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 ExploreWiki (talk | contribs) at 07:51, 28 June 2017 (→User:HeatherMPinchbeck). 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:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
    Talk:Pamela Anderson
    Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist)
    Talk:BEE Japan
    Talk:Edi Birsan
    Talk:Adam Boehler
    Talk:Captions (app)
    Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:DEGIRO
    Talk:Dell Technologies
    Talk:Michael Dell
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Element (software)
    Talk:Etraveli Group
    Talk:Fitch Ratings
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Gaza genocide
    Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel)
    Talk:Nicholas Gotsell
    Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Andrew Hoffman
    Talk:Infillion
    Talk:Insight Meditation Society
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:Norma Kamali
    Talk:Khalili Foundation
    Talk:David Lalloo
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Alexa Meade
    Talk:Metro AG
    Talk:Monetary policy
    Talk:Alberto Musalem
    Talk:NAPA Auto Parts
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:PetSmart Charities
    Draft talk:Potter Anderson & Corroon
    Talk:Qu Dongyu
    User talk:Robinchen90
    Talk:Sharp HealthCare
    Talk:Louise Showe
    Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa
    Talk:Antonio D. Tillis
    Talk:Lorraine Twohill
    Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science
    Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre
    Talk:Year Up
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Ve Interactive

    TechEditor is an SPA with a dozen edits (all marked "minor" except for the last). Ve Interactive is an online marketing tech firm that was supposedly set for an IPO and a 300 million pound valuation until it couldn't make payroll and was sold in administration (bankruptcy) for 2 million pounds. TechEditor has repeatedly removed the word "bankruptcy" and writes things like "Ve's award-winning products help e-commerce clients get more from their websites by enabling online businesses to acquire, engage and convert new and existing customers."

    Smallbones(smalltalk) 10:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin help requested - TechEditor is still wikiwashing the article [1] and has not responded to calls to engage with the community [2]. - Bri (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Including IP editor in this. They added the same material TechEditor had. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They came back again today so I've semi-d the article for a week. SmartSE (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding 2701Edit to this. Only one edit this year, in March, but they've only edited Ve Interactive, at times in a clearly promotional way. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    New Zealand Initiative

    Resolved
     – Editor's been gone for a while, JJMC89 cleaned up the article, nothing more to do at present. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The New Zealand Initiative has a controversial history, when it was previously known as the NZ Business Roundtable. An IP address registered to the NZ Initiative made changes to the article that basically whitewashed said history to make it look more like a public relations piece. In fairness, some of the edited-out content may have been a bit slanted or otherwise excess fluff, but all the same, there's a case to call a conflict of interest. Deepred6502 (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. I put a notice about the IP's owner, links to COI policies, and a notice of this discussion on their talk page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Deepred6502, I just noticed that the user's latest contributions are from 2015. I'm trouting myself. Anyone else: feel free to close this, or I'll do it once I recover from the trout. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Derek Fildebrandt

    This article seems to have some major COI/neutrality issues, judging from the latest reverts and number of single-purpose accounts that have edited this article in the past years. Any help cleaning up/extra eyes would be great. Connormah (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Had a go at cleaning up, and removed some unsourced and fairly blatant promotional/POV content. Melcous (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerns FIBO Group

    Just recreated a deleted article made by a undisclosed paid sock. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Could a volunteer with the ability to see deleted pages evaluate Spotware Systems Ltd (AfD) versus the newly created Spotware Systems? Of interest, Spotware has a history of involvement by a Morning277 sock. Of course it is a binary options-related company which is a red flag all by itself.
    I ran a survey of this user's contributions which are concerning, including creation of multiple articles on Internet startups, execs, medical devices, financial institutions etc. – this list is surely familiar to COIN regulars. Perhaps Jytdog can comment on this cleanup of one of Pozytyv's creations. - Bri (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc James, I suppose you wanted to write "deleted article started by"... I don't think that replacing half of the references, moving, removing and adding sentences can be called "minimal changes".. Your rationale was wrong. That's why I recreated the article.. Bri, Spotware Systems is not a "options-related company", and of course options-related company is not a red flag all by itself... Best, --Pozytyv (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon me, a Cyprus company selling "The Next Generation of FX & CFD Trading Platforms" is completely different. Or, maybe not. - Bri (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    they both claim to have developed cTrader. I've deleted G4. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Massive group of undisclosed paid editors

    here. Have deleted a bunch of the articles in question as they are created by a very probably sock of a blocked account. Plus they were created in breach of our WP:TOU.

    One has been recreated per User_talk:Doc_James#Overturning_G5. Peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:100 Celsius

    Blocked and deleted some stuff. Other stuff needs to be checked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A quick look at his sandbox took me immediately to FxPro, a binary optionsCFD outfit. Blech. All contributions will need to be reviewed. - Bri (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Joe Farrer

    an edit summary from 21 December 2015 made in the first person implies that the registered user is Joe Farrer.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 02:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I posted the standard COI policy notice and notice of this discussion on their talk page. I'm not that concerned about this one: The user made a single edit a year and a half ago, to change their (or the subject's) workplace. They added nothing promotional, and haven't edited since. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Another query undisclosed paid editor

    User:Jeffmcneill and edits need review.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Paid editing per [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dhananjay S!ngh

    While investigating an SPI case, I came across this user. I attempted to access his domain as seen in this version of his userpage. It is forbidden in DNS lookups (403) for some reason so I ran a search on it and this ad at Freelancer comes up. He appears to be an undeclared paid editor. He is mixed into a much larger case of paid meatpuppets that I will be posting here for review shortly.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I've indeffed this user. He has since modified the above ad in an attempt to obscure his activities without updating his WP user page to reflect paid editing and is most certainly socking with other accounts.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock farm

    Please review the above SPI case to which I've added quite a number of accounts and articles. It seems to relate to several different groups and better suited for the investigators here. Thank you,
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Meats blocked and SPI case closed.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Ultimate Products

    I have been reviewing the draft as part of the AfC process. A google search reveals the editor's employment, and a search for that employer indicates that they work for a "strategic communications consultancy". This, together with the nature of the article and the pattern of editing leads me to believe this is an undeclared paid editor Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The article reads like an ad. But the parent company, UP Global Sourcing Holdings, is doing an IPO for £150 million.[4] The parent may be notable per WP:CORP once they go public. For now, too soon. John Nagle (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Simona Capparini

    Five days ago, Danielamoviement posted to the Help Desk, asking to have the DoB removed from Simona Caparrini, and claiming to be her agent. I did so. Another editor urged her to declare her CoI or Paid Editor status – she has not yet done so.

    She then added a 1972 DoB with a reference to https://www.e-talenta.eu/members. I deleted it as I believe the source is unreliable, like IMDB. She re-added it, and began a discussion on my talk page. I explained that a reliable source is needed, and invited her to declare her Paid Editor status. I removed the inadequately sourced DoB two more times.

    Then two new accounts, Gianni53 and Oscar5757, appeared. Both restored Capparini's 1972 DoB, and both were involved in creating CinemaItaliano.info, about another IMDB-like site which supports the 1972 DoB. (I proposed it for deletion, another editor then speedied it.)

    I suspect the cause of the problem is that Google gives Caparrini's DoB as 1966, and her staff have realised that if WP gives a later date, Google may change its opinion. Maproom (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User Maproom continues to delete and to deny a reputable source like cinemaitaliano.info with alleged accuses against Ms. Caparrini and other contributors who are clearly less familiar with the Wikipedia regolations and norms than he is. I suspect he has a personal interest in undermining and harming Simona Caparrini's reputation. I suspect something personal, not encyclopedic. Which are his sources? Has he checked the thousands of pages of CinemaItaliano.info instead of urging to remove its page from Wikipedia? That is an independent and reliable source with thousands of visitors every day. It is one of the most important italian web sites on Italian films and celebrities. If you don't know it, and cannot spend five minutes checking this web site, you better shut up. This is a true independent web site about Italian cinema done by professional journalists. You are offending them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar5757 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I had never heard of Caparrini until I read Danielamoviement's request at the Help Desk. I don't have any sources for her DoB, and have never suggested adding a date to the article. I am doubtful that CinemaItaliano.info is any more reliable than IMDB (and if it is, I wonder why Danielamoviement initially preferred IMDB as a source). I did not urge anyone to remove the CinemaItaliano article from Wikipedia; I proposed its deletion as a matter for discussion, but this was superseded when another editor nominated it for speedy deletion.
    The important issue here is whether Wikipedia regards CinemaItaliano.info as a reliable source. Maproom (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that CinemaItaliano.info encourages users to submit biographies and date of birth for performers, it would not appear to meet our standards of being a reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have never read this page before in cinemaitaliano.info but I know that the journalists check their sources before publishing. Anyhow, if Maproom says that he has not intent of harming others, and in this case Simona Caparrini, I do apologize for saying that, but I assure you all that there are so many Italian actresses and actors on WP with no sources on their Dob and their work, that all this time spend on one page it has seemed pretty weird to me. Please check also the other pages of all the Italian actors and actresses. That what is is democracy: the law is equal for all. Thanks. Danielamoviement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielamoviement (talk • contribs) 18:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Danielamoviement: We aren't a democracy, but yes, WP:BLP applies to all articles discussing living people and WP:VERIFY to all articles. It is true that not articles give appropriate sources, but it is those articles that need to be fixed, we aren't going to drop our policies because some articles don't follow them. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As you see I can apologize to others, as I did to Maproon but what I could not understand was this fixation on scrutinizing only one actress. Also is important to understand that not all contributors know all the WP guidelines in such details and we should not discourage people to contribute. p.s. as you can see I don't know how to write here following all the guidelines. I do my best. Please bear with me and other beginners on WP. User:Danielamoviement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielamoviement (talk • contribs)

    Stevens Interactive

    A new user whose first few edits were to create the article Stevens Interactive.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 03:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Maytech

    The editor is very keen that the draft article should be accepted because there are articles in Wikipedia about their competitors. In the message they added to my talk page they wrote "All this companies I have listed do very similar services like we. Why they are notable and we aren't?" To me this indicates that the editor is writing the article on behalf, and is employed by, the company that is the subject of the article and is an undeclared paid editor contrary to the wp:terms of use. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @Curb Safe Charmer:, thanks for bringing up this question. I would like to inform you I do not get paid for writing Wikipedia page and I will never get paid for it. Yes, I do work for Maytech but I'm focused on other activities that are my primary and Wikipedia have never been my primary activity. It was my own initiative to write about Maytech on Wikipedia and actually I'm volunteering right now because I'm spending my time responding to you instead of focusing on that activities which I get paid for. It's not written anywhere in my duties and responsibilities, nor I committed to anyone writing an article about Wikipedia, neither I promised anyone writing an article. I just thought "Wow, that's a cool idea to have a page on Wikipedia". I've seen so many pages about companies on Wikipedia, some pages are about big and well-known companies, some pages are about very small companies. That's why I thought it would be great to be on Wikipedia as well. I'm using Wikipedia so often and I trust it and I hoped to get support and guidance here, but it's so tough, really, I haven't expected there are so many obstacles to publish couple of sentences and every week there is "something new" why 5 sentences I wrote is not good to be officially published. I tried all my best and it's so sad that all my efforts are in vain and it all lets me down so strongly that I'm close to crying. One my friend he's Ukrainian Wikipedia editor and he told me how cool it is to contribute to Wikipedia and how proud he feels but all that I can feel is frustration and loss.

    Anyway I would like to sincerely ask you to please have a look again at the Draft article about Maytech and please can you consider again to publish article about Maytech? As I said previously I for it and never get paid for it. Anastasiia09 (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Jenna Andrews

    The edit summaries on Jenna Andrews state "I work closely with Jenna on her digital presence", "she has requested this specific change", and "replaced with a bio from Jenna Andrews directly". I don't have much experience handling COI cases; right now I have added the COI tag to the article and left Akerston a message. Should I revert the article to the previous version as well? –FlyingAce✈hello 22:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I took out some of the "worked with" name-dropping. The article subject would seem to pass WP:MUSIC, with two or more recordings on a major label and some products which charted. John Nagle (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Reid Kirchenbauer

    The subject of the article, Reid Kirchenbauer is the fund manager for a fund called Khmer Ventures. This connection can be established by googling "Reid Kirchenbauer khmer ventures". The creator of the article has the username KhmerVenture, which implies both a promotional/shared use username, an undeclared conflict of interest and likely paid editing. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Has been blocked as a promotion-only account. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Layer3 TV

    Articles about executives of Layer3 TV, created as drafts by Andrewcantella, who declares himself an employee of the company. I just have no idea why anyone would accept pages like these for inclusion in our encyclopaedia, but somebody did. Now they need to be cleaned up or completely rewritten or moved back to draft or something. I had a go at Jeff Binder yesterday, and a new editor, TMTAnalyst, popped up, reverted some of the changes, and asked for the COI tag to be removed. It doesn't seem to me that it should be, but I'd like someone else to make that call. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and Elcorectomundo has edited only in this topic area, and was able to add a photo provided by Genovation Capital (one of Binder's companies). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clear to me that Elcorectomundo is related to Binder, and probably a sock for TMTAnalyst, but is not Andrewcantella. Andrewcantella edited appropriately (neutral, verifiable), disclosed his COI, and last contributed to Wikipedia in March 2016. The articles he contributed to shouldn't be tagged for COI based solely on Andrewcantella's involvement. (That said, Lindsay Gardner needs an edit --Elcorectomundo added hype to his article - I'll remove it.)
    Apologies for the lengthy response, but I am the somebody who accepted the Eric Kuhn and Jeff Binder articles, and this is why.
    Andrewcantella disclosed his COI when he submitted the Kuhn draft, yet another reviewer added an undisclosed COI tag and left it in the queue for someone else to review, which prejudices other reviewers. (here). We already make it very difficult at AfC for COI editors, and as such, we diminish the quality of Wikipedia by discouraging COI editors from adhering to policy. (As an AfC reviewer since 2013, I feel confident in saying that at least 50% of the submissions come from new editors with an undeclared conflict of interest.)
    I have kept an eye out for Andrewcantella contributions since August 2015, when I came across the Kuhn article (with the undisclosed COI tag). He easily meets GNG, and the assertions of the article were verifiable. I gave it an edit for tone and accepted it. I accepted Jeff Binder in October 2016; he also met GNG, the article was neutral and verifiable at the time it was submitted, and Andrewcantella disclosed his COI. The Binder article was fine until Elcorectomundo showed up. (Draft as accepted on March 7 2016 and as it stood on February 11, 2017.) I've edited all of the Layer3 articles sporadically, added refs, updates, and removed hype. (I missed the Elcorectomundo edits to Binder, which, incidentally, began the day after the article was published.)
    I see no issues with Dave Fellows, although I will give it another look (as others should), and in hindsight, yes, Eric Kuhn needs to be pruned. As for Elcorectomundo, I assume he/she will be blocked as a single purpose account or sock? Can the Binder article be reverted to the pre-Elcorectomundo draft, moved back to the draft space or blown up via AfD? (Not my area of expertise, although I will nominate it at AfD if others thingk it appropriate).JSFarman (talk)
    JSFarman, I must apologise – my "no idea" comment could have come across as an implied criticism of you or Missvain, who accepted these articles. Please accept that that was not my intention, and that I know you did so in good faith. I really do have no idea why we allow conflict-of-interest editing in draft space, which is the source of so many problems here, but I've been told that reviewers will ensure that no promotional content reaches mainspace, so it's OK; I don't believe that that works in practice, but that's just me. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, now it makes sense, and thanks for that, Justlettersandnumbers. I understand why you feel the way you do. I'm going to do an edit for tone on the Kuhn and Fellows articles later today or tomorrow. (As previously noted, I should have been more thorough when I accepted Kuhn - I only cut the obvious.) I'm also going to offer guidance re: future editing for Andrewcantella -- I started on that yesterday. Thanks again for the clarification, no apology necessary! JSFarman (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hector Avalos

    Elosofamoso appears to be a Single-purpose account who edits solely to promote the scholarship of Hector Avalos. I believe the scholarship of Hector Avalos is notable, and this user's contributions are of reasonable quality, but they are promotional in nature and I suspect a conflict of interest. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly an SPA, but a very slow one; less than 100 edits in 10 years. None on talk pages, which is unusual. A bit more engagement with others would help. The most recent problem seems to be edits at Hatred, such as [5]. This looks like a content dispute over biblical interpretation. Biblical hermeneutics is outside the scope of WP:COIN. That issue should be argued on the talk page of Hatred. John Nagle (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Smartmatic... again, again...

    Not sure if I'm over reacting due to the previous edits on this article but I saw the tag on this edit saying "possible conflict of interest". This user writes on Medium promoting Smartmatic and has disseminated Venezuelan government claims of voter fraud (oddly they state that Smartmatic is a "Venezuelan firm" as well). The user originally made minor edits to the article which seemed decent, then began moving large portions of the history that might be deemed "controversial" to a lower part of the page (among other edits). The account was created days after another user of interest went under. This article has been controversial before, with a list of sockpuppets being blocked and a "PR Strategist" with links to the company making edits being notified, eventually ceasing to make edits after the notification. Once again, I am just looking for another eye on this article and a potential block for those who are not confirmed or autoconfirmed users. If I am overreacting, then I apologize.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Trimmed back some of the brochure-like text. Not sure what to do about lengthy election problem sections. John Nagle (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    As a reporter based in the Philippines, I am aware of the opinions surrounding the elections and the technologies used during the elections. I began investigating said topic and conducting my research through Medium to display the facts and information I was collecting. I believe Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a public encyclopedia. It’s a comprehensive compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge within its five pillars that the public can access and contribute to. In my initial research, I found that many of these company pages did not exist on Wikipedia and the ones that did exist contained very limited or false information. In researching this project, I found it very difficult to differentiate between what was an opinion or what was fact-based. This is because of the way in which material was sourced, organized, or used on the page. My intention was to clean up the page and improve the accuracy of all information written, make it as neutral as possible, and make it more fact-based overall. For example, basic things such as the founding dates of companies were not correct and were sourced to an irrelevant Wikipedia page that is not remotely related to the topic. Controversies were also listed in the history section and based on government documents published on WikiLeaks, some of the information was inaccurate and had a lot of inconsistencies. According to Wikipedia, a controversy “is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view.” While it is right and fair that controversies should be covered in the page, it creates confusion by place those issues in the ‘history’ section. According to the Wikipedia editing policy, when a problem is spotted, instead of removing content from an article the editor should consider the following:

    • Rephrasing or copy-editing to improve grammar or accurately represent the sources
    • Correcting inaccuracies, while keeping the rest of the content intact and neutral
    • Merging, editing or moving the content to a more relevant history or headline or to an existing article, or splitting the content to an entirely new article
    • Adding other points of views to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced and fair
    • Requesting a citation by adding the [citation needed] tag, or adding any other Template:Inline tags as appropriate
    • Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself
    • Adding appropriate cleanup tags to sections you cannot fix yourself
    • Repair a dead link if a new URL for the page or an archive of the old one can be located
    • Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge
    • Fixing errors in wikitext code or formatting

    During my editing process, rather than removing Zia Later’s edits, I changed them as outlined and organized them instead. From my point of view, Zia Later has questionable motives behind his aggressive editing. He has removed the edits that I spent time researching, rather than following the steps outlined by Wikipedia.

    Based on how aggressive Zia Later has been, his edits look more like an opinion rather than fact-based and neutral research. As a journalist, I am questioning his ethics and motives behind the edits he makes. The edits he makes lead me to believe that he is in fact part of the problem and he is creating controversial and biased material on the page. I believe that neutral and fact-based research should be the priority, especially since everyone is able to access Wikipedia. His opinion-based research is not neutral nor is it correct. I believe his edits should be investigated, as well as the other entries he has created in the past. Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, not a male. Now, there have been many from the Philippines such as the "PR Strategist" and other who attempted to whitewash the page multiple times. What I placed in the history is supported by sources and belongs in the history of the company (foundation in Venezuela, founders, funding, etc). When it gets pushed to the bottom into the "Controversy" section when it doesn't even seem to be a controversy (is the Venezuelan background of a company controversial? To who?), it is suspicious. There have also been the users who appear and disappear right when they are brought to the noticeboard, which you can find in their editing history. As soon as one user disappears or stops editing, another is reactivated or created to take its place. Yes, the article can be better, but it shouldn't be whitewashed. I don't have a POV on Smartmatic. Editing the article came up as I was working on other Latin American articles. However, I will not tolerate whitewashing on any article as it only raises more suspicions and is plainly the wrong thing to do. I explained that you had nothing to worry about and only a few of your edits were changed. Some of the filler that was removed in recent edits I originally left there just because it provided a buffer between the controversial and the "supposed" controversial info in the article. I will attempt to find more information to help with this.--ZiaLater (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    ZiaLater does not have the right to attack me and question my credibility just because I am based in the Philippines. I am not a PR strategist; I am a journalist and I don’t appreciate he/she comparing me to previous editors. I understand there have been issues of whitewashing in the past. However, I am not one of the previous editors that has caused problems. Can you explain why adding the correct year Smartmatic was formed is whitewashing? The edits I have made are fair and sourced correctly. I have been writing a series on polling technology and the edits made were a direct result of my investigation. ZiaLater does not have the right to proclaim herself/himself owner of the page and attack everyone who edits it. ZiaLater has not provided any supporting information to counter my sources or edits that I made. Instead, he/she is claiming whitewashing and reverting all the edits and blatantly disregarding the point of a collaborative community and the point of Wikipedia.

    I have researched the topic of polling technology and voting for some time. I have found that the topic is important and needs to be documented correctly. This page has some of the biggest problems, which makes it even more suspect. ZiaLater’s attempt to control this page is the biggest red flag.

    The presentation of information is incorrect, biased and not sourced correctly. Simply put, the page needs editing because its blatantly wrong.

    ZiaLater should not be using “filler” or document information and state she/he will attempt to find more information to support it later. It’s unacceptable. Do your homework. Source it when you have the information. Do not edit or add information that cannot be sourced correctly.

    Furthermore, Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative effort. ZiaLater continues to demonstrate disruptive editing and plainly is not following Wikipedia guidelines. As stated by Wikipedia, disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Also, some of the material ZiaLater continues reverting back to contains no reliable, published sources, which is not allowed.

    The background of another company should not be listed in the history section for the subject which the article is written about. I agree, the article most certainly should be free of whitewashing, which is why I took it upon myself to clean it up. While ZiaLater states that only a few edits were made, he/she reverted the article back to the original text. In addition, ZiaLater says he/she has no POV on Smartmatic yet he/she continue reverting the article back to their edits, which is against the edit warring policy.

    As a Wikipedia editor, I have worked collaboratively making partial revisions to this article, fixing errors and providing additional published sources that are free from bias.

    Not only is this article an issue, but ZiaLater’s lack of regard for other editors is concerning which is why I am escalating this issue to the Arbitration Committee. ZiaLater does not own the page and other editors should be allowed to edit accordingly. Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @ZiaLater:, you seem to be implying that this may be a sockpuppet; if you suspect that, then file a report at WP:SPI. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Softlavender: Not sure if they are or not, they may know how to work around it. I can only see similarities within the edits and with the dates certain users stop editing and a new one begins. If it is best to check, I will do it. It does't hurt to be too safe.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Copernic Desktop Search Enterprise

    A Google search for "Vince douville" copernic shows that this editor is an employee of the company that produces the software that the article is about. The editor has also contributed to Copernic and Copernic Desktop Search. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Jacqueline Ayer

    I'd like to add inline citations to meet the apparent objection to this article being taken to main article space, but Jacqueline Ayer was a close friend of my father's, and her daughters are friends of mine. If I confine myself to adding citations to the existing text, would that be OK? - Jmabel | Talk 02:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    36 hours, no response. If I don't hear from someone in the next 48 hours, I will presume this is OK and will edit accordingly. Jmabel | Talk 15:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimmy Thomas (American football)

    Editor is holding herself out as the daughter of the deceased subject and changing the date of death. Published sources say Monday, the 5th; she's claiming it was actually the 6th. —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Published sources found to support the 6th. Could still use an extra voice to explain COI policy to user. —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    FxPro

    Currently nominated for deletion, but looks like it may end up staying. There is an open job on Upwork offering money for saving the article [6] The job description admits to having maintained the article "for several years". The promotional content has been dealt with, but an eye should be kept on it and the edit history may be worth investigating. Rentier (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at WT:COI

    I've started a discussion on WT:COI that may be of interest to folks here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:St.L.

    The user appears to engage in paid editing. They have an Upwork profile which explicitly states that this was a paid edit. I don't think I can post a link to the profile here to avoid WP:OUTING, but their edits speak for themselves - clearly promotional about subjects of doubtful notability with several rejected drafts. Rentier (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Added a list of articles above. There are no apparent COI/paid disclosures. - Bri (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerns

    Understood12 (talk · contribs)

    Have blocked for copyright issues but work is also very promotional.

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarahtalks1

    First noticed at Bounce Ping Pong, photo claimed as own work, even though reverse image search shows it is copyrighted material. Series of London-based venues, not blatantly promotional, but with questionable sources (restaurant reviews) and barely notable. Earlier contributions deleted as G11, G12, A7; ExpenSys, SUDA Thai . Mduvekot (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Heather Mills

    Edits made by the user User:Mlot123 on the Heather_Mills page increasingly lead me to believe there is an Apparent Conflict of Interest WP: APPARENTCOI. David T Tokyo (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:David T Tokyo: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlot123 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC) No conflict of interest here. My edits are made in the interest of fairness and I believe the page of the individual in question is inordinately subjective in nature and reads too much like a gossipy celebrity magazine to satisfy the objective standards that Wikipedia articles adhere to.[reply]

    Draft:DETOURS

    Resolved
     – Page deleted, I've watched the page in case it is recreated (and I'm sure some COIN regulars have too). jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Googling 'hayley detours' shows in the first result that this person is the marketing manager for the company that is the subject of the article. I have nominated the article for speedy deletion as it is entirely promotional. It was speedily deleted earlier this week as G11 but has been recreated. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    New article question

    Does the new article GoNoodle pass the mustard as far as WP:MEDRS or does it need to? It was turned down for G7. Atsme📞📧 21:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello? Is my question too brief to garner attention or is COIN as inundated as we are over at NPR? Atsme📞📧 20:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atsme: The article doesn't make any biomedical claims per se. In an AfD I'd vote to keep, the company has been clever enough with their marketing strategy to ensure coverage in independent enough sources. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Children in emergencies and conflicts

    Not totally comfortable with this, so I figured I'd bring it up here for wider review and input. This seems to be an article using UNESCO "sources" copied in many or most cases verbatim from UNESCO, and done from a Wikimedian in residence, User:A.mart82, working with UNESCO. It came up at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Analysis and proposal, and I haven't discussed it with the editor because I'd really just like additional input. Again, just make me feel a little uncomfortable in an WP:ADVOCACY way, although as a disclaimer I have no personal or political qualms with UNESCO as an organization. TimothyJosephWood 02:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There may be MEDRS issues around what appear to me to be rather extraordinary claims around prenatal environment, childhood mental illness/PTSD and such. E.g. "toxins and stress from the mother cross the placenta into the umbilical cord". Bri (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:A.mart82 does make an adequate disclosure on his user page (adequate under the GLAM rule). I think we should ping @John Cummings: who is the official Wikipedian-in-Residence there. I'm not sure of the copyright status of UN publications (John could you clarify?) but it is clear that they are meant for broad distribution and educational purposes. John, could a CC-BY-SA license be added?
    I'd say they are a reliable source - certainly some sub-organizations such as WHO are. There is a question of advocacy about some of their material. Perhaps UNICEF would be an example - but I'm very comfortable with the UN advocating for the health of children (off-Wiki). I'd be less comfortable with sub-organizations such as International Labor Organization.
    In short, this deserves to be handled very carefully, but we do have rules to follow (including exceptions for GLAM). Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi all, thanks very much for pinging me, for clarification all the text added is under CC BY-SA 3.0 (see the sources section at the bottom of the article for license statement and links). Our main motivation for doing this work is to share knowledge from UNESCO publications on Wikipedia in a similar vein as sharing media content on Wikimedia Commons. We really hope that people will continue to work on the articles to update them and add additional references. An overview of all the work that has been done on adding open license text to en.wiki can be found here, which shows which text has been added to which articles and shows what text is available under CC BY-SA. There is a huge amount of suitable content available from the 1000+ open license UNESCO publications and on the sections of the website we have made available under Open License including descriptions of World Heritage sites and Biosphere Reserves. I've also created some simple step by step instructions for adding open license text to Wiipedia which uses a VE compatible template.
    Thanks
    --John Cummings (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Both sources are licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0, so I don't think there's a COPYVIO issue. But I am extremely uncomfortable with making a defacto "opt out" for WP:NOTADVOCACY just because it's a type of advocacy we happen to personally agree with. If the purpose of an organization is to make a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, then their purpose perfectly aligns with ours, and if it don't then it don't. That's pretty much an all or nothing. Since the purpose of UNESCO is to "to contribute to the building of peace, the eradication of poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information".([7]) then, well, it don't. That's why, for example, UNESCO has taken a public position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and Wikipedia hasn't, to pick probably the most controversial example. Their purpose is to influence geopolitics, and we're supposed to be indifferent to it in any way that doesn't influence... well... the ability to make a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
    To compare this to, for example, using verbatim text from Encyclopedia Britannica that has fallen into the public domain kindof illustrates the issue, because using the EB is using a source whose purpose is to build an encyclopedia, and that's not the purpose of UNESCO.
    I have no issues with their work off wiki, and I have no issues with independent editors using them as a source, but having someone with them, using them, in their words, but in our voice is very concerning. TimothyJosephWood 14:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Having the proper disclosure and the proper license for the text is definitely a good start, and puts this in a different category than the usual problem here. But then then most of editors on Wikipedia have the proper license for the text (automatically) and have the made the proper disclosure (or don't need to disclose) and we still have problems with advocacy and different points of view. There is no "opt out" for WP:NOTADVOCACY. I'll suggest TJW and @John Cummings: both try to identify specific potential problems with the material added by @A.mart82: and then try to discuss it with him or her.
    I'll suggest 3 good faith reasons that there may be special problems here:
    • The amount of material - the UN puts out tons on material every year. Probably most of it is good info for our purposes, but not all. Our missions do align pretty well, but not perfectly.
    • A.mart82 is a newby. Please don't bite. The UN (and other GLAM orgs) have lots of newbies that we should encourage to edit.
    • Every organization has some "group think" (more or less). This includes both the UN and Wikipedia. Working to avoid POV issues can make both organizations better. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "to share knowledge from UNESCO publications on Wikipedia in a similar vein as sharing media content on Wikimedia Commons" Commons has its own policy, which is to " provide a central repository for freely licensed photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text, video clips, and media of all sorts that are useful for any Wikimedia project." and this is interpreted very broadly to include related educational uses. Wikipedia on the other hand is not a general project to provide educational material, but to write an encyclopedia. It excludes tutorial or instruction content, most of which is better suited for Wikibooks or Wikiversity. A very high proportion of the information provided by Unesco and similar agencies will fall in these categories--and our related project are the place for them. I think all of would agree that such material as is being discussed should have a wide free dissemination, and there is provision for it. These projects were started precisely for the purpose of providing a place for educational material generally that would not fit within an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Dan Wagner

    The user Techtrek has repeatedly over the years edited the Dan Wagner page to shine him in a positive light. He has been called out upon this many times and continues to pretend he is not affiliated with Dan Wagner. Please see old edits of his talk page before he whitewashed it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Techtrek&oldid=708996381

    He continues to act in a self-serving way to promote Dan Wagner, particularly in light of recent events that Mr Wagner is associated with. http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan-business/2017/06/21/498936/uk-entrepreneur.htm

    The user has a long history of this, and has even been cited in the media for his activity http://www.businessinsider.com/techtreks-wikipedia-edits-on-powa-founder-dan-wagner-2016-3?r=UK&IR=T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.22.54 (talk • contribs) 13:42, June 25, 2017 (UTC)

    Can you please support your assertion that "Techtrek has repeatedly over the years edited the Dan Wagner page to shine him in a positive light" with several diffs that show that? So far, we just know that they are a WP:SPA, which strongly suggests a COI, but doesn't mean that they have violated policy.- MrX 13:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for butting in but could you steer me to the "policy" in this area. I started the section above on Heather Mills and would like to know whether I should continue pursuing it, or just give up,. Thanks. David T Tokyo (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @David T Tokyo: In response to your question the user in question hadn't been warned and told about COI etc. so they may not have known that they were doing something wrong (assuming good faith). Now they've been given the warning, if they continue to edit promotionally, which from what I can see they haven't, then they can be re-reported (maybe at AIV which has more admins watching) and blocked. Hope that helps. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi MrX, here are some links to relevant diffs. Please also note that there is an edit war currently ongoing on the Dan Wagner page, which I suspect the aforementioned user is involved in under an anonymous account.
    Also worth noting the upload of this image as "own work" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dan_Wagner_-_UK_Serial_Tech_Entrepreneur.jpg The image is taken from the subjects blog. https://www.dan-wagner.com/ A look at his edit history since 2009 is also quite informative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Techtrek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.22.54 (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Bye Bye Parabens

    I am recording a possible conflict of interest / possible failure to disclose paid editing. I say possible because this is a suspicion rather than a definite. The Draft AFC submission, Draft:Bye Bye Parabens was submitted for AFC, and subsequently declined due to lack of 3rd party Reliable Sources. In fact it had no sources anywhere, other than the company website.

    I looked at the history of the article, after commenting on its talk page about it looking like an advert. A quick google of the contributor's name reveals his presence on an external website as a paid, "Freelance Brand Marketer". I have been advised not to link to his off-wiki presence however, I assume it could get me into trouble or something. But my suspicion of a breach of ToS for paid editing and CoI remains. Dane|Geld 20:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left them a message asking them to pop by here and confirm or deny if they're being paid to edit - it's worth noting that as long as the editor discloses their conflict of interest then they are okay to edit (providing they take note of our other policies) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @DaneGeld: you do not have to be afraid to post links to a paid editing site in a low key discussion here, but thanks for your abundance of caution. See WP:Outing
    " There are job posting sites where employers publicly post advertisements to recruit paid Wikipedia editors. Linking to such an ad in a forum such as the Conflict of interest noticeboard is not a violation of this policy."
    I did follow your suggestion above and found the link right away. Given that this is so easy, there's no real reason to provide the actual link this time. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Emerald Coast Science Center

    Spotted via User creation log, they edited the article Emerald Coast Science Center with the edit summary "Editing the picture of the museum, some of the information as well. This account is for workers at the science center to use to update this page. Will be doing more soon." While I appreciate their workers taking an interest in this wiki, I believe this may merit a Conflict of Interest discussion?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 07:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @DoctorWho42: suggest you file this also at WP:UAA. - Bri (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, already blocked by Alexf. Bri (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Think tank walled garden

    Several SPA editors have created a bit of a walled garden around this think tank and its wealthy founder, related prize, related people, etc. Off-wiki evidence strongly suggests that one or more are employed by the think tank. The similarity of their edits is borderline WP:MEAT (or maybe not borderline). More eyes requested. - Bri (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HeatherMPinchbeck

    Off-wiki evidence proves that this editor is paid for her edits. In light of this, the lengthy talk page and Teahouse discussions she has engaged in were a big waste of everybody's time. The evidence also hints that this is not her only account. Rentier (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    OMG, I can't believe you guys. I have made myself very clear about COI and I expressed if I had any connection of being paid I'll declare. I don't know why after a few days, a new person Harras me WP:HARASS. It's taking hype since I sought help on teahouse. Instead of respecting good faith I think editors are chasing me. I already quit using Wikipedia because of continuous harassment. I thought this knowledge base is a place where people volunteer and update info, but if updating info to the articles and fixing them is a sin in Wikipedia I am speechless. The whole world relies on Wikipedia and if I am updating knowledge I am being chased. You can see my issues and see the pages of guys who place tags blindly. I edited articles after a huge discussion with editors and admins. I am being harassed every day and others have hidden identities and I know Wikipedia is strict in revealing identities but with increasing, COI blames people are chasing me and I am feeling insecure and being a threat WP:HARASS. I was totally unaware that the biggest knowledge base is being controlled by a people who consider them God and self-assume things, blame and accuse others. I am really upset with it and therefore I sought help but it turned against me. I am a traveller and I research a lot and therefore I contribute.
    As per waste of time in the teahouse, what is the purpose of teahouse? Why are you here or why it was created? Obviously to help and discuss and your time isn't wasted there what is your concern about it? Or someone asked you to do this to me? See this is how you are assuming about me. I wasted my time on searching for new info and updating articles and if learning wikipedia is a waste of time you shouldn't be here neither I, and I don't know how you could have more than one account, I am not that free to get a new name or things, Wikipedia is not a Facebook, I don't know what do you mean here (this is another attempt to accuse me and torture me). You are accusing me of that which already had consensus and since then I didn't edit anything except the old issues, isn't this violates any Wikipedia rules? I was really enjoying my free time on Wikipedia trying to volunteer and help people, but I never knew this dark side of it where a few people are acting as Gods. All that is going on with me here also violates most of the terms here https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How_Wikipedia_Works/Chapter_11 I am really upset and I can't sleep that people are against me and chasing me. You guys are giving me mental torture by harassing me for the good I did in Wikipedia. HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I also suggest you read this Wikipedia:Casting aspersions I don't allow anyone playing with my identity and harasses me again and again maybe with a mutual consent or any hidden agenda. It's already been discussed and there are no more edits from me and I already quit using Wikipedia. And, I made myself very clear that I will disclose any COI if I had in my future edits, So leave me alone and stop harassment and torture. You completely ignored that we have discussed that got to a conclusion and you appeared from nowhere and accused me again, this is the 4th attempt made for the same issue which has been resolved. HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=787902425"