Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Linn C Doyle (talk | contribs) at 15:05, 10 February 2021 (→Sword of the Spirit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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:Acts2 Network
    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:Code Project
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:DEGIRO
    Talk:Dell Technologies
    Talk:Michael Dell
    Talk:TJ Ducklo
    Talk:Element (software)
    Talk:Hildegund C. J. Ertl
    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:Qu Dongyu
    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

    A1 Belarus

    This user seems to be tied to the telecom provider. Global edits show 90%+ edits on all Wikipedias about A1/Velcom itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Bahach). Criticism of the provider supported by reliable sources tend to be deleted or toned down.

    QRep2020

    User:

    Pages:

    User QRep2020 created the article TSLAQ, a Tesla short-selling group, in their first month as editor. TSLAQ is the Tesla ticker symbol + "Q"... the NASDAQ notation for bankruptcy. The name QRep2020 presumably stands for "Q Representative 2020", which implies undisclosed WP:COI. Using the TopEdits tool [1] you can see this user appears to be a WP:SPA that edits primarily in the articles TSLAQ, Elon Musk, and Tesla, Inc., Ken Klippenstein (journalist known for publishing information related to Tesla), and PlainSite (publishes Tesla leaks). There appears to be an overwhelming trove of problematic bias with this user. More disturbingly, and I don't want to out a potential identity, but there is a real-life lawsuit filed against a user QRep2020 has repeatedly edit warred with by a man with interest in all the same articles as QRep2020, and this man would have clear financial COI.

    I have not personally been in any edit confrontations with QRep2020, but the user has repeatedly been asked to reveal bias and has not done so. The most recent example being Talk:TSLAQ#This_is_the_most_hilarious_WP:COI_article_I've_read. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty much all of QRep2020's advocacy has been for adding information critical of Tesla and removing information critical of TSLAQ, with a specific focus on short-selling. I'll include some specific diffs:
    • TSLAQ - Removing POV template [2]
    • TSLAQ - Removing COI information mentioned in source article (The Funicular Fund is the same group as Cable Car Capitol) [3]
    • Elon Musk - Adding a whole section about how Elon Musk dislikes short-selling [4]
    • Elon Musk - Edit comment "Musk’s lack of respect for the SEC statements updated." [5]
    • Tesla, Inc. - Adding controversies [6] [7]
    • Tesla, Inc. - Adding reference to TSLAQ and adding a lawsuits section [8]
    Again, QRep2020 appears to have a financial COI regarding the topic of Tesla and Musk, and an even stronger COI regarding TSLAQ specifically. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have declared that I have no financial ties to Tesla, short or long. The subject matter I tend to focus on here on Wikipedia is highly contentious, no doubt, but my edits are always in neutral tone and comply with the standards of Wikipedia. As noted, there is a neutrality template on TSLAQ right now that we are resolving on the Talk:TSLAQ. As I have declared elsewhere I am not a member of TSLAQ, and, if it really has to be said, I have done nothing wrong here. Stewarding pages, especially ones that one has created, that are attacked on a regular basis is something that is honored on Wikipedia. Similarly, the quality of my sourcing speaks for itself and I will note that other editors have heavily edited these three pages without being singled out. QRep2020 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absent evidence that Qrep2020 has a COI this should be closed. Many editors work in areas where they have an interest in the topic. That doesn't mean they have a COI per Wikipedia. Having a narrow interest or a particular personal POV is not a COI (else so many editors in AP2 would have to step down). As for the added content, if consensus on those articles doesn't support the edits in question they should be removed but that is a content question, not a COI question. Tesla/Musk appears to be a sensitive topic to some. I have made very few edits in this area yet I was also questioned about COI. Springee (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I am specifically focusing on QRep2020 because the username and editing behavior indicates this user is a representative for TSLAQ. It goes far beyond simple interest and into problematic WP:ADVOCACY. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      If you have asked and they have said no that is all we can do absent some hard evidence to the contrary. Repeated accusations of COI absent proper evidence is a personal attack. If the material is otherwise problematic then you can raise the issue at ANI. Springee (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You are incorrect that a user's refusal to acknowledge COI is the sole basis for COI determination. As stated in the header, COI determination is based on COIN consensus. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I happened to see that article while reading Musk's article after becoming the richest in the world, so I have no particular interest or bias regarding this topic, hence I'd consider myself an uninvolved editor. When I saw the TSLAQ article I saw a clear cut case of WP:ADVOCACY, then noticed almost half of the edits to the article are by this guy, with around 90% of edits (by character count) being made by only two editors [9]. If COI can't be proven, it's clear there's a case of WP:SPA anyway, with pretty much all of his edits being negative towards a single topic. When seeing SPAs, the usual case is them being a FAN of something, this case being the opposite is quite strange. Given that the article is stock related, and this group benefits from Musk related properties to do bad, it isn't a far reaching conclusion that he may be financially involved. Loganmac (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    SPA is an essay and more to the point, not actually against any rules. An editor is allowed to have a narrow focus. I don't see an issue with the TSLAQ article and don't see it as advocacy as the material is covered by RSs. Absent some real evidence that a COI exists here this should be closed. Springee (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Springee: SPA is not policy, but instead references existing policy. Notably the Arbitration Committee ruling quote in the lede: single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the issue COI or editorial behavior in the form of POV push? I might think Hudson Hawk is the worst movie ever. My sole purpose on wikipedia may be too put negative things about the movie in where ever possible. That doesn't mean I have a COI with respect to the movie. If my attempts to push the content into article are otherwise disruptive there are other options for that. Springee (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Springee: In this case we're talking about a user with a username which overtly states they are a representative for a group that is short-selling Tesla. The editing behavior matches. I'm pretty sure WP:DUCK applies. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It stands for "Q Groups Reporter", as I am investigating Q groups related to Tesla, GSX, Nikola. I have explained this before... QRep2020 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @QRep2020: Do you have any other potential causes for COI, such being involved in a lawsuit against Tesla / Musk? You don't need to be specific, but if you do not declare COI, I will send additional evidence to a functionary and they can make a final determination. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but is that a threat?
    I know exactly what you are angling at, by the way, and it is outrageous: You are implying that I am Aaron Greenspan of Plainsite. Well, I am not Aaron Greenspan and I am party to neither a lawsuit against Elon Musk nor Tesla. Aaron Greenspan has disclosed that he shorts or shorted Tesla; I have stated time and again that I do not have conflicts of interest based on financial investments or anything else. If you send a "functionary" court records or press releases or whatever for Greenpan's lawsuit against Elon Musk, etc. and then link to Plainsite or my edits on Lawsuits_involving_Facebook or whatever else on Wikipedia, they will see it for what is: A laughable excuse for evidence. And what I described must be at least the brunt of the "evidence" because I am not Greenspan and I have no association with him and no associations with his company, foundation, etc. Furthermore, if a functionary does happen to entertain this ridiculous notion, I will gladly reveal to them - and them alone - indisputable evidence of how I am not Aaron Greenspan. QRep2020 (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are over 1,000 lawsuits currently filed against Musk and Tesla. QRep2020 brought up a very specific lawsuit filed by a very specific individual. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Clear evidence
    Of the dozens of film references related to Musk in RS, I chose to mention Spaceballs in his article. Thus I am Mel Brooks. Strong logic... ~ HAL333 17:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody knew who I was talking about. I secretly told ST47 "I think QRep2020 is [redacted]", and then hours later -- out of 1,000 possible suspects --- and unprompted --- QRep2020 defensively posts to say they KNOW I am talking about [redacted], that they know about that specific lawsuit I mentioned, and that they are definitely NOT [redacted]. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is meaningless. There is a spray-tanned man with extravagant hair who lives in a white house. There are thousands of people who fit that description, yet we all know who I am referencing. ~ HAL333 21:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @HAL333: We all know who Trump is. [redacted] is not even notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. The lawsuit is even more obscure. Bad analogy. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    QRep knows who [redacted] is because they wrote about [redacted] in an article... There are plenty of obscure things that I am now familiar with because I had to research, cite, write, and revise content about them in an article. ~ HAL333 22:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In this lawsuit [redacted] calls himself a journalist. QRep2020 is a self-labeled reporter. [redacted] sues a Wikipedia user over a specific edit. QRep2020 reverted that edit. [redacted] started Plainsite. QRep2020 created the Plainsite page. Perhaps QRep2020 is simply a user with similar interests to [redacted], but it was enough of a match to bring up at COIN. If QRep2020 continues to receive complaints from experienced editors about possible COI regarding TSLAQ, I will escalate to ANI. --Elephanthunter (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Greenspan can call himself what he wants but what he does and what I do are very different things. If he wants to mention Wikipedia edits in his complaints, I cannot stop him and, frankly, more power to him for calling out blatant vandalism on Wikipedia's content. I will also note that I have not been asked about providing evidence that I am not him by ST47 or the like and so that speaks to the arguments' viewed credibility. In addition, as stated elsewhere, content that was and is on TSLAQ and of a more "general" critical nature - what is often attacked on there to begin with - will be redrafted for another, separate article: Draft:Criticism_of_Tesla. Substantiated input welcome. QRep2020 (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And for the record, by the time QRep2020 had mentioned this individual, I had already emailed ST47 regarding that same individual and lawsuit. --Elephanthunter (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also going to point out that Springee was brought here via WP:CANVASSING. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking for advice or recommendations on someone's Talk page is not canvassing. And you forgot to include the link. QRep2020 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. QRep2020 seems pretty legit and above board from my quick glance of their contributions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment setting aside the contribs, to me the comments that QRep2020 have made above make them sound far too invested (pardon the pun) in the subject to be objective. Their statement "I am investigating Q groups related to Tesla, GSX, Nikola" tips things here: we are meant to be neutral Wikipedia editors, not investigators. The Arb Com ruling single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. would seem to apply. "Impression" is a key word there,and scanning their Xtools report, I get the impression that they may be here with too narrow of an interest. Possibly (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How is adding facts presented by independent, third-party sources I find when I investigating for other purposes promoting an "agenda"? The name reflects what I do, not necessarily all I do and not necessarily what I do for Wikipedia in totality. Do editors need to declare themselves generalists? QRep2020 (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)See, that's the thing. investigating for other purposes and your editing interests gives me the impression that you are coming to this with a non-neutral view. There are enough editors who are saying the same thing above and in other discussions to say that you are creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral. Possibly (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Possibly: I think QRep2020 is using "investigating" how we might say studying or looking into. They don't seem to have gotten the Wikipedia lingo quite yet, but I don't think they are using the word to mean something akin to WP:OR. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    edit: And perhaps consider how often the pages I work on or made are attacked or flooded with "joke" vandalisms. Are those sad realities not cause for vigilance? QRep2020 (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's extremely dubious, bordering on farcical, to claim that the name "QRep" is any sort of evidence that the editor is a "representative" of TSLAQ. How can a "loose collective" of short-sellers and skeptics even have a representative? The whole idea is absurd prima facie. Besides that, QRep2020 has denied any COI and there is no other evidence supporting the claim, so it seems clear that this COI should be closed. QRep2020 has certainly edited in a narrow area of interest, but I think it's untrue that he is advocating or pushing a non-neutral view. His edits are always fair and well-sourced. A quick scan through his edit history on the TSLAQ article shows many edits where he made edits against the grain of the alleged advocacy.[10][11][12] He has been responsive and collaborative on the talk page, even when other editors have failed to be WP:CIVIL.
      Lastly I would like to note that, as mentioned earlier, Elon Musk is now the richest person in the world—overall there is much more vested interest in promoting Tesla than criticizing it. Musk himself has a well-documented history of attacking critics[13][14], reporters[15][16], and whistleblowers[17][18], and his supporters will often go to extreme lengths to defend him[19][20][21]. I think these facts help to understand the broader context surrounding the sometimes aggressive push-back against information critical of Tesla and Musk on Wikipedia. Stonkaments (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For context, this editor is the other half of the 90% of edits to the TSLAQ article, and they have collaborated on other articles [22], judging timing, in a battleground-like approach. Loganmac (talk) 07:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • From my experiences editing with QRep2020, I can confirm that they are an editor of the highest caliber. I have not seen anything that suggests that QRep has any kind of bias. Most of the referenced allegations on the talk-page are just from Musk fanboys. The climate there is similar to the Trump talk page - where IPs and newcomers take issue with the inclusion of criticism from reliable sources. It's really quite offensive that this complaint was even listed. ~ HAL333 17:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      While you say QRep2020 is neutral, you have provided no evidence to that point, or to counter the evidence I have posted above. Beyond that, the complaint was listed because there is evidence to link QRep2020 to a specific person who has financial COI concerning Musk and Tesla. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      As I said, I have not seen anything that suggests that QRep has any kind of bias. I provided no evidence because I don't have to. I don't need to publish a research paper or spend 10 years in the field to say that Bigfoot isn't real. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on you to prove it, which you haven't. ~ HAL333 21:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @HAL333: So far you've made comparisons to Trump, Spaceballs, and Bigfoot... while it did make me chuckle, it doesn't counter hard diffs I have provided and the details in the lawsuit. You've had your opportunity to expand your point, but I honestly don't think the evidence exists. QRep2020 has been pretty hard-lined on this highly politicized topic. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just not convinced by the evidence presented:
    • QRep has added content to Wikipedia that is critical of Musk, Tesla, etc.
    • QRep also added info about Person X and is able to recognize that you were referring to them in your initial allegation.
    • Person X is critical of those same things.
    • Thus QRep is Person X.
    That evidence/line of reasoning really isn't all that strong. I still have quite a reasonable doubt. ~ HAL333 22:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    How come Qrep2020 is still allowed as a user on Wikipedia with such clear breaches of COI and NOTHERE? NOTHERE clearly states narrow self-interest accounts are NOT allowed. It is getting so much more clear when we look at the editing history of Qrep2020 - then there is no doubt about the breach of WP:SPA: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/QRep2020 As we can see if “narrow interest” ever applied to a user it is this wiki edtior. The articles he has most contributed to is: 1. TESLAQ, 2. Elon Musk, 3. Tesla, 4. Ken Klippenstein (a person that has had disputes with Elon Musk), 5. Plainsite (a website that has had disputes with Elon and Tesla). Should we continue? Further down at number 7 we find “List of lawsuits and controversies of Tesla inc.”. If this is not proof of violation of Wikis rules then no it is not possible by anyone to breach them... BoMadsen88 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    In the same time period that QRep2020 has edited 167 different pages, you have made a single edit that does not directly relate to Elon Musk or editors who have contributed to Elon Musk. Who's really the single purpose account here? ~ HAL333 23:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently I am not the only one who has noticed the same about this user QRep2020. The users Elephanthunter and BoMadsen88 are absolutely right. --JShark (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sholam Weiss

    The article on Sholam Weiss, recently the subject of a presidential pardon, is a mess. It appears to be subject to extensive COI editing and the lengthy list of maintenance tags, added by another editor, speaks for itself. It requires experienced eyes. Note that it is tagged for paid editing, though I did not place that tag and am unclear as to its basis. I have commenced a discussion on the Talk page about starting over from scratch. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I did a pass at the article and removed a lot of offtopic and COI information. I moved lots of information from the lede to the body of the article. I could not access the New York Times articles today so I was hesitant to assess that information. I hope others will take a look at this to help improve the article, especially because the "Best Review" magazine article has some business jargon that I struggled to understand. Z1720 (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Z1720 Yes that helped a great deal, and your editing encouraged me to dive in and deal with other issues. But now, as you know, the article is under attack by IPs and SPAs intent on whitewashing the subject matter. Previous COI editing has beset this article in the past and rendered it a disgrace. I have requested semiprotection at WP:RPP. I hatted my discussion on stubbing the article as it no longer seems necessary. Coretheapple (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Yossischlussel:, if you have concerns about something in the article, please discuss it on the talk page. This helps other editors assess if the information should be kept or added to the article. Also, please do not engage in personal attacks. Instead, focus on the content that is the problem, not analysing the bias of an editor. Z1720 (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yossischlussel: If there is "false information" you need to specify just what is "false" about it, not sling mud about "false information" and "slander." Whether you are a "journalist" or not and whether or not you have "studied" Weiss is immaterial. If you had perused Wikipedia's rules as I recommended previously, you would have seen that original research is not permitted. Edits such as this do not remove "false information." They remove properly sourced text, from The New York Times and Washington Post, that is unflattering to the subject. Of course it is unflattering. He was convicted of multiple felonies and sentenced to 845 years in prison, which was imposed as he fled the country and galivanted through Europe and South America. Your edits have the effect and the obvious intent of whitewashing the article subject.
    I note that in the edit linked above[26] you changed text to mischaracterize what is stated in the source (The New York Times), changing "Weiss and others" to "its owners." If you have a complaint with The New York Times, take it up with the New York Times. Such editing is unacceptable and must cease. The article has a long history of that. I note that a few weeks ago the article was tagged for "paid editing" by one of a previous cohort of editors who were coping with rampant POV editing in this article. So please spare us the lectures and insults and desist from your tendentious editing. Coretheapple (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd certainly say that this edit by @Yossischlussel: is totally biased, to the point of just denying reality. Semi-protecting the article would help. Letting the Weiss propaganda machine know that denying reality is not acceptable and will be dealt with swiftly and vigorously would be even better. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did another pass at the article. Some sections were biased for Weiss, others were biased against. I tried cleaning up the language to avoid labels and reduce the amount of direct quotes from the articles. I also tried presenting the language in a disinterested tone as recommended in WP:WIKIVOICE. Can another, uninvolved editor, take a look at the article and see if we can remove the tags at the top? Also, I agree with Smallbones above a semi-protection of this article might be warranted but I think there's some biased language happening both for and against Weiss. Z1720 (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The "paid editing" tag was placed there by an editor some time back because of overt POV editing in this article that was clearly on behalf of the Weiss propaganda campaign. I became involved in this article all of five days ago. The tag was removed by me after the article was cleaned up, and was just reinserted by an IP with the following edit summary: Undid revision 1003178681 by Coretheapple (talk) Coretheapple appears to be a paid contributor from Mr. Weiss's enemies. He should be banned from this page. His edits are libel and vandalism against a living person. The same IP attacked me on my talk page a few days ago. [27] Let's be fair but not wear blinders. Coretheapple (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Coretheapple: I am sorry if my comments implied that you are a paid editor. It was not my intention but that's on me; it's my responsibility to ensure I'm clear in my comments. I saw @74.65.205.121:'s edit summary on my watchlist earlier today and was going to send a warning to but felt like that might inflame the situation. I am still concerned that the article is still not NPOV and would still like a non-involved editor to read through the prose again, and think the article needs to be protected to cool down the rampant POV-pushing that's happening. In the meantime, perhaps we can replace the paid tag with a POV tag? Z1720 (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720: Yes, that was the implication. I appreciate your apology, but I did not appreciate that and your ignoring of the edit summary and of the behavior of the IPs and SPA on this page. In addition to my concern over that edit summary, I have to say with all frankness that I don't think you improved the article. The version that you rewrote can be found here. You removed a cogent explanation of the fraud that was quoted from the Times, and we really should be discussing that on the talk page and not here, as the content of the article is beyond the scope of the COI notice board. Also your suggestion, which you put on the talk page, to remove a hunk of text favorable to Weiss makes no sense at all to be honest. Coretheapple (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the tags as the edit summary indicates they were placed there in bad faith. Tags placed in an article for disruptive purposes are removed, full stop. Also I have reinstated the previous explanation of the fraud as I think as rewritten it is dramatically less useful to the reader and also contains an inaccuracy at the top. Let's go to the talk page to discuss this. If you feel there are remaining POV issues, that is the place to make the case, not here. Coretheapple (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I honestly have no particular horse in the oage, but considering the length of time COI editing has been taking place on that article (dating back to 2009 if the talk page is to be believed), this might honestly be worth an ECE protection. The user who I was dealing with was happy to edit war me and 2 other people. When blocked, they revived a bunch of socks so if anything, it's clear there are some individuals who are really invested in making sure they own the article. I don't have the time frankly to babysit that page, and IDK if anyone else does either... BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 17:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sholam Weiss has been semiprotrected for two months. However, I see that National Heritage Life Insurance Company, the article on the company that Weiss looted, is in much the same state as Sholam Weiss a week ago due to determined COI editing, and unfortunately requires a top-to-bottom rewrite, for which I note it has already been tagged. I concur with BrxBrx that these kinds of extreme COI situations pose an unfair burden on editors. Coretheapple (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that User:HershyMarton, an account purporting to be the nephew of the subject. has admitted to carrying out IP editing in this article. See [28]. Coretheapple (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Coretheapple My efforts had nothing to do with IP editing, I have discussed your bias and vandalism against my uncle on social media and on chat rooms. If anyone did anything against wiki rules, it has nothing to do with me. HershyMarton (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)— HershyMarton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    You must really have your hands full when it comes to "bias and vandalism." Did you catch the American Greed episode that ran last week on CNBC? Coretheapple (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The american greed show is not journalism and is a very poor production. yes, its filled with bias, slander and defamation. I cannot run around all day correcting defamation. HershyMarton (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @HershyMarton: Please see WP:MEAT regarding seeking assistance outside of Wikipedia to whitewash the article, and please note the following in that policy: "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." Coretheapple (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    wikiprofessionalsinc redux

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

    Mayafan2

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

    @Ohnoitsjamie: as has been mentioned before, you need to notify the user of a discussion here. Possibly (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking care of that, was in a hurry and forgot. I've added another WP:SPA-like account under Hansen and notified them. For the other mentioned accounts, WP:SPA patterns aren't as clear. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I have to say, that FAQ really is quite the kicker. Creative application of wp:IAR is an understatement. Thanks for pointing this out, i've added these articles to my watchlist, and will keep an eye out for their long-term abuse characteristics. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 00:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    International Swimming League

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

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

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

    There are other less obvious examples of this.

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

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

    @HatBucketBalls: you need to notify any user that you mention here. See top of this page, where it says "subst:coin..." Possibly (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a previous discussion at this noticeboard about this editor on or about 29 November 2020. In other words, this isn't new. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mount Pleasant, South Carolina

    Okay- so, this is sort of a complicated situation. Recently, there have been a lot of people adding themselves to the 'notable people' sections of their hometowns, maybe because of a recent viral video (I found this thread discussing it, and hyperlinking doesn't seem to be working with it, sorry: http://Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Broad-based_spam_adding_non-notable_people ) I was patrolling for changes like these when I came across the addition of someone who seems to be notable, as he has an article (Nick Rosen). I noticed that someone had added a link to it with a description of him as a pilot, but I didn't see him being a pilot mentioned on the page itself, so I reverted- this adding edit was by an IP. Then he was added back in with further description... by an account called NickRosen1 in nearly the same way as before. To top it off, both the IP and the presumably-Nick account used the word famous to describe him, which is possibly a violation of WP:NPOV (I don't know if sources describe him that way). This doesn't seem too serious of a violation compared to other 'adding yourself to notable people' edits, as he does seem to be notable, but is it a problem at all in terms of COI? MuBoSko (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Top of this page: "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." NickRosen1 made 4 edits over fifteen minutes. You can't discuss it with them? Possibly (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's the same Nick Rosen. The one you're linking to appears to be British. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Possibly and Ohnoitsjamie: Sorry- I had a previous discussion here go fine in a similar situation, so I wasn't aware you had to ask on the talk page (they user had one warning from someone else). I can remove this heading/conversation, but I must ask- do I remove the notice on the user's talk page as well? As for the second reply: I completely glossed over that. Okay, so what you're saying is that Nick- the one from South Carolina- added a link to an article that was about someone else with the same name thinking it was about him(?) and so it is a case of 'non-notable person adding themselves to an article under the notable people section', only there happens to be an actually notable person with the same name? The mismatch in nationality is such a big detail to miss I feel as if I've wasted everyone's time. I'll probably keep the COI notice for consistency, as technically him adding himself to an article, even incorrectly, is still COI. Sorry, there's been an edit conflict and I'm trying to stay on top of the discussion. MuBoSko (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MuBoSko: you should leave this post as it has already been replied to. The basic procedure for dealing with suspected COI editors is 1. revert and place COI notice on their talk page and 2. If they do not stop, ask why they are continuing and explain policies. At that point, if someone refuses to engage in discussion, has been warned many times or continues to make COI edits, then you can come here with a concern. Possibly (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thick Records

    This user claims to be "Thick Records owner Zak Einstein" and keeps editing the article and reverting other editors. Orange Mike | Talk 04:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Orangemike: that article was just deleted via AfD January 7, 2021. Is the recreated version better than the old one? Possibly (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the new version is much better at making a case for notability than the deleted one. Now if the subject would just quit making COI edits, it could be improved; but he's got a bad case of "ownership". --Orange Mike | Talk 15:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Red X Blocked in response to a request on the usernames noticeboard, as the username is in violation of the username policy. The editor is free to request an unblock if they agree to adopt a policy-compliant username and to refrain from editing the Thick Records article. — Newslinger talk 08:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Writtle University College

    This user appears to be closely associated or affiliated with said institution. Unfortunately, this user has declined to declare their relationship with the instituition. The username itself may be a wp:UAA problem as well. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 18:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    While some of the edits might have been helpful, WrittleUniversityCollege is deleting large parts of the article and added promotional language. User has been reported to WP:UAA by @Ashleyyoursmile:. Z1720 (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they stated that they are making edits to "to remove out-of-date information" in the edit summary and the username coincides with the college name so I reported them at the UAA. BrxBrx has already issued the COI notice on their talk page. --Ashleyyoursmile! 18:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a read-through of the article and removed unsourced sections and promotional language. I'd appreciate a second look, especially at the awards section as I am not sure if these are notable awards. Z1720 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Milley

    The editor User:Cmwitten has admitted to working for the Department of Defense. The editor's sole edits have been to add original research flattering trivia to the Milley page and remove or alter negative content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I left them some notices. They seem to be willing to communicate, but have not yet grasped that they should not be editing the Mark Milley page directly. Possibly (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I counted something like seven (!) articles that they requested changes be made to, on the same day (January 24th)! My two cents would be that they should not be making so many requests. That is obliquely mentioned in the COI guideline "you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise." Possibly (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, it would be much simpler just to review the seven edits manually than having the COI queue continuously grow. @Cf2022: What do you propose to solve this little issue you've gotten us into? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I sympathise with @RandomCanadian:, but @Cf2022:'s requests involve adding sources in which they have a COI. I recommend that they continue using the request edit system to ensure their prose represents the source's information and we are not putting WP:UNDUE weight on their sources.
    I disagree with @Possibly: about the number of requests Cf2022 is making. CF's requests seem simple to assess and implement, and there are other editors who have numerous requests that take a lot longer to fulfil. I hope Cf will continue to be mindful about how many requests they have in the queue to avoid overloading it. Z1720 (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720: Yes, but at CAT:EDITREQ there is no way to distinguish their requests from all the others and its somewhat discouraging. Anyway, the COI they have is not very problematic (they're employed by a library - basically WP:Wikipedian in Residence - its not the same thing as COI John Doe working for a PR company...), and coming up with a better solution is certainly possible, if we're willing to make an exception: as I said, checking a diff for a mistake or two takes much less time than having to parse it from the request manually. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This (Stereotype threat) is not from a Boston university publication (its from Georgetown University Law Center, FFS). Really, even if them adding references to academic publications held by their library, some of which happen to be published by the authors from the university, somehow fits under some form of the definition of "promotion" or of COI, this is clearly not as problematic as you make it out to be. In fact, given what we know about reliable sources and how academic publications are usually closer to the better end of the spectrum of reliable sources, I don't see what the problem could be, unless they were personally a researcher citing their own papers, which is clearly not the case here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So I'm concerned that Cf might be adding material to articles using sources they have a COI with. If they are doing this, I strongly encourage them to return to using the request edit template. I disagree with RandomCanadian's suggestion to just check the diffs; I think it would take me roughly the same amount of time to check the diff than it would to check an edit request. The difference is the diff, which may have problems in it, would be live on Wikipedia for months before it was assessed. I am not OK with that. I also don't want to separate COI requests into "approved COI editor" category and "not yet approved" categories. The backlog is long, it sucks, but I hope more reviewers will help us clear the backlog. Z1720 (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    Good afternoon, In order to avoid any issue with COI, I was previously told to only use the Request Edit function by other Wikipedia editors. I do not want to be in violation of any Wikipedia guidelines, so I am happy to comply with whatever everyone believes is best. With regard to the edits I made to the Stereotype threat (diff), Water scarcity (diff), Son of Sam law (diff) and Working class (diff) pages, I did request edits and received approval by an editor to make the changes. My requested edits were reviewed and approved before I was allowed to made the changes (see talk pages for articles). The editor who reviewed the changes simply told me to "Hi @Cf2022: Please proceed with making the edits above. Thank you!" Please let me what would be the best way to proceed. Cf2022 (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Cf2022[reply]
    I think the work that Cf2022 is doing is rather interesting and I would like to know more about whose idea it was etc. Might reach out to her with a Wikipedia e-mail as I find it an interesting concept. I first came across her edit suggestion on the talk page of Water scarcity in Africa. To me it seems all quite legitimate so far. Wouldn't it be sufficient if she just proposed her edits on the talk pages of the respective articles (rather than adding to a COI resolution queue) and then the people who are watching the page can decide for themselves (and make the edit for her or let her do the edit)? EMsmile (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Deric Angelettie

    Philadelphia IP and user have been adding the same unreferenced stuff to the biography, for instance adding "TV & Film Producer" to things he's famous for,[29] despite having no film or TV production credits. The biography article was started by the subject's wife back in August 2018, and it appears he feels that he owns it, as in WP:OWN.

    The IP and the user have been warned multiple times, but there has been zero communication back from him. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry whoever this is, I do have TV & Film Credits. See Link: Deric Angelettie IMDb.

    The problem is I am not a wiki expert so unfortunately it very difficult to figure out all the codes and things to make everything correct. So instead of being a critic, try helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deric Angelettie (talk • contribs) 21:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    We can't cite IMDb as it's a wiki, and you should be requesting edits on Talk:Deric Angelettie as opposed to directly editing the article because you are Angelettie. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 21:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Previously published songs that appear in TV and film don't give the songwriter production credit. If the song was not written specifically for the film, then the songwriter is simply listed as writer/composer of the song in the end credits. It's not really a film credit in that case. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sustainable Transport Northamptonshire

    This set of articles was all created nearly simultaneously and seem to have an intent to promote a cause. One version was previously rejected at AFC. MB 17:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, I am the creator of these articles. In no way have I got an intent to promote the cause. Actually, I made an edit to Long Buckby railway station to promote that the Weedon Station Proposal also does worse to Long Buckby station, which proves that I am not just trying to promote the positives, but also the negatives of the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumveeHardhat (talk • contribs) 17:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ronald Kessler

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

    You could also drop a note at WP:UAA. Our username policy requires that editors editing with what appears to be a real person's name either provide evidence that they are that person or clearly state on their User page that they are not that person. Editors who do not comply with that policy are blocked. I am not saying that this editor necessarily needs to be blocked but it would be very helpful to know for sure if this is the subject who is editing his own article. ElKevbo (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - wolf 07:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User KesslerRonald was warned about COI back in 2008. During the time they have been on-wiki, they have made:
    465 edits to Ronald Kessler,
    44 edits to Minuetta Kessler and
    36 edits to Greg Kessler.
    Such a large number of edits has the appearance that it would impact the neutrality of the wiki. A WP:PBLOCK seems like it would put a stop to that appearance. Possibly (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've declined the UAA report. This was the username policy as of the day this account was registered. Real names were encouraged, and nothing was said about using the name of a well-known person. At the very least they deserve a chance to resolve this without being blocked first. I would consider this an entirely separate issue than the one reported here. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the reply. As I stated, I posted here seeking advice from those more versed in COI policy than I. UAA was advice I received (and appreciated). I see you left a lengthy post on his talk page, and that is also appreciated. His username was not so much of an issue as the obvious disregard for the guidelines, (despite being repeatedly advised of them), the blatant COI edits, sales pitches and boastful self-promotion. - wolf 09:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to mention that the UAA instructions indicate that real names are not grounds for a report, even if the user has not verified his identity. Coretheapple (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional example: came across this comment (from 2018, but currently posted) on the Mark Felt talk page ; Talk:Mark Felt#Jarring, strange placement for Kessler mention. In the article, Kessler's name is mentioned in the body twelve times, including an image caption (five of them linked). He has two books cited a combined six times, out of 114 refs. (fyi) - wolf 10:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, Mr. Kessler did contact OTRS and I have marked his account as verified, which should address the UPOL/UAA concerns. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am mystified that an experienced journalist would have such a poor understanding of basic conflicts of interest. I strongly recommend that you review not only our policy but also broader material about this very common phenomenon.
    Of course we wonder about, question, and sometimes challenge the underlying motivations and unspoken reasons for some editors choosing to contribute (or delete) material to articles! It would be the height of foolishness and irresponsibility not to! And it's only human for all of us to allow, sometimes despite our best intentions, our emotions to play a prominent role in our editing. Having a conflict of interest is not a bad thing; it's completely natural and inevitable for everyone. It's how we deal with them that matters. ElKevbo (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    RESPONSE: Thank you for this perspective. All of my contributions cite major media sources such as the Washington Post or New York Times or major published books and therefore conform with Wikipedia policy below. That is why dozens of Wikipedia editors have approved the contributions literally hundreds of times over the years.
    "Problems in an article about you: If Wikipedia has an article about you, we want it to be accurate, fair, balanced and neutral—to accurately reflect the sourced, cited opinions of reliable sources."--Ronald Kessler [KesslerRonald] — Preceding unsigned comment added by KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) 11:41, February 1, 2021 (UTC)
    If you have or think you might have a COI with subject, it's always best to post a request or suggestion in the article's Talk page so that other editors can evaluate it and possibly carry it out themselves to minimize the possibility of a conflict of interest. I'm sure you'll find that most editors are very appreciative of helpful suggestions and request, especially those accompanied by high quality sources! ElKevbo (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    RESPONSE: Thank you! Will you be removing the warning label at the top of the Ronald Kessler Wikipedia article, including the absurd statement, "This article relies too much on references to primary sources?"--Ronald Kessler [KesslerRonald] KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) February 1, 2021 (UTC)
    @KesslerRonald: you do not need to write "RESPONSE" every time you respond. We generally indicate response by the indentation level. Regarding the tags, I placed those. The COI tag that is there says something like "this article has been extensively edited by the subject". Is that true? Yes, you edited the article 465 times (and twice today). The other tag says "this article relies too much on primary sources". Now, are you cited excessively in the article? I can say, yes, as I stopped counting after about a dozen. So that tag is also correct. Finally, I do not think you understand that the general message of the COI policy is that you need to leave your own article alone. If you can commit to using the talk page to make edit requests on your article and on your family's articles, and to following WP:SELFCITE when inserting sources that are your own work, we are golden. Can you commit to that? Possibly (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I commit to that one hundred percent. I misunderstood and thought "primary sources" referred to first hand sources, not the subject of the article. Thank you for your advice and help!--Ronald Kessler [KesslerRonald] — Preceding unsigned comment added by KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) 13:46, February 1, 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you. Possibly (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    @Thewolfchild: I think you have got to assume some good faith here, especially given their declaration. I asked KesslerRonald that he follow WP:SELFCITE, which covers all of Wikipedia, and he agreed. So your statement "Nothing you've said here seems to acknowledge any of that, or commit to stopping it" is really incorrect. He's agreed to not directly edit family articles, and he's agreed to not insert his own work into articles in violation of SELFCITE. If, in the future, KesslerRonald decides to return to inserting his own work into multiple articles, and to edit his family's pages, then it's probably time to ask for an editing block. Possibly (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Possibly: I saw the replies, and was addressing additional issues, but... fair enough, I agree with you that AGF is important. That leaves clean-up, ie; articles like Mark Felt will need some tidying, and the Ronald Kessler tp should be reconstructed and archived. But, I'll wait awhile and see what further responses there are here, or progress made on these and other pages. And then I'll take it from there. Thanks to you and ElKevbo for all your assistance. - wolf 03:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    @KesslerRonald: That tag will eventually be removed by another editor. You could suggest its removal on the article's talk page; this is not the place to request article edits. See WP:REQUESTEDIT for how that works. Thanks. Possibly (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @KesslerRonald: I just wanted to make a general comment in a perfectly friendly way, as I am just watching this page and am not involved in your article. Please look at it from the perspective of Wikipedia editors. We volunteer our time without compensation for any number of reasons, but in the vast majority of cases we don't have a conflict of interest. We're just interested. Time spent dealing with interested parties (in the COI sense) such as yourself can be stressful and, I must emphasize, time consuming. When it is perceived that time is wasted, or unnecessarily consumed dealing with conflicted editors, it can create tension. Dealing with tense and unhappy editors is not in your or anyone's best interests. Large blocks of text (as you have added above) take time to read. That doesn't help. I strongly recommend that you keep these factors in mind going forward. Thanks for listening, Coretheapple (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    KesslerRonald submitted a request edit on Talk:Ronald Kessler to remove the autobiography and primary source tags at the top of the article. I declined the request because I think the tags are still relevant. KesslerRonald is welcome to use the request edit template to suggest changes to the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Advanced Technology College Mekelle

    I am like 75% confident that this user runs the facebook page for Advanced Technology College Mekelle given their posting this link which notably ends in ?modal=admin_todo_tour. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep, that is a dead giveaway: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-this-term-modal-admin_todo_tour-This-is-on-my-new-Facebook-business-page-in-the-browser-bar-on-my-username QRep2020 (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Village Roadshow Entertainment Group

    Draft:Village Roadshow Entertainment Group has been submitted four times in draft to AFC, and the submitter has been asked about conflict of interest, but has not answered. A similar inquiry was made at this noticeboard in November 2020, but was archived without resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    John Giuca

    This editor has repeatedly reported false information and has continuously deleted edits that have been properly cited. There is reason to believe that this editor has a conflict of interest in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:cf:8200:82b0:5421:5d33:e1d0:65a7 (talk • contribs)

    Rex Gatchalian

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

    Reverted and warned about edit warring.They have made some huge edits..one of them was +45Kb. Possibly (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They have said this on their user page, and I advised them how to disclose on their user page: "I am an employee and was tasked to put the awards on both Wikipedia pages. I am being compensated for my job, not for editing here. I was just tasked to update the Wikipedia every now and then." I can't remember what we do when we catch UPE: we let them continue given proper disclosure, or do they get blocked?Possibly (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that blocks are "preventative not punitive", why would we block such a person, after they have made a proper disclosure? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Kirkwood

    User adds large content in consent with Tom Kirkwood on the article Tom Kirkwood: [30]. The edits are largely unsourced or not sourced to independent and reliable sources (13 out of 18 references where publications by the article's subject). User has been warned by four other users already. NJD-DE (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The link indicates this editor also puffed up the lead (he's now a "major" contributor to his field), so there is self-promotion as well as BLPSOURCES issues here. Coretheapple (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    LexaDlawok has explained on their talk page that "I have ABSOLUTELY no financial interest in modifying this page. Instead Tom Kirkwood is a colleague of mine and he asked me if I could update this page about him. I'm doing this as a favor without receiving any money or other benefits." Possibly (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there is no self-proclaimed paid editing situation but apart from that I think their statement is beside the point. Coretheapple (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coretheapple: ? Their statement confirms their COI, and makes it clear that they should not be editing the page. Possibly (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. I was acknowledging that. My point was that they thought that not being paid was exculpatory. Coretheapple (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Varapuzha Former Cathedral

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

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

    Sword of the Spirit

    Hi all. COI on this page is getting out of hand. I am new to dispute resolution and the like, so some guidance would be greatly appreciated.

    LinnCDoyle is me, as other users have raised suspicions about me being a COI user. I can understand, given the topic of the article, how editors may assume I am harbouring a negative bias. I am, however, confident my edits are accurate, well sourced and neutral.

    Franciskouj declared COI, tendency to WP:PA and disruptive editing. Angling towards WP:LEGAL and WP:OUTING on the talk page, as well as at least attempting to share individuals personal information. I have evidence of what I strongly suspect is this persons identity. Potential undeclared paid editor.

    JCAragorn1989 I have evidence of this users identity, though again I am not sure who to divulge this information to in order to avoid WP:OUTING. This users edits have actually not been a problem, however they do have an undeclared COI and author content on behalf of the orginisation described in this article elsewhere on the web.

    PeterCoyle92 This user has made only one helpful edit but otherwise is still an undeclared COI.

    Jadbaz I do not know for sure that this user is an undeclared COI, I have asked, and been told no. However I do have some evidence (though again how is this done to prevent WP:OUTING?) as to what I strongly suspect is their identity. In either eventuality this user has been lobbying for the same edits as known COIs, and has been generally disruptive. Review of editing history is also suspicious.

    Sudonymous I am unsure about the COI of this user, I did notice some odd activity and behaviour, though I may simply be seeing COIs everywhere at this point, so would appreciate a fresh set of eyes.

    • 20th Jan, strongly suspected COI places third opinion request
    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=1001602460
    • also 20th Jan, user who's name is a play on the word 'pseudonym' starts editing (though on unrelated articles)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_World_War_I&diff=prev&oldid=1001583959
    • This new user moves straight to answering 3rd Opinion Requests.
    • Reviewing the users activity their editing since answering the third opinion request for this page on the 23rd Jan, it can be seen that their editing has been predominantly centred around this article. This lasted until today, where I alerted them of my observations
    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Linn_C_Doyle&diff=1005035888&oldid=1005031928 , immediately after which they suddenly started editing other wikis again.
    • There has been some uncivility and hounding this user does not extend to the COI editors. I am aware the user monitors my contribs.
    • This user is aware of contention in source inclusion being checked with the Reliable Sources noticeboard.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Penguin_and_Synodus_Episcoporum_Bulletin
    • But still seems to claim Atwood as not a notable or relevant opinion, despite the fact Handmaid's tale is based in part on aspects of this organisation. This seemed odd.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1005156082&oldid=1005104914
    • The editor has lobbied for the exclusion of the same material as COI editors and made BOLD edits removing this material.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1005024004&oldid=1005023494.
    • The user was allegedly providing a third opinion, but started making their own unrelated edits without achieving any consensus
    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1004966726&oldid=1004929187
    • Edit justifications such as this on the talk page
    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1005023063&oldid=1005022628
    though the user has since said that this was 'autocorrect' and they intended to say 'editors' instead of 'idiots' and this has been corrected on the talk page.
    *claims not to be blanking content and references when I believe this edit shows differently https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1004966726&oldid=1004929187, https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1005024004&oldid=1005023494 .
    • The user also lapses into referring to their own opinions with 'we' on the talk page.

    Linn C Doyle (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a WP:walloftext that very few will be interested enough to read. Possibly (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Possibly: Hopefully this is better? Is there a way I can improve further?Linn C Doyle (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is anyone going to respond to this? I'd like this issue put to rest so that Linn stops baselessly accusing me of being associated with SoS. Don't mean to be rude, just seems like this request got forgotten. Sudonymous (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "I may simply be seeing COIs everywhere at this point" - Linn C Doyle: well, quite. I see no reason to suspect Sudonymous of a COI; though they are a new editor, they became involved when they responded to a 3O request. Them disagreeing with you is not a COI or a behavioural problem - indeed, attacking someone who was aiming to help resolve a dispute is not reasonable. Linn C Doyle, you need to dial back the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and provide diffs and specific evidence for your claims about the behaviour of the other editors you listed above. Fences&Windows 22:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Fences and windows Fantastic, so the evidence I have to the four listed as definite COI I cannot share without WP:OUTING. What is the correct way to go about this? And if the user uses their own name (or close) in their username, does WP:OUTING still apply? And totally open to guidance on Sudonymous. I would point out that I never accused the editor of having a COI for disagreeing with me. I requested a fresh pair of eyes as after the issue the 3OR requested for was resolved, the user continued to edit only this page for 2 weeks making similar edits to the 4 known COIs (which were unrelated to the 3OR issue), and did not differ from this behaviour until specifically pointed out by myself. I have tried to provide this info above without being too WP:TEXTWALL. I never claimed that the user disagreeing with me was a behavioural problem. The above links demonstrate specific instances of issues such as WP:PA and blanking which are the behavioural issues. Linn C Doyle (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Sudonymous Though I must say I do apologise if you do not have any relation to the topic of this page. I hope you can understand my suspicions given a new COI editor seems to be showing up on this page with some frequency.Linn C Doyle (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    An agent for people in the film industry

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

    Hi @Daiyusha: Did Smithsonutivich say they were an agent on Wikipedia? If so, can you provide a diff of a link to the declaration? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720: if you look at Smithsonutivich's contribs, it is declared in the edit summaries. Possibly (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Possibly, I did not see the declaration in the edit summaries. I posted information on declaring COI on Smithsonutivich's talk page. I also added paid COI banners to the talk pages of the drafts that they created, as they made the declaration in the edit summary. Z1720 (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TwinTurbo

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

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

    Emil Kirkegaard

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

    Off-wiki items redacted, per WP:OUTING. The redacted links suggest BerlinburgerTor is working on behalf of Emil Kirkegaard. On the one hand, plausible; on the other hand, anyone could have written that. BerlinburgerTor, do you have any COI to disclose? Possibly (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ”Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph”. The links revealed nothing fitting those descriptions, and no other sensitive personal information. As of writing the original comment, the two links I provided were the only two edits on his newly created account, although he has now started to argue in the thread he made. Throwaway314 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Raviv Zoller

    paid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.71.7.239 (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is declared at User:Ovedc. Fences&Windows 20:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Luxembourg School of Business

    This editor has been editing Luxembourg School of Business since 2018. Their edit summary for their first edit was "We have updated our programs, management and changed some minor details. We have added some new references". Another editor posted Welcome CoI on their Talk page in 2018. I reverted their recent changes to the article today as they sounded promotional and some text - though not a large amount - had been copy/pasted. I warned them about CoI on their Talk page using a template but they have made further changes. Tacyarg (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: the account has been blocked by an admin for violating WP:ORGNAME, but it may be worth keeping an eye on the article for further attempts to add promotional or copy/pasted material. Best, DanCherek (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sdrqaz

    This accusation was based on no evidence. This is tilting at windmills. Fences&Windows 20:24, 9 February 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.

    Fairly confident this user is a paid editor for The Blackstone Group.

    Left messages on my talk page pretending to be a neutral party, after repeatedly removing my edits and making accusations of an edit war.

    However they exposed themselves when they made a normal PR edit to Blackstone recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Blackstone_Group&oldid=1002112827

    Do we want paid editors leaving warnings on other people's talk pages?

    I will be honest I was so shocked by how much corruption I came up against on Wikipedia I have almost stopped contributing and had to take some time out.

    However on finding out that User:Sdrqaz is a paid editor I am now inclined to come back and do something about this situation as best I can.

    This would be the second paid editor definitively discovered for Blackstone in the last 6 months or so. Blackstone have a huge PR budget and can afford to bribe top Wikipedia editors. They have done in the past and will do again.

    The last one was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Theoracle102 - there were others involved but we could not prove the others. Colinmcdermott (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks to me like you had a content disagreement with Sdrqaz. Please provide diffs that show some evidence; the one you gave is not a proper diff. Possibly (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not have a conflict on interest regarding the Blackstone Group, nor am I a paid editor. I have not been repeatedly removing [their] edits. I have done so once, when the filing party inserted criticism regarding deforestation into the second sentence of the lead. I did so while citing WP:PROPORTION, WP:UNDUE, and MOS:LEADREL. I am also baffled by how their cited diff is a normal PR edit.
    Now that that is out of the way, I am not surprised that I have been taken here by the filing party, given that they seem to have a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS attitude to that company: they have a history of making accusations that other editors are "shills", "paid thugs", and part of Blackstone's PR team. They also made a post on the article talk page here implor[ing] anyone in Blackstone's PR team to have a good think about which side of history they are on here.
    Moreover, this complaint is a rehash of an edit war, where the filer inserted information regarding Amazon deforestation in either the first or second sentence of the lead here, here, and here. This resulted in the page being fully protected for a week. Three months later, the filer reinserts that information here and here.
    Given that the filer's previous conduct in a COIN discussion regarding Blackstone resulted in a block for personal attacks and in this one has accused me of corruption and being bribe[d] (though I am flattered I am considered a "top" Wikipedia editor), I advise the filer to be more careful before making frivolous complaints.
    PS: to my knowledge, Theoracle102 was not a paid editor definitively discovered for Blackstone. Such blanket statements are inadvisable. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:07, 9 February 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1006006111"