procedurally nominating related articles for deletion, I'm bringing this here for further independent input. signed, Rosguill talk 13:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I’ve been away forever but can go through my email to send some additional info to arbcom (if that’s still how it works) about the spammy and paid nature of this. Might take a few days because I have an impatient toddler. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some diffs:
    I don't know what information Praxidicae has, but these are some suspicious flags I've found onwiki going back to the start of the year or so. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 19:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    UPE: WikiTree

    User Turninghearts has engaged in apparent undisclosed paid editing of the WikiTree article since at least April 2018, including unilaterally removing an {{advert}} template.

    Ample off-wiki evidence exists proving Turninghearts' financial connection to WikiTree. This evidence has been e-mailed to the paid-en-wp address. On 14 August 2023, I posted {{uw-paid1}} to Turninghearts' Talk page. Two days later, Turninghearts deleted the template rather than responding to it. Having failed to open a dialog about the apparent UPE, I brought it to this noticeboard. MundoMango (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC) (former member and frequent critic of WikiTree)[reply]

    I've made a post at WP:UAA. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User was indefinitely blocked 26 August 2023. MundoMango (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Didier Guillon

    Free advertisement on Wikipedia. This guy is likely non-notable as there is no article about in him on French Wikipedia, etc. Advertisments should be discouraged. 86.97.40.207 (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Villanova School of Business

    It's likely that this editor is paid by the school to maintain its public image. Despite an explicit warning a few weeks ago, they have not complied with our terms of service and they have continued to edit the article. ElKevbo (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed this looks like a single-purpose account, and probably undisclosed paid editing. MundoMango (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than the registered user mentioned, anonymous editing on the page mentioned above came from IPs registered to the school. Furthermore, some editing from Special:Contributions/153.104.0.0/16 on Villanova University, its athletics and professors with regard to the school. I think the school's communication department is certainly involved in this. Graywalls (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They just posted disclosure on user page Graywalls (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sullivan & Cromwell

    The following accounts have edited the page for Sullivan & Cromwell, a New York City-based white-shoe law firm, and have engaged in an edit war with myself and @Thenightaway in adding promotional material and removing COI tags despite warnings. Neither have disclosed any connection and not any have replied to the COI notices. It may be the case that one or more of the WP:SPA accounts are sockpuppets, and @Thenightaway opened a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JDPS47. Neither has replied to any of the sockpuppet investigation notices either. GuardianH (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Biz Television

    Over the course of two days, this editor turned Biz Television from a bog standard article into an advertisement for the platform, using edit summaries like We have moved our uplink facility and Click the below links for additional information on our great programmers. Their response to having the advertising removed was to revert and add more. — Trey Maturin™ 16:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Trey,
    Many apologies. I guess I misunderstood what the citations and the 3rd party verifications and the main goal behind wikipedia was. I noticed we had a template warning because we did not have enough citations. I worked to include information that could be documented. I did not know as I was saving it you were undoing it, so I figured I had not saved it correctly. Please accept my apologies. KCoren04 (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard D. Gill

    Hi there,

    I added some sourced information to Richard D. Gills article, and fair enough maybe it was a bit undue including a summary of it in the lead and so another editor (@Yngvadottir:) fairly shortened it and kept it just to the body [[15]]. But then the actual person who the article is about came along and removed both me and the fellow editor's edits under the justification of 'vandalism' [[16]], presumably as the content added was negative about them. The other editor had to restore it [17]. It was my understanding that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest editors shouldn't really be editing pages about themselves in such a way as to remove all negative things about them? I tried then to add to the page with some more information about Benjamin Geen to balance some of the content, with Geen having already been written about in the same section, and cited a reliable source (The Guardian), but then Gill reverts his own page again, saying it 'doesn't belong in that part of the article' and makes no attempt to put it in any other part of the article, again presumably as it is not a particularly glowing review of him so doesn't want it to be in at all [18]. So I change the section title [19] to make it more appropriate for the content the section includes, including the stuff of mine the other editor had re-added about a non-proven miscarriage of justice which wouldn't make sense under a 'wrongful conviction' part, but he then just reverts again without explanation a second [20] and then a third time [21], so I've stopped as I don't want to edit war. But then Gill goes on my talk page and starts making personal comments towards me, such as that I 'have an agenda' and that I'm 'just a troll': User talk:MeltingDistrict. This is despite me attempting to warn him that conflict of interest editors are strongly encouraged to not edit on articles about them and that he should be commenting on content, not on the contributor. Gill just said he had 'Alterted other Wikipedia users to my vandalism' [22] and said some slightly confusing comment about how he 'should not touch the article about myself (a living person) till I’m no longer a living person'.

    Look I know my conduct here hasn't been 100% perfect myself and the stuff I was trying to add to Gill's page wasn't making him sound fabulous, but I did source it to reliable sources and the other editor refined it and re-instated it? Can it really be allowed that a conflict of interest editor is allowed to just always revert a user (or users) on his own page? And make personal attacks against me?

    Oh, and to update, he has now removed entirely all edits, including the stuff I'd included which the other more experienced editor refined and re-instated [23]. Is this really allowed, seeing as he's reverting two editors now, and isn't it also edit warring, having reverted this four or five times now?: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]

    MeltingDistrict (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Excellent to have a discussion about this. User MeltingDistrict has created a page on Lucy Letby, recently convicted for serial murder. An appeal is expected to start soon, and I personally expect it to succeed. I suppose that MeltingDistrict however believes Lucy is guilty, perhaps like most of the public. I, on the other hand, believe her trial was grossly unfair and hence that this conviction is unsafe. I’m one of a growing group of scientists who are working to support an appeal. Richard Gill (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I never made the page on Lucy Letby. MeltingDistrict (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The history of MeltingDistrict’s Wikipedia edits shows he *only* worked on that page. Sorry if he was not the only editor at work there. I hope to join in later.
    I made a constructive suggestion to MeltingDistrict on his user talk page, on how he could add stuff on my current advocacy for Lucy Letby to the Wikipedia article about me. Didn’t get a response yet. Of course I should not edit an article about me. However, it has been repeatedly vandalised in recent weeks. I think it would be a good idea to freeze it at the last more or less stable version for a few weeks. Richard Gill (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So that no one can change its generally positive outlook and add something that might not be fully supportive of you, you mean> MeltingDistrict (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don’t mean that. You are now guessing my motive, and implying I have bad motives. You just told me off for guessing your motives, and being rude to you by calling you a troll. Sorry for that. You got me a bit upset. How about we all start by assuming we are all working in good faith for the benefit of wikipedia? Richard Gill (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Brian Woulfe

    Coi editor who removed the coi tag from the overtly promotional draft which was then moved to mainspace. scope_creepTalk 05:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    See "New spammer" section above. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep: @Pemilligan: I removed the COI tag after a vandalizing IP editor inserted it. Showmesicily (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you do that? I think that was a concerned editor putting up the tag, in what is an overtly promotional brochure article. I don't have any faith the article wasn't created directly or indirectly created by the articles subject to promote their business. You shouldn't have removed it until the process was resolved. According to Terms of Use Wikipedia is not advertising platform.scope_creepTalk 19:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User has written a promotional article and removed maintenance templates twice, accused other editors of disruption or vandalism thrice [30]; [31]; [32], while not responding to COI concerns. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Pemilligan's note, a link to the earlier report, which also pertains to this editor [33]. Sanctions for editing here as a solely promotional account may be appropriate. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    James Bloom

    Londoncalling777 and 2A02:C7C:64BD:D00:531:6108:444B:3F9E are two accounts that have been spamming NFT related promotion about a person of very little interest into overview articles about art history, as well as editing the article about that person. Wheel2002 is a similar older account that shows how long this conflict-of-interest editing has likely been going on. Elspea756 (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It says in the Wikipedia guidelines that the COI page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue and that COI allegations should not be used as a trump card in disputes over article content. The edits I made to the article on generative art are accurate and pertinent. The references are reliable too. Londoncalling777 (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Attempts to resolve the issue via talk pages both recently and in the past have been unsuccessful in stopping the COI editing here, as it is continuing after warnings. Elspea756 (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute

    Some eyes on this article and user would be useful, based on their edit summary as part of changing it into an advertisement twice: "Changes are made as per the official directins from Director of the institute". — Trey Maturin™ 12:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Another editor had appeared, making similar edits. — Trey Maturin™ 08:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Vjgautam09 has declared they are an employee of ICAR-IASRI and that their edits were "approved by ICAR-IASRI". As far as I am concerned, this is a declaration of paid-editing status. I have advised them that they must follow COI and other relevant guidelines, so they are at least on notice now about COI policy. —C.Fred (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. — Some random Trey Maturin™ 11:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term cite spam/coat rack involving author John Paull, PhD from Australia

    ↓ copied over from User_talk:Beetstra. Reporting the concern here at Beetstra's suggestion 07:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This unexplained edit to my watched article raised suspicion where a academia.edu journal article by John Paull was inserted Special:Diff/1172292612 After further investigation, I found a long term trend of various articles authored by the author being inserted into multiple articles by anonymous editors that do not seem to fall within reasonable editing process. After locating John Paull sources in articles, it was found that same IPs from Australia or UK tended to insert John Paull with each IP exhibiting a pattern of different John Paull sources into different articles. As you specialize in spam, I was hoping you had a useful feedback. These are a few examples I tracked down:

    1. Special:Contributions/86.161.250.120 July 2011 SPA
    2. Special:Contributions/203.45.17.190 2016-2020 Australia
    3. Special:Contributions/110.142.48.21 April 18, 2018 Tasmania, AUS
    4. Special:Contributions/203.53.100.186, 2021 Australia
    5. Special:Contributions/65.181.3.220, one article. March 15, 2023 Sydney, AUS
    6. Special:Contributions/59.167.200.223,three articles in 2017-2018 Tasmania, Australia

    Graywalls (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Graywalls::
    I asked COIBot for some reports. Some stuff may be before that, but lets see. It may however show you certain links that are added, and a search for those links may show up more. I think I would suggest to submit this to WP:COIN. Edits like diff (first paragraph) is very strong a coatrack .. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I could do that, but should I? If it was a specific URL, it's easy to handle it. I am wondering if it's technically feasible to do anything about it in something like this with case the current site software in which the only constant is the specific author being inserted, but by numerous IPs. Graywalls (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graywalls: We could first just report and discuss, it gives more eyes to see what is happening.
    Then if it is deemed disruptive and we have some attempt to contact the person doing this (which is rather futile I agree, but a message on their last used IP and an attempt to do that on the next used IP as soon as possible should be attemped). It is easy to generate an edit filter triggering on additions of "Paull, John" in monitoring mode, and some IPs seem to be used for a longer time so they may return and see messages to them. A sufficiently long block on the last IP is also an option (for not-too-bad spammers that edit once a month I just start with a 3 month block, knowing that they are likely to come back within that time so it enforces their attention).
    Later steps could be warning or blocking filters or blacklisting (even pre-emptively) all their specific material. The edit I referenced above is rather bad, it is really a sentence that should be referenced to a proper source, but it is a coatrack for (what I expect) their own source. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    I found this really interesting. I encountered a paid editor once who used a fake academia.edu account to claim a pile of publications there there was no chance that their client had written, including works published before the client was born. Academia.edu just asks you if a publication is yours based on the name, so it is very, very easy to claim a bunch of publications which have nothing to do with you, and there dosen't seem to be any checks. So this rang alarm bells. As a result I dug into this a bit more, and as near as I can tell, there are at least two John Paulls. One is a retired anaesthetist who moved into history research after he retired and received an OAM for his services. The other appears to be a researcher into organic food. Both are connected with Tasmania, but the retired anaesthetist lives and works in Tasmania, while the organic food researcher appears to have been connected with Oxford University for a while, but also may be connected with the University of Tasmania. That would perhaps explain why these geolocate to two different countries - they are different people. I am a tad confused by the author of the lithium buttons articles, but maybe that became an interest of the anaesthetist - it would be stretching things a bit much to assume a third John Paull living in Tasmanaia. Anyway, if you consider that there may well be at least two different people in these, then I think the problem becomes a tad more normal. - Bilby (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Two different people having a pattern of shoehorning/academic boostering journals into articles from IPs, who just happen to be John Paull from Australia? Graywalls (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does look that way. There is definitly a John Paull, OAM, who was a Tasmanian anaesthetist [34]. This John Paull retired and started doing research in history, in particular on William Pugh. In looking at the academia.edu page, it would make sense that he was the one who published the medical articles. Then there is a second John Paull who was at the School of Land and Food at the University of Tasmania and spent time at Oxford as a visiting academic, who has a PhD, Bachelor of Science and a Masters in Environment. He is well published on organic farming, and had a particular interest in Rudolf Steiner. Both Google Scholar and Academia.edu seem to conflate the two, but they have different qualifications and write in different areas. That said, I'm not sure that there is much evidence of shoehorning - some of the recent links seem a problem, but looking at how much one of the Paulls is cited regarding Steiner, it doesn't seem much of a surprise to see Paull cited on that topic here. - Bilby (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is definitely strange to see their reference getting shoehorned into lithium ion battery to say swallowing button batteries is bad for you by an anonymous Australian IP. Graywalls (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned, some of the recent links seem to be a problem. Mostly that one, but also this one. - Bilby (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This shows which source articles can be linked to the same John Paull Graywalls (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that was where I was coming from. You can’t trust academia.edu to be accurate. It has no checks to confirm that the papers are by the same person, as it only relies on the name. It is possible for papers by multiple people with the same name to be added together as one person, either accidentally or deliberately. - Bilby (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.utas.edu.au/tsbe/people?queries_all_query=paull no result found.. hmmmmm Graywalls (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I found the same thing. I’m thinking I might follow that up today. - Bilby (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have found some archived pages showing that both John Paulls were at the University of Tasmania, one as faculty. So at least that is good. I'm inclined, based on the publications, to accept Paull as an expert on Steiner and organic farming, but I'm far less comfortable with the button batteries and political science papers. I'll keep an eye out for more being added. - Bilby (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Found one that's even older, but one thing is a constant. The inserting editor is an anonymous IP from Australia. Special:Diff/164457426. If he's a prominent figure in scientific community, I would expect a larger spread of editors utilizing it. Graywalls (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Serse82

    Almost all of these user's edits relate to Paolo Zamboni; most notably (but not exclusively) on that article itself. Especially some of the edits on the Paolo Zamboni article are inappropriate for Wikipedia, IMHO (I fixed some of it earlier today, but more cleanup is probably needed). On the Italian Wikipedia their edits are a bit more rounded, but still mostly centred around Zamboni and his work (insofar I can follow things, since I don't speak Italian).

    File:Paolo Zamboni image.jpg is listed as "Own work", so combined with the great interest in Zamboni's work this strongly suggests Serse82 is strongly affiliated with Zamboni, or is Zamboni himself.

    While there have been no edits for a few years, this users has been active over many years (the activity on the Paolo Zamboni article spans from 2009 to 2020), so it's entirely plausible they will make further edits in the future, and I still think it's useful to record this COI. Arp242 (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Tabassum Mansoor

    I came across a job ad on Upwork in which two editors were listed as having been hired and paid. Both are known paid editors who have been blocked for some time, but are known to use socks. They were hired in November 2022, and paid for completing the work in December 2022. The person who hired the two editors, based on other jobs, works in PR and is connected to Tabassum Mansoor.

    Tha article Tabassum Mansoor was created on December 9 2022 in a single edit by User:Rohtakia, which shows all the signs of being a paid editor using a throwaway account [35]. On December 20 User:Amuzaffar, on their first edit, greatly expanded the article [36]. They had never edited an article with that account before, nor have they edited a different article since.

    I tagged the article and another new editor, User:Alimuzaffa22, removed the tags. They claim to also be User:Amuzaffar, and insist that they do not have a COI. However, they also explained that "We cannot accept to have the disclaimer in the article" and "We cannot accept to have the article flagged", [37] which suggests a connection to the subject.

    Any suggestions as to how to proceed? - Bilby (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I should mention that since raising this issue with User:Alimuzaffa22 the Upwork job was suddenly hidden. However, I have copies if required. - Bilby (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes me wonder how many true editors we still have on Wikipedia when we cross off throwaways. Graywalls (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bilby: Any evidence of undisclosed paid editing can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org to avoid violating the WP:OUTING policy. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but that takes weeks to be handled, assuming it is looked at. I do generally send things to paid-en where it involves personal information and always when there is a need to block an editor, but clear cases of paid editing are better managed without adding to the queue. - Bilby (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I restored the tag for now as the concerns seem valid based on my own monitoring of Upwork and information presented above and on user's talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Karl Tilleman

    User and WP:SPI has spent their editing career singularly dedicated to adding grossly promotional material to the article for Karl Tilleman, a Canadian lawyer and former athlete. So far as I have seen, they have not gone through the process of COI disclosure at all. GuardianH (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Habitat for Humanity, et all

    One of the more intensive corporate promo effort. It seems like this could be a central corporate directive to spam Wikipedia. I've already massively cleaned up Habitat for Humanity but I can't believe just how much primary sourced fluff there was. The other ones are quite bad too. It maybe reasonable to combine them further once more organization, or their business partner sourced contents are pruned. Graywalls (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education


    The editor involved (Supriyom) creates the article above about a Hindu school, originally chock-full of promotional language, much of which Theroadislong removes. That article hasn't passed NPP yet, so is not indexed. Supriyom also creates a near-identical draft, also very promotional and asks at TeaHouse how to replace eviserated article with promotional draft. When pushed about CoI, Supriyon says editing is for propaganda purposes. I decline the draft since the article already exists and Supriyom asks me about SEO. I'd say let's delete both the article and the draft, block the editor, and call it a day. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1173305487"