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 Avsafety (talk | contribs) at 01:08, 19 August 2021 (→Avsafety). 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: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:Henley & Partners
    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:Sharp HealthCare
    Talk:Sittingbourne
    Talk:Surgical Care Affiliates

    Thomas Modly - PR firm is making paid edits

    The editor T768977 has been adding puffery to the Thomas Modly page. They say they work for "T.Bela Strategies" as a paid contributor. The editor does not appear to follow COI, as they are making bold edits to articles rather than suggesting them on talk pages. R5752332 said in June 2021 that they were not paid, yet did basically the same puffery edits to the page[1]. Also, maybe I'm just imagining things but I do recall seeing accounts with T followed by a string of numbers on other pages making puffery-style edits – does that ring a bell to any of the experienced editors familiar with COI cases? Could it be a mass WP operation by "T.Bela Strategies"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I found this account from March 2021: T1512 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Unsure if related to the firm. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitively remember seeing these [letter][string of numbers] accounts around doing sketchy stuff. JBchrch talk 15:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Account T856625 was created by B856625 (see logs). R5752332 is obviously the same user or group. This does not look good. MarioGom (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See also: T155R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), J5421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), T12525 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), T1259 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), T1170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A new editor popped up on the Modly page, also claiming to work for the PR firm: Coffeebar20[2]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Coffeebar20 is now proposing to add the exact same language about Modly's early life to the article that the user R5752332 earlier tried to add to the article directly. When I asked R5752332 if they were a paid editor, they directly denied it. I was very skeptical but decided to AGF, but I still don't appreciate (apparently) being lied to directly. However, I'm glad that the user(s) appear to now be using the talk page to propose edits, at least (though there are still problems with the edits they're proposing). Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've {{uw-agf-sock}}'d Coffee and R575. If these shenanigans continue, at least they will have been warned. JBchrch talk 21:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, JBchrch. I didn't even realize that template existed. I really need to mess around with Twinkle more. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that the editor just implemented one of their own edit requests.[3][4] I left a note on their talk page asking them to let an uninvolved editor review their edit requests. I don't think any action is required at the moment but given this firm's prior actions and the nature of some of the more recent edit requests by this editor on the talk page, some additional eyes on the article may be warranted. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On second look, a brand new editor, Beachsand27, (on their very first edit), gave the go-ahead for the editor to make the edit on their own. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice one. JBchrch talk 20:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Filed at SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/R5752332. Way too much for AGF. MarioGom (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While the investigation is still open, the first 3 accounts are already confirmed to be related. IMHO this is grounds for a ToU block already. MarioGom (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BobStv UPE

    Asked on multiple occasions to disclose specific employer, but no response.@BobStv:. -KH-1 (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @KH-1: the user already put a PAID disclosure on their user page, but it is missing the employer, which a number of users have pointed out. It seems like BobStv is trying though, since they asked you within the last 24 hours on an archive page for your talk page how to do it properly. --- Possibly ☎ 17:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the user is being evasive. They've received three messages from three different users, with a COI template clearly detailing what is expected. That they're only now asking for assistance is disingenuous.-KH-1 (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The only option available is talking to them. Sometimes a passing admin will block someone on sight here, but it is rare. This is especially true when they have made an effort to understand how to disclose. They just asked you today, why not have a dialogue with them? That's all any reader of this board is going to do. --- Possibly ☎ 02:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Continuous Innovation Framework

    The editor has twice been asked by User:Theroadislong whether they have a conflict of interest, but has not answered the question, simply resubmitting the draft. The draft reads like a blurb for a business methodology (because it is a blurb for a business methodology). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If I Google "Continuous Innovation Framework" + Arentvantspijker, it seems pretty clear what is going on here. And this promotional attempt has been going on since May 2019. --- Possibly ☎ 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It should really be rejected at four go's to stop the time wasting. scope_creepTalk 17:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Also, one does not even need to search to see the self promotion. Source #5 in the draft is "ISO56000 Compliancy". Continuous Innovation Framework. Arent van 't Spijker." Sources 6 & 7 also appear to be self-promotion. So it is WP:ADMASQ. --- Possibly ☎ 18:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring any COI issues, it is also chock-full of gobbledygook. And if the last section, 'Ambidextrous organization', is intended to convey anything meaningful to readers it entirely fails to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think ambidextrous organization means it really interactively utilizes flexible resources, conveniently re-engineers dynamic values. In fact, zero-defect-generation tangents do the right thing about the win-win price points. Customers need the growth years, and we fulfill that need with skill sets. A drop dead date—never before so advanced—can hardly help but to effortlessly take the issue off-line and in view of the fact that the customer culture change passes the baton concerning a writeoff we clearly can conclude that the dealer channels have culture changes. We're making forward progress towards human resource allocation by implementing a new-generation challenge that is both soup-to-nuts and lightweight. Customer bases swiftly have (as you will hear at the next shareholder's meeting) a solutions-oriented mission. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, having looked at several Wikipedia articles on related topics recently, I had to read the above comment twice to assure myself it was satire. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Luan Parle

    Luanparle has been editing Luan Parle alternating between adding blatantly promotional material [5] and deleting "citation needed" tags [6]. After racking up warnings about COI and deleting content they simply logged out and continued editing. (2001:BB6:3747:3600:B0CC:8E29:55E5:1800 and /Special:Contributions/2001:BB6:3747:3600:61F3:4819:A384:2935) They refuse to disclose or even clarify if they are actually the subject of the article. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Glatzel

    Editor continues to edit article - including making edits contrary to sources - despite having admitted personally knowing the subject here. Previously given the standard COI warning, and subsequent personalised messages, all ignored. GiantSnowman 17:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Kazakhstan PR

    This report is about a sockfarm active since 2013 and focused in PR of Kazakhstan Government. It was previously discussed at COIN in 2015 (see previous COIN thread) and could be linked to PR efforts discussed at The Signpost (see this op-ed). All active accounts have recently been confirmed as sockpuppets and blocked (see sockpuppet investigation).

    Blocked accounts
    Stale accounts

    Some contributions are about pro-Government PR (e.g. Kazakhstan, Economy of Kazakhstan), and others about attacking opposition figures (e.g. Open Dialogue Foundation, Mukhtar Ablyazov).

    I have listed all (major) contributions at User:MarioGom/KazakhReview for anyone interested in helping with clean up. Best, MarioGom (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @MarioGom: There is a huge amount of work there. Would it be possible to get sceript to clean the articles up. 17:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    COI templates added to pages for uncontroversial edits

    I am an infrequent Wikipedia contributor, so bear with me if this is in the wrong place. An editor has accused me of conflict of interest in the editing I did recently. He added COI templates to two pages, without explaining what content or additions were controversial on the talk page, and reverted all edits I had made recently on other pages. I am indeed the subject of the two tagged pages Susan M. Gaines and Carbon Dreams, one of which is biographical. I did not create the pages, participate in the talk about their validity (apparently back in 2010), or, from what I read in the Wikipedia rules, add any controversial controversial. I did correct obvious factual errors, edited for style and added some uncontroversial biographic information like that on similar pages--all with outside references. Can someone please check these pages, revert or question any controversial edits i inadvertently made, and remove the templates? As for the reversion of my other edits, I'm afraid it limits me from contributing to wikipedia topics where I am an expert, because as such, I am almost always linked in some way to the subjects! Laurids2 (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I have refactored the above post only to the degree to make the links work as clearly intended. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]
    Some representative edits: [7], [8], [9]. Appears to be clear self promotion to me. - MrOllie (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The first edit referred to above was the addition of a simple biographical box and photo like that on other similar pages. Is that self promotion? Wikipedia says:"If the article about you has no photo, or you can supply a better one, feel free to contribute one under a suitable free content license." So I assumed it was ok. I had nothing to do with adding this page, Wikipedia allows subjects to correct pages about them, and this seems no reason to tag the page.
    The second edit listed is the duly referenced entry of information and a link to a Guardian article and I cannot see how it could possibly be considered COI.
    The third edit listed was changing the misleadingly labeled "in media" section to on the birdwatching page to ==Arts and Entertainment== as on other pages, and addition of a subsection on novels. Here I should have added a reference to an article on birds in fiction and perhaps suggested this edit on the talk page instead of doing it myself, as I did mention a novel about birdwatching that I authored. But the edit was rolled back with no explanation, instead of just adding a query on the talk page as to whether it is appropriate or just rolling back the problematic reference to the one book.Laurids2 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Laurids2: it seems pretty clear that you have been using Wikipedia to promote yourself. For example in this edit, you added the text "it has been recognized as a "rare" and "well-written" example of a realist novel about science and compared to the work of Barbara Kingsolver." So that is you, the subject of the page, calling attention to your own work as` "rare" and "well-written", and comparing yourself to a Pulitzer prize nominee. The tag you are cokmplaining about seems very appropriate, as it points out your self-promotion. I think it would be a good idea for an admin to block you from editing this page, as I doubt we will get a neutral version given your continuous editing of the page since 29 December 2012. Or... you could stop editing the page and use talk page requests, as suggested in WP:COI? --- Possibly ☎ 17:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Possibly:Those are referenced quotes. "I" did not make those observations. Rather the authors of the referenced articles did. I considered that adding information and contributing to the completeness of the article. But if that is really seen as "promotional" and there is a COI issue I will refrain from editing any pages that mention me or my work. (That basically makes it hard to edit anything that I am an expert on, as my work is likely to be referenced or relevant.) I'd appreciate it if whoever rolls back the material added would check it and ascertain that it is, in fact, promotional and not just informational or cleaning up or clarifying the article, instead of indiscriminately reversing all edits that I did on anything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurids2 (talk • contribs)
    Regardless of who wrote it, it's plainly self-promotion; you are adding material to make you look good. Thank you for agreeing to use the talk pages. --- Possibly ☎ 21:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was you choosing which review to cite, and what to cite from the review, which puts you in position of anyone composing ad copy for a movie by citing the good things. You didn't cite, say, And then, apparently not willing to leave well enough alone, she ruins it. But yes, if you are adding material that mentions you, you have a definite conflict of interest. If you're editing a page where you are mentioned, you quite possibly conflict of interest. People who are acknowledge experts in the realms of their editing have to face that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarifications @Possibly: and @NatGertler: I will no longer edit any page that mentions me or is related to my work. I'm sorry, as I truly did not intend for this material to be promotional (of what? This is academic work and books published by literary and non-profit presses). It is simply strange to find oneself popping up in Wikipedia with incorrect or incomplete information, because unlike other media attention, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I thought I should correct and improve those pages so they adhered to similar biographical and book pages. The quotes/references were added not because they praise, but because they give an idea of their content and style and come from standard, established review media. (Even the reference to Kingsolver mentioned above was added with this in mind, as it tells what kind of book it is; and the negative statement from some blog doesn't tell anything about the content of the book, so did not seem appropriate unless one added a section on reception) So please forgive the trespass and kindly correct the pages as you see fit.
    I have reviewed my edits of Susan M. Gaines and would remove the words like "remarkable" from the one quote and delete the Kingsolver one, and the mention of the Suffrage Science Award if those are problematic, but I fear if I do anything on the page, it will just cause more problems. And if one indiscriminately reverts all edits, one will screw up the page. Can someone kindly edit out the bits you find controversial and then remove the tag?
    On the Carbon Dreams page I can find no edits by me except the removal of text spaces and addition of a wikilink and correction of a citation on text added by someone else. I would appreciate it if someone would remove the tag, unless you see some other problem. Laurids2 (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mario Kleff

    Meow2021's edits cover topics ranging from skyscrapers 1 2 3 to custom motorcycles 1 2 to 9th century gospel books 1, all with Mario Kleff as the common thread. They claim there is no connection, but I think the edit history shows this is unlikely.

    Also, these photos (uploaded as "own work") suggest that Meow2021 has attended meetings on construction sites with Mr Kleff 1 2 3 4 and owns the copyright for computer renders of Mr Kleff's designs 5 6.

    Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello MrsSnoozyTurtle Firstly, I don't understand what you're trying to achieve ... since I've been working on Wikipedia, one of the reasons I quit was because instead of helping a newbie, you tried or were involved in deleting articles I had created , everything related to Mr. Mario Kleff.

    May I ask you a question ... Do you have a problem with new editors at Wikipedia or with Mr. Mario Kleff?

    Second, you didn't respond to any feedback. Even so, you're trying to say that I have a connection to "Mario Kleff and / or his companies" based on "many" edits and photos uploaded as my own work. There is a banner on my talk page that says I am a newbie and I appreciate help and support. However, no support came from you. I am now making that very clear: "There is no connection between Mr. Mario Kleff and / or his company and me, it was never." I was a freelance writer working for newspapers in Pattaya and I have access to created photographic material that was made available for free use without a copyright notice, that is over 10 years ago. The latest photo from 2018 was published with an online link for download along with many other photos for the press and other users interested in the topic. If you have a problem with this, I suggest contacting Mr. Mario Kleff regarding copyrights. If such material cannot be uploaded as a own work on Wikimedia Commons, I ask for a hint on a valued license. Not only am I trying to learn the Wikipedia style, I have had to revise and edit most of the articles I have created, some of which have to do with Mario Kleff, and I updated links after articles were approved by other editors. Is there something wrong with that?

    Well, let me tell you, your activities on these subjects make me believe that you are having emotional problems with this person. I've made articles about architecture and places in Pattaya. Mario Kleff was a well-known person here in Pattaya for years, creating numerous buildings, cars and motorcycles, many of which were featured in magazines, newspapers, on television and on the radio. An writer like me can attest to this. So, I did research on these topics and found it worth writing about before it got lost. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong. Other Wikipedia editors are ready to started with good advice. You haven't. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Meow2021: Can I possibly ask you ,if you are linked to the person in any way? Do you know them or getting paid by them.. Many articles come through the coin noticeboard, because somebody suspects there is a conflict of interest, which is against policy. If you do have a conflict, all you need to do is declare it now, so we can keep track of those articles with a coi. I hope that helps!! Lastly, I sent that article to WP:AFD, looking at it, for the second time I suspect it is non-notable, but we will find out what the consensus is. scope_creepTalk 13:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep: How can I make it more clear that I am not related to any company or person or product that I have written articles about? I don't get paid either... But I get a feel for how this Wikipedia works. It's not really encouraging! Thank you Meow2021 (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Rocknrollmancer Be aware of your claims. I am not related to the person the article is about or to an editor named "Wongsin". Your suggestion that there is a link to British education is ridiculous and disrespectful. Wikipedia is about facts, not allegations. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rocknrollmancer: As you, I have researched and have noticed earlier entries on Wikipedia. Is this your link for relating one person to another, starting with "there are potentially other problems..."? Regards, Meow2021 (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The opening sentence of this discussion seems misleading to me. Meow2021 has created 22 articles, including the article Mario Kleff, only about 5 of the remainder mention Kleff. The first and last links given above are adding links to articles created by Meow2021, a perfectly normal activity, the others to articles created by the editor. This seems like cherry-picking to me. I would also note there seems to be some history between the two editors. --John B123 (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    John B123 History between the two editors? Can you be more specific, please. Thanks Meow2021 (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not believe that Meow2021 is a UPE/COI editor since they have added information about Kleff's legal problem involving ownership of allegedly illegal wildlife [10]. As for the images, uploading copyrighted pictures as "own work" is more symptomatic of being a new user than having a COI. JBchrch talk 15:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment there is quite a long history of COI editing on the Mario Kleff page. See the first AfD for the page, where Mario Kleff himself weighs in. I can't blame those who therefore conclude that this phenomenally promotional article by Meow2021 is part of the long history of promotion. Their editing on Silverlake Vineyard is also highly promotional, including a list of wine brands and the text in the lede "Due to the lake, the mountains and the landscape architecture with installed windmill and flower gardens, a Wine & Grill restaurant, a pizza bakery and the stone Cottages as accommodation, the area resembles the spirit and flair of Europe." Here's a draft article created three hours after joining Wikipedia. It was about a condo tower designed by... Mario Kleff. Three days after joining Wikipedia, Meow2021 had created five articles on skyscrapers, four of which were created in a single day. It is possible that they are not a promotional COI editor, but it seems clear that they have done some promotional editing, intentionally or not.--- Possibly ☎ 17:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Let me tell you what is. I used to work as a journalist for local newspapers. During the Covid-19 pandemic, I decide to contribute to Wikipedia. It was exciting to create, but not much was written about the architecture, locations, and events of Pattaya, one of the fastest growing cities in Thailand. Even hard-to-find factual information. So I didn't quite understand how Wikipedia works, and I wrote things the way I understood them. Sometimes finding spelling or grammatical errors, later understanding that articles can or must be linked... this is how the editorial history became long and often. Anyway, I can take some of it, not all. Wikipedia doesn't seem rational to me, but emotional, and all this has nothing to do with professional journalism. Claims about connection to the subject are nonsense. You want me out so be it. Apparently, it's not even worth arguing. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was the first person, I believe, to approach Meow2021 about the COI and image ownership issues. I do think her editing pattern, with contributions including Pattaya neighbourhoods and landmarks such as Phra Tamnak Hill, Wong Amat Beach and Viharn Sien, is quite consistent with an enthusiastic editor eager to write about things related to the city, though she does seem particularly interested in Kleff and his work. The more cynical One might argue that a COI editor could create such articles to cover their tracks, but I think this seems rather unlikely that's rather hard to prove. It does seem that the perceived promotional editing could much more easily also be a result of personal interest rather than direct conflict of interest, and WP:AGF should apply in the absence of strong evidence,WP:AGF is probably the default position to fall back on. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC), Updated 17:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would like to reiterate a previous point please. Wouldn't the user attending staff meetings on a building site with Mr Kleff 1 2 3 4 and producing brochure-esque computer renders of the building interiors 5 6 suggest some connection between the two? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrsSnoozyTurtle: When you build your new residential building, you would alway expect to photograph it, for your high-end brochure, to sell it. These are expensive apartments. You would pay somebody to do that, in the normal course of work. There is a fiduciary link of some kind. We will photograph it, do the brochure, do the website, do the social media and do the wikipedia profile, all in one package? scope_creepTalk 17:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assuming good faith, It is unclear how Meow2021 would get permission to visit a in-progress construction project (hard hat area) or get permission from Mr. Kleff to upload Kleff's renderings without some connection. Meow, would you like to comment on that? Netherzone (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to give this the benefit of the doubt and AGF, but the deeper I looked, the more convinced I am that this is clearly a case of COI and/or UPE. There are way too many coincidences, from the promotional content that leads back to Kleff or his developers WandeeGroup, WandeeGroup Real Estate, The Rivera Group, Raimon Land development group. The citations appear to be cleverly placed PR or press releases. The questions regarding the photos and the multiple SPA's/socks at the AfD do not help matters. I believe that a block or ban is in order. Netherzone (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netherzone: "Assuming good faith?" I think I made myself very clear, didn't I? Seasoned WP editors shouldn't create articles based on allegations, but rather on references. Regards, Meow2021 (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what this reply means, but I am wondering if there is a connection to the developer that you might kindly elaborate upon, and also the motorcycles? Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Meow2021, Did you create the images in question? We really need a straight answer because if you didn't, these photographs are copyright violations and need to be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good morning @MrOllie: can you indicate the pictures you are referring to? Regards, Meow2021 (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Meow2021, They're linked above, but I will repeat the links here: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]
    Also this one I just noticed: [17], MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi MrOllie 2 - 7 are archived images for press releases and were released over 10 years ago with a notice for free use. The same applies to image 8. I uploaded these images from the archive and posted them as "my own work" to have a link to Wikipedia articles as no other license option could be found. All pictures are released for free use by the Wandeegroup. Meow2021 (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, they're probably copyright violations, then, as you didn't attribute the owners. Images on commons are also licensed for just about any use, including commercial uses. Is this the case for the other images you've uploaded to commons as well? Did you take any of the photographs yourself? - MrOllie (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did to create articles like [18], [19] and [20] etc. Due to the investigation process regarding the editor account and the articles created, I paused editing, otherwise there would be many more. Hope this helps. Meow2021 (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Meow2021, Since there is a mixture of images that are your own work and that aren't, it would be a good idea for you to go to commons and ask an admin there to help fix the situation. Depending on how the license owners released the images they may know the proper way to reflect their premissions. I'm not very active on that project, but [21] looks like a good place to start. MrOllie (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you MrOllie for the information and the link. I will check and clarify. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverse-searched one of the image links provided by Meow2021 above, and found that it was indeed included in Wande Group Public relations! This wiki-style page on the Wande Group site contains a huge biography of Mario Kleff, and includes many of the buildings that user:Meow2021 has created. The matching subjects here on Wikipedia and on the Wande group official site, are pretty WP:DUCK to me and make it crystal clear that Meow2021 is using WP for promotion. They should be blocked in some way; either indef or given a "Mario Kleff" subject block. Also, the images and text on the WG site are all marked "© Copyright Protected Website". At the top of the page, Created May 16, 2021, the notice says "All materials published on this website are the intellectual property of Wandeegroup Asia Co. Ltd. Protected copyright website." --- Possibly ☎ 03:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the WP:DUCK aspect, both Cellular beam and Wongamat Tower appear in the navigation footer on the Wande Group page. Both articles here on Wiki were created by Meow2021 within a couple weeks of the Internet archive's first cache of the Wande Group page. --- Possibly ☎ 03:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Possibly: Your interpretations and claims go too far and become serious threats. I advise you to consider your tone! For all editors participating in this topic, there is no evidence for any of these claims. To me it gives the impression of painting a picture to discredit either a subject, an editor, or both.
    I will now explain in a simple and understandable way what relates me with Mr. Mario Kleff:
    Because of my interest in Pattaya and real estate developments in greater Pattaya, I had the idea of ​​creating articles related to architecture, especially skyscrapers. This is how I find out that integrating developer, architect, and location is a good idea. However, not every developer or architect had enough references and links to news, books, and other sources to create another article. So I mentioned them with reference links to the statement. This took a great effort and wasn't easy. Much, not everything, could be accessed with Wayback Machine. One of the articles created was about the company The Riviera Group. Suddenly it was deleted without hours and without discussion page. Over time, I have updated articles with cross links to other related articles. Along the way, I found other interesting topics that might be worth adding to Wikipedia. To update and complete articles I edited many times. Regarding copyrighted images find my answers above. Please visit each of the articles I created (meow 2021) and date history changes that can answer your doubts. After the initial deletions and allegations, I sought advice from fellow WP editors who reviewed every single article I wrote. I recently added the name of the developer to the Wongamat Tower article and replaced the architect with Mario Kleff... that's where everything started, what is now. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no threat at all in what I wrote, other than a suggestion that you be blocked for COI editing, which is exactly what we do on this noticeboard. As to the rest, I don't find your explanations credible. When multiple instances of the same niche subjects and images appear within weeks of each other on two different websites (the company website and here on Wikipedia), it's clearly a promotional campaign. Anyone who genuinely had no COI would have offered to stop editing Mario Kleff subjects by now. --- Possibly ☎ 05:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Possibly: Again - claims upon claims. I will certainly not waste any more time contributing to Wikipedia because of you and related members. They are threatening to block and ban me. As you may have noticed, I have already canceled contributing and am only available for clarification. Meow2021 (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Meow2021, these are not threats or just "claims upon claims". The people here are calmly trying to understand the situation here, bringing hostility to the discussion will not help.

    The unusual choice of articles being edited and timing of the images appearing on other websites, along with the copyright issues when you uploaded them to Wiki Commons as "own work", is quite concerning. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Meow2021, I am wondering if there is a connection to the Wandee Real Estate & Services Group or Wandeegroup Asia Co., LTD.. This link was posted on the AfD, but there was no response there. [22]
    If there is a connection, it's really much better to disclose that, and then abide by the encyclopedia's guidelines for COI editors. It's pretty simple if you want to have a look at our WP:COI compliance advice. Netherzone (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netherzone: Can you be more specific about the link posted on AFD? I don't understand. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: To all editors participating in this discussion: I understand that a group of editors is trying to shed light on a story that is believed to have been discovered. Interpretations or even claims published here create a construct of connection between Meow2021 and Mr. Mario Kleff, affiliates and articles. "You" think now that you are almost there? Surely you also know the saying "Don't believe in your own press"? Please don't forget to set a reference link on the foundation of this construct! Because the connection seems so obvious, it's so untrue. I am user Meow2021, no one else. And I've created 22 articles, not just a few that you want to delete. Note: A coin has three sides, one of which you like best. However, it is a coin. I suggest you do what you want, but don't ask me any further. I feel like talking to a wall. Meow2021 (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Davidbramante

    This user keeps trying to insert David Bramante in sections for notable candidates only. It appears to be self promotion edits. [23] [24] [25] Prcc27 (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Kirsch

    A good portion of this article has been written by Stkirsch, who has self-identified[26] as the subject of the bio. Possible POV issues, etc. could benefit from more eyes/attention. Alexbrn (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC

    Kirsch has been a potent spreader of medical misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the sources discussing it are lacking, with the only sources being the same "spike protein cytotoxic" fact checks by Reuters [27] and PolitiFact [28]. Steve has removed this information, calling it "character assassination" diff. I should note that the claims removed by Kirsch were not explicitly supported by the source, which only talked about the spike protein cytotoxicity claims. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A note to Kirsch: having an article on Wikipedia can be a double-edged sword. The important is that it reflects sources considered reliable. When it is perceived to misrepresent sources or to cite unreliable sources, the material may be removed and more input can eventually be obtained at WP:BLPN in the future if the article talk page is not enough. If the article eventually includes criticism considered WP:DUE by consensus and that is well cited to reliable sources (WP:CITE, WP:BLPRS), if those sources are retracted because of errors they made, the related WP material should also be removed. It is within policy to revert obvious vandalism, point out any inaccuracies at the article's talk page, to make suggestions and propose sources. —PaleoNeonate – 14:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I took out a small block, a Rumble video where Kirsch and his mates were discussing Covid and mRNA vaccines. I looked like anti-vaxxer stuff to me, although I don't have much experience in it, but the refs were woeful. We need to careful with these folk. The policies need to be applied in the rigourous manner. scope_creepTalk 19:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Kirsch replaced the Reuters story I linked previously with the rumble video. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor has been trying to whitewash the article. I have put it back in and expanded it a bit, based on the Reuters report. All the content is notable around that fact check by Reuters. I would suggest folk keep an eye on the article. scope_creepTalk 20:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What's with the character assassination here? Everything I said in the video is backed up by solid science. What you have changed this to is both defamatory and untrue. I'm being targeted with people spreading misinformation. All you have to do is watch this video of this VERY qualified PATHOLOGIST explaining that every point I made is true, including the fertility remarks which have no source. https://rumble.com/vkopys-a-pathologist-summary-of-what-these-jabs-do-to-the-brain-and-other-organs.html Why did you remove the original video link on rumble so that people could see for themselves what I said. Instead, you removed that, mischaracterized what I said, and linked to incorrect fact checks done by non-expert... NO PATHOLOGIST would ever be a fact checker. If you have someone who has spent more time looking at vaccine victims who is a qualified pathologist, then tell me the reference. Spend the 20 minutes to watch the video, and remove the stupid fact checks, restore the link the original video or simply revert back to what I wrote which was objective and not subject to debate and included the original video. Stkirsch (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: Is the VERY qualified PATHOLOGIST Ryan Cole M.D. in the video the same Ryan Cole M.D. that factcheck.org says "Makes Baseless Claims About Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines"? --- Possibly ☎ 07:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer: Yes, it is the same Ryan Cole, MD. Your fact check organization needs to check their facts. These vaccines DEFINITELY make cancer worse (and can show you proof of that), yes they deliberately withheld ivermectin despite peer reviewed systematic review (this is public info), yes, there are 23 studies published in peer reviewed journals showing ivermectin is very effective and thousands of anecdotes, and vitamin D is proven in the literature and I've used it personally and it had an amazing impact on the cough I got after the vax. So not only is there scientific studies, REAL case histories (for cancer), but also my own personal experience. Would you like to see the emails I've exchanged with cliff lane about suppression. I'm happy to spend hours going through this stuff. Evidence galore. Stkirsch (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I've never seen a "fact check" from any of these organizations that makes the vaccine look worse than what was in the article. How can these be unbiased fact checkers? Ivermectin is demonized but it is has the HIGHEST level of evidence in evidence based medicine and it is one of the safest drugs on the planet. Citing these biased fact checks is a disservice. Articles should be based on truth. Ivermectin is the poster child for this. NOBODY can debate Pierre Kory on the science here. I even offered $1M on trialsitenews to ANYONE who could prove the NIH got it right on ivermectin. there were NO takers. How do you explain that? Stkirsch (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We dont believe you Steve. It's just that nobody else wants to say it. We will not allow your misinformation into wikipeda, so stop wasting our time. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure we're meant to edit articles based on our own "coughs we got after the vax". I think that's called WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm just pointing out I personally verified it ALSO on myself, so there is additional data point. We can start with the basics though to get past your cognitive dissonance. I claim 150,000 people (approximately) have been killed by the COVID vaccine. I have a statistical analysis that shows that where (so far) nobody in the world has found an alternative explanation for. If you can find a flaw in the analysis, you can keep the false edits. If you cannot find a flaw in the analysis, then I turn into a truth teller in my entry and you start reporting FACTS rather than false fact checker opinion. Also, apparently everyone creating the libelous content seems to lack a real identity and is not accountable in a court of law for libel. I find that pretty darn convenient. I identify myself, you are anonymous. Are any of you willing to be identified? to get back to the point, I claim 150,000 people have died proximate to the vaccines (e.g., the vaccine elevated a pre-existing condition or created a new condition which was the PRIMARY cause of death). What's your number? Let's see if we agree on the basics first. It's important that wikipedia start telling people the truth here on how many people have been killed Stkirsch (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place for you to write about yourself or your ideas. So, no, we can't be discussing any of that. We need WP:MEDRS mainstream published research, not your posts about yourself and what you say you know. Your posts/edits seem to be getting into personal promotion territory (also known as 'not here' territory), which may lead to a block. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Steve, first off whether or not your cough was affected or not is not going to be the basis for any assertion on this project. It's not citable, and it's original research. It's a non-starter, and I encourage you to drop this line of assertion. Second, your claims regarding libelous behavior are edging close to violating our policy at Wikipedia:No legal threats. From my chair, you haven't violated it. But, you are headed in that direction. When that policy gets violated, the editor who violates it is usually indefinitely blocked from editing on this project. I encourage you to stay away from making any such claims. If you have a legal complaint to make, your course of action is to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Third, we have a policy here at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which we take quite seriously as well. If you feel any content on the article regarding you is in violation of that policy, certainly bring it to our attention and we can address it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hammersoft you seem like a reasonable guy. What is on my page violates your guidelines and is also untrue. Can we discuss this via a zoom or whatsapp or signal or whatever call rather than trading messages here. The problem is that wikipedia is relying on "fact checkers" who are biased and are cherry picking the data. Even the Washington Post. I challenged their fact checker with facts in peer reviewed literature and he basically just refuses to answer. It is distressing that peer reviewed literature doesn't count for anything in wikipedia, but an article by a Reuters fact checker is deemed more credible. So the fact checker can be disproved by the peer reviewed scientific literature, but that doesn't seem to matter, does it?

    so the question is whether we can have a higher bandwidth conversation than typing at each other. Stkirsch (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah yes, you might care to ask the head honcho and the Wikimedia Foundation about how all of its millions of dollars might be spent on "higher bandwidth." But, as they say, "don't hold your breath" (under that COVID mask you're bound to be wearing). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC) p.s. and regarding anonymity, no one is foolish enough to edit under their real name here, surely?[reply]
    no extra money is required for a zoom call or phone call or internet call via signal or whatever (last time I checked). But this is pointless if a Reuters fact check is more credible than scientific literature so if the fact check says something and the scientific literature proves the fact check is incorrect, does Wikipedia still reference the "fact check" as a credible source? If the answer is the "fact check" always wins, then it would be pointless to argue since wikipedia is relying on fact checker articles rather than facts. If this is judged on facts, I win. the spike protein is cytotoxic which is why 30% of the deaths within 2 weeks after vax were caused by the vaccine according to a study done by one of the world's top pathologists... NOBODY ELSE HAS DONE SUCH A STUDY. WHY NOT? And VAERS shows a lot of deaths after the vaccine and is under reported by 30X. What do YOU think the under reporting rate in VAERS is? The CDC thinks is is 1 to 1. But the HHS commission report suggests it could be as high as 100X. The anaphylaxis analysis shows the number is 40 times under reported. The SAR analysis shows 30X. Let's start with the VAERS under reporting ratio. What does Wikipedia think it is? Once we get that number, then I can prove the other points through primary government data.

    Stkirsch (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Stkirsch, Wikipedia is designed to work based upon public dialog. Even if someone did call you on zoom, whatever you discussed wouldn't affect the decision process here. Re: sourcing, Wikipedia is generally prefers secondary sourcing, which the Reuters article is an example of, to primary sources such as a single medical study. If you have an even better source to cite (something like a systematic review from the Cochrane Library or similar), that would take precedence. MrOllie (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between alleged published data and conclusions or theses drawn from such data. And regardless, we are not published fact checkers. But yes, under our rubrics Reuters and Washington Post are credible published fact checkers, and no Wikipedia User is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Steve, please offer a particular passage of the current article that you find to be false. Then, provide citations to reliable, secondary sources that show that it is false. Do that, and we'll likely remove the false claim. You can repeat this process for everything you can prove (again with reliable, secondary sources) to be false. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, let's start with cytotoxicity. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/wissenschaft-heidelberg-chef-pathologe-pocht-auf-mehr-obduktionen-von-geimpften-dpa.urn-newsml-dpa-com-20090101-210801-99-647273 is a news article which is a secondary source reporting on the results of autopsies of patients who have died after the vaccine. The pathologist, one of the top experts in the world, concluded 30% or more could be deemed to be caused by the vaccine. If the vaccine is perfectly safe, then how can at least 30% of the deaths be caused by the vaccine? Stkirsch (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    also, this BMJ article references another article and confirms it so it is a secondary reference: https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n958/rr-1 easiest to read the end "limit the antigen (the encoding gene) distribution to the intended tissues only to improve the vaccine safety profile " so if the antigen isn't deadly, no need to restrict it. So it is confirming the earlier report. also, this article provides references about the pathologist. Few people in the world outrank the German pathologist, and there are no reports from a more qualified pathologist that would contract his findings. https://noqreport.com/2021/08/04/media-blackout-renowned-german-pathologists-vaccine-autopsy-data-is-shocking-and-being-censored/ How can people die from the vaccine in at least 30% of the cases if it isn't cytotoxic? Stkirsch (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Getting back on topic: this noticeboard is not for content discussions, but rather for determining whether someone has a COI. Stkirsch, since it is clear that you have a COI on the article about yourself, can you agree to using the talk page for the article on you to make requests, rather than editing the article directly? Any content discussions about the claimed drawbacks of the COVID vaccine should go on the talk pages of articles that discuss it. --- Possibly ☎ 18:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, i was going to suggest the same thing. agreed

    Stkirsch (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Walking the Camino: Six Ways to Santiago

    Hi, this editor is the producer and director of the film in question and is edit-warring to make the article read like an advert with a gushing reception section, unreferenced film festival section and release schedule. They self outed as they wrote a draft autobio Draft:Lydia B Smith which was deleted as G11, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Atlantic306, yeah that was pretty bad. I tagged it initially, but then just reverted back to the last stable version. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, hopefully they will stop reverting back to their version, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Atlantic306, if it continues the next step would be extended confirmed protection or report the user for edit warring against consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The user came back as their ip and reverted back to their version. I've reverted back to the consensus version and requested semi protection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Diannaa, could you possibly compare the recent additions that have been reverted to see if the same copyright problems you saw before are present, and if any of those revisions have to be revdelled? Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not the same. It seems to be a new version. I can't find it online with a Google search.— Diannaa (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a ton. Just wanted to make sure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems the paid-en-wpwikipedia.org mailbox doesn't get looked at much. Are there any admins here that I can send off-wiki evidence of UPE to? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is that per WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE, if action is going to be taken on off-wiki evidence of UPE, it needs to go through either ArbCom or a checkuser. That's why the special paid-en-wp@ address was set up. And there are a decent number of admins working COI enforcement, but few checkusers. The next round of CU appointments should be coming up soon, so I'd encourage any admins here to consider putting themselves forward if they think they can help. – Joe (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ainjel Emme

    Ainjel Emme is an American singer-songwriter who has seen limited success in Texas and California, with some of her songs being used in film and television. Her biography has been edited aggressively by artist management. A great many of the edits include unreferenced biographical details. Frankly, not a single WP:SECONDARY source has written an in-depth piece on this person.

    In Dec 2008, Audiobelle registered their username, and began a near-single-purpose interest in Ainjel Emme. They said they were connected to the subject: "I have permission from the artist and copyright holder to add an image to this page...", "cleaned up by artist management", "biography updated by artist management", "...by artists team". Before Audiobelle was registered, the IP 71.106.118.229 edit-warred some content back into the bio, writing "Resubmitted edits, all are approved by Artist." In the same fashion, the IP 76.166.191.95 edit-warred an image back in, writing "Copyright owner has granted permission to use this image. Contact"... (email pointing to the artist's label.) These IPs were edit-warring with Aspects and GlassCobra, among others.

    In September 2013, the username Micromgt was registered, editing only five times but solely on Ainjel Emme topics.

    Many IPs have contributed to solely to the Ainjel Emme biography and related topics. Here is a list of single-purpose IPs:

    I tried to pare down the article but Special:Contributions/67.49.60.75 is fighting to keep all of the promotional text including how she has "prominence" and is "established". She is not yet prominent or established—she has not seen her music charting or winning awards. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I sent that to Afd. She is entirely non-notable. scope_creepTalk 18:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Binksternet: I notified the two named accounts that you mentioned above. --- Possibly ☎ 18:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I intended to do so but was distracted IRL. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Bartosz Staszewski

    Hello. I've been editing Wikipedia for more than six years. Despite this, I'm not familiar with the policies because my edits are usually very minor and I never really felt like I had to read them. However, I've recently come across something which I believe to be a COI, although I'm not sure whether it actually qualifies as one (for reasons I will discuss below).

    While reading the Polish-language article on Bartosz Staszewski, I clicked on this image. I noticed that, in the summary below the picture, the source is "Own work" and the author is Bartosz Staszewski - with a hyperlink to the (empty) Commons user page of the user "PullBear". I became intrigued and took a look at this user's edits - and it turns out that they edited Staszewski's English Wikipedia article twice in February and March 2021 after nearly 9 years of inactivity. PullBear's English Wikipedia user page contains the surname "Staszewski" and claims that Polish is this user's native language and they can also speak Swedish (Staszewski was born in Malmo and lived in Sweden in his early years) at an advanced level - and sure enough, this user does have a few edits on the Swedish Wikipedia (all of them a long time ago, with the last one being made in 2012).

    The only other edit PullBear made upon their return to Wikipedia was a change to their user page - it had previously linked to the Polish and Swedish user pages of the user "Staszewski". The Swedish one redirects to the Swedish user page of PullBear, but the Polish one doesn't exist any more because the account name was changed to "Nikifor1969" in 2013 ("Staszewski" cited the need for a less personal username). It was then apparently recreated again, made one edit in 2014, and then the name of the recreated account was changed to "PullBear" in 2016. Nikifor1969's user page still exists though (that account hasn't been used since 2018). If we go to its page history, we can find Nikifor1969's/Staszewski's original user page from 2007, which clearly states "I am Bartek Staszewski".

    All of this leads me to believe that Staszewski (under the username PullBear) has edited his own article. Contacting him on his talk page likely wouldn't accomplish anything because he is not actually an active editor, he made a short return between February and April 2021, but has been gone again since.

    However, as I stated above, even if it is Staszewski himself, I'm not sure if this qualifies as a COI, because "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.". The edits PullBear made were indeed uncontroversial - they added a few sentences to the article, citing reliable sources. However, I decided to bring this up here because WP:AB states that "Editing a biography about yourself is acceptable only if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy.", which was not the case here.

    If this doesn't count a COI, then I sincerely apologize. TVShowFan122 (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the report. This user has only made two or three edits since 2010, which you can roll back if you disagree with their neutrality... but above you seem to have no problem with the actual edits. There isn't actually any rule preventing someone from editing their autobiography; it is simply strongly discouraged. If you suspect COI, the usual thing to do is ask them directly on their talk page. If that goes nowhere, you can file here. When posting here, you also need to notify involved accounts of this discussion so that they can participate. I've done that for you. --- Possibly ☎ 18:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Prajna Dutta

    An IP-hopping anonymous editor is raising UPE concerns with regard to Bapinghosh's editing on this article. I see no proof of UPE and given the edit warring that was going on about placing an UPE tag on the article have protected the article for a few days. However, I do not often deal with UPE and would appreciate if somebody here could have a closer look. Note that the IP listed more concerns on my talk page (and some of the mentioned articles were edited by banned socks). Thanks. Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Randykitty: I am not involved in UPE. I just got some coverages and thought that the subject is meeting wikipedia's rule, for that I have made Prajna Dutta. That's it. Thank you. Bapinghosh (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    EPFL Wikipedia Project bolsters School’s online visibility

    For the interested. Not necessarily problematic, but some of it could be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Railway Preservation Society of Ireland

    Given the allegation I believe it is relavent, consider, if a tribute article was controversially published about Jimmy Saville, for instance, could this not be mentioned on Wikipedia? I'm certain conflict of interest is at play here, there seems to be a desire to reconstruct this article entirely to present the organisation in a wholly positive light. And as I say, where was concensus reached as per original admin request? by GalavantEnchancedMoon ... as the article reconstructor alluded to is myself .... I have on reflection determined to self refer to COIN to confirm it is OK for me to continue with the rebuild of the article or if the community suggests I take to take a voluntary TBAN due to possible COI. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Djm-leighpark: What coi in particular? Are you volunteering with them, at their place at the moment? You have a coi template at user:GalavantEnchancedMoon but not included here? scope_creepTalk 01:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep: I am not a Railway Preservation Society of Ireland (RPSI) member or volunteer. I am a Irish Railway Record Society (IRRS) member and joined after about two years after beginning contributing to wikipedia on Irish Railway related articles articles. There is some cross membership between the IRRS/RPSI. I'm UK-based - I have mentioned I might consider joining the RPSI, (two reasons, it might give access to back issues of the 5ft 3in magazine which probably has some use in citing information and Irish Railways generally and secondly the RPSI, like the IRRS. has been holding virtual zoom meetings over the winter). Per the articles talk page an uninvolved admin has declared the COI issues rife and condemned parts of the article page. I'm trying to work those out, my history is not a total TNT but a rework. I've placed COI related issues around where appropriate. I've upped it yesterday as a COI editor made a contribution that was, while I have AGF was not intended to be disruptive, was in fact disruptive due to lack of an immediately obvious specific DB:V source. I re-scanned the talk page and believe it can (just about) be read as I have a COI in covering up Jimmy Saville type cover-ups ... or perhaps I'm getting paranoid. So under due diligence I re-considered and decided to take to a notice board to determine if I have a COI issue that make is imprudent for me to continue with this article. I have placed a {{uw-coi}} on GalavantEnchancedMoon's page to which they have replied they are not a RPSI member. An involved admin has determined a COI and I have added GalavantEnchancedMoon as a {{Connected contributor}} to the article talk page. I placed a {{Coin-notice}} on GalavantEnchancedMoon's talk because they were involved in making the allegation that brought me here and therefore remiss not notify and also that, if I choose to continue, it needs to be on a {{Request edit}} basis. It is my status I wish to have explicitly confirmed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Djm-leighpark: most of the people who end up on this board are, let's say, "less than trusted users". You are a trusted user with over 20K edits. Since all we tend to do here is ask people if they think they have a COI, then gauge their answer against their trustworthiness, I think you are OK deciding this one one your own, in my opinion. The talk page for that article is a hoot, BTW. Who knew railway preservation societies could get so heated? --- Possibly ☎ 07:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Possibly: Thankyou for that answer, though I am sure some would say "trusted to be troublesome at times". it gives me sufficient confidence and backing to continue on the article. I am under little illusion I will make mistakes and will have to make choices about what is in and what is out and how to structure but hope to leave a WP:V trail and stuff can always be improved later. Yes, in general tensions do arise as there are different views on how resources are allocated, and the "losers" of the discussions can feel their sometimes significant time and monetary inputs have not been respected; sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. At times serious financial can arise, sometimes through ill or unrealistic judgement, sometimes by bad luck. Societies will likely have their problem individuals. Preservation societies are perhaps little different to football clubs in some respects: Footballers are a little like steam engines really ... The're knees/boilers give up from time to time and eventually they simply end up past it. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User creating articles about himself and others indicating COI

    This editor, Macklevine, created an article about himself with this edit over three years ago, and since has created several more that indicate a COI problem. Carlstak (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Black Seeds: The History of Africans in America went through AFC, as is proper, and then Mackelvine added a few innocuous edits...
    On the other hand, for about the past ten years they have been ceaselessly and shamelessly adding links to their work all over Wikipedia, without any disclosure that hey are self-promoting.
    There are literally hundreds of these self-promotion edits, dating back to 2012, which means we are coming up on ten years of great publicity. Block, anyone? --- Possibly ☎ 05:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes this is pretty blatant. I have gone and removed from a whole bunch of articles the exact same paragraph that was copied and pasted pretty much advertising his own work, as well as put notices on connected articles. Melcous (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Detention of Alek Sigley

    This article Detention of Alek Sigley is openly being edited by its subject matter who claims it is misrepresenting him. Alek is a notable former Australian detainee in North Korea, but the article currently contains sourced content (a book) regarding recreational activities of a potentially defamatory nature, as well as news articles which claim he violated the terms of his scholarship in the DPRK. He disputes this and claims in an account under his own name, that he is being misrepresented. He has reverted these claims several times although has not provided specific insight into why the well cited material is false. WP:BLP is to be taken into consideration of course, but nor is wikipedia censored- ThePatentsInspector (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @ThePatentsInspector:, you need to notify anyone you mention here. See the top of this page. I have done it for you. You should also have started a conversation with Sigley before coming here. I removed one of the things Sigley was trying to remove ("In his youth Sigley enjoyed video games, death metal, and recreational drug use"), as, for one, it is not particularly relevant to the article. --- Possibly ☎ 04:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe someone can look at "Sigley was not supposed to enter North Korea before 2019, a condition of an academic scholarship he had received from the Australian and South Korean governments.", which is the only remaining item that Sigley seems to say is inaccurate. User:Alek Sigley has been really up front about his identity and his COI on both his user page and the article talk page, where he started a discussion to discuss his edits. --- Possibly ☎ 05:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Avsafety

    I noticed this editor editing exclusively the Anthony Nalli article, which they also created in 2007 and was later redirected, and other articles related to TV shows Nalli directs or produces. WP:SPA seems to apply, however when I noticed their editing patterns I questioned them on their talk page and received an admission they are someone hired to edit social media and websites about Nalli and his TV shows [29]. Their comments here [30] also lend support to my belief they are either Nalli himself or an employee associated with him or his production company. I placed the standard COI notice on their talk page and their response seemingly denies everything but I'm not really convinced. [31]. (I also note that Nalli himself is a pilot.) This editor has exactly one Article space edit not related to Nalli or his TV shows. ♟♙ (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As I've stated, I am a fan of The Aviators and have volunteered my time to contribute to Wikipedia which has expanded to a few other pages as you've noted. If you'd like me to discontinue my effort I will, but there's no need to delete pages that have existed legitimately for many years.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1039488306"