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 Scm5791 (talk | contribs) at 17:31, 16 December 2018 (→Draft:Leonid Afremov). 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:AvePoint
    Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist)
    Talk:BEE Japan
    Talk:Edi Birsan
    Talk:Adam Boehler
    Talk:Edouard Bugnion
    Talk:Bunq
    Talk:Captions (app)
    Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:DEGIRO
    Talk:Dell Technologies
    Talk:Michael Dell
    Talk:Etraveli Group
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel)
    Talk:Steven Grinspoon
    Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire
    Talk:Group-IB
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Insight Meditation Society
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:Norma Kamali
    Talk:Khalili Foundation
    Talk:David Lalloo
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss
    Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Home
    Talk:Alexa Meade
    Talk:Metro AG
    Talk:Alberto Musalem
    Talk:NAPA Auto Parts
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Matthew Parish
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:PetSmart Charities
    Talk:Sharp HealthCare
    Talk:Louise Showe
    Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa
    Talk:Lorraine Twohill
    Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science
    Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Rdunwoody6

    User with suspicious name editing adding seemingly personal information to article. Also, the article is the only one edited by user

    Edits by User:Munenejohn

    The user has repeatedly moved Draft:Africa Policy Institute into mainspace, bypassing WP:AFC despite request. Munenejohn has not provided disclosure despite requests:

    K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have requested move protection, but ideally a response can be got from Munenejohn.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure enough, a simple off-wiki search implies (on the basis of username) that the editor in question may be affiliated with the Africa Policy Institute. Cant really say more, respecting WP:OUTING.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For anyone looking into this, please keep an eye on the revision history. The user still doesn't seem to understand that they should not remove COI templates (or AFC comments) until the article has been reviewed. See this revision just 20 minutes ago. – numbermaniac 07:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He's again gone and removed the template with no explanation in the edit summary. He either doesn't understand it despite a billion explanations on his talk page, or he deliberately doesn't care. Is there something we can do about this? – numbermaniac 05:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Numbermaniac: I have started a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Munenejohn concerning this issue. I am guessing this will be resolved shortly.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Another new user, with a one week old account, has created a draft at Draft:AFRICA POLICY INSTITUTE (API). This user appears to be following the process by submitting their draft for review properly, but the content of the article is, in large parts, identical to the original at Draft:Africa Policy Institute. Don't know if this user is an undisclosed paid editor, but this might be worth keeping a watch on. – numbermaniac 12:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked as a sock of AfricaPolicyInstitute. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Time for a review of all cryptocurrency articles

    The price of bitcoin, the 1st and most important cryptocurrency, has crashed by 40% in the last 2 weeks, and by 80% since last December. The rest of the cryptocurrency universe is generally doing much worse. Reuters has an excellent article on the cryptocurrency press today - how they accept cash, or even bitcoin, to write biased stories. I'll link to it below together with some earlier stories that show pretty much the same thing.

    • Irrera, Anna; Dilts, Elizabeth (27 November 2018). "Special Report: Little known to many investors, cryptocurrency reviews are for sale". Reuters. Retrieved 28 November 2018.
    • Faife, Corin (25 October 2018). "We Asked Crypto News Outlets If They'd Take Money to Cover a Project. More Than Half Said Yes". Breaker. Retrieved 28 November 2018.
    • Biggs, John (18 September 2018). "Inside the pay-for-post ICO industry". TechCrunch. Retrieved 28 November 2018. - this story links to a price list for various publishers here

    Needless to say, we need to avoid citing any of the sources named within those articles. We've got hundreds of cryptocurrency articles (300? Let me know if you have a better estimate) and most have very poor sourcing. It might be a good idea to clean them up or delete them before the industry disappears. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Cryptocurrencies totals to about 243 articles if you include the subcategories. Category:Digital currencies also exists - not sure how many articles are in both categories. – numbermaniac 10:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm preparing a report at User:Bri/COIbox83 on all the articles, drafts, userspace drafts that use the "tainted" sources. It's a large list. Will report back with final results. Bri.public (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Followup below... by the way, my report is based on external links search for the Breaker list of media that take cash for coverage: AMBCrypto.com, bitcoinist.com, blokt.com, BTCManager.com, cointelligence.com, coinspeaker.com, cryptoninjas.net, cryptopotato.com, cryptovest.com, coinidol.com, globalcoinreport.com and newsbtc.com Bri.public (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Have added icobench.com to my analysis per "de facto investor fraud" in Reuters story linked by Smallbones. Bri.public (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Legacypac has started nominations for deletion, maybe the list speaks for itself. I'll just say there's a lot of SPAs involved with these crypto articles, no surprise there. Bri.public (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the ones I've checked in user and draft have or will soon turn into redlinks. I sent a few to WP:MFD for consideration. You can edit the list to add notes. Legacypac (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hell yes. I've been looking over the crypto articles of late. WP:RSN has in the past few months frequently considered crypto blogs not to be RSes - and even the relatively good ones, like Coindesk, are absolutely useless for deciding notability. But my goodness there are so many spammers. So - the first thing to do is, scour the articles of crypto blogs. Any that are to be kept, need justification. This will take care of a huge amount of the rubbish. Keeping to mainstream sources solves most of the COI problem here - David Gerard (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone probably knows this already, but I thought I would repost links to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies and {{blockchain notification}}, as it would be relevant to notify COI editors in this topic area. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've searched Draft space for "cryptocurrency" and was able to G11 around 100 pages. Other words "fintech", " crypto currency", "blockchain", etc are worth searching. I've not even touched userspace yet. Legacypac (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    More questionable drafts

    More here for consideration, also found with external links for questionable coin publication(s). Bri.public (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I tagged all U5/G11 and expect they will he deleted. Pretty much anything in this subject area can be G11 and/or U5 tagged and will disappear. Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly questionable articles

    More ... two (noted) have survived AfD but look wobbly to me. Bri.public (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A lot of old stuff (from the 2013-2014 era) turns out to have RSes because academics loved to write about it as interesting ideas ... but almost everything here, the sourcing is really bad - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    World Patent Marketing, Acting Attorney General Whitaker, Bloomberg, and Wikipedia

    This is a bit of a mess and I'm just trying to clarify to myself what happened. I'm not accusing anybody of anything here. Bloomberg has an article (corrected version) headlined "FTC Emails Show Whitaker Fielded Gripes on Miami Firm" Nov. 30, 2018 about Acting AG Whitaker. Included in this version is

    'On Nov. 21, 2014, soon after Whitaker joined the firm’s advisory board, Cooper, the CEO, wrote an email to a brand building company with the subject line, “Let’s build a Wikipedia page and use Whitaker to make it credible.” '

    If that were done undeclared on that date it would be against the terms of use. I was wondering who the "brand building company" was. But I can't find anything on World Patent Marketing in 2014 - the article was only started in November 2018 and I can't find an AfD discussion. Maybe there was something in draft or user space or a speedy deletion? The current article was started by @Smartse: and obviously, I don't suspect him of doing anything.

    The closest I can find to UPE editing on WPM is this edit to Matthew_Whitaker_(attorney) which has an inline external link to World Patent Marketing. @Vinnylabarbera:'s editing record is sparse so it's difficult to draw any conclusions from it.

    The Bloomberg article was widely published in an earlier version, which looked very serious for Whitaker, the corrected version less so. But the changes to the paragraph mentioning Wikipedia made the potential UPE look a bit more serious (from a WP:COIN POV). Any help in figuring this out would be appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Fascinating. The same email is mentioned by The New York Times who call the other party "a web company". I believe the documents are all FOIA, they may be posted by DOJ somewhere. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The FOIA material is here. There's at least one recognizable name there.
    I've asked @Vinnylabarbera: about COI on his talk page and asked him to join us here, but since he only stops in to edit every few years, I doubt that he'll see it. Based on his last 2 edits (not so long ago) I think he could be blocked for UPE - but I'll let others decide that. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Oliveboard article created by apparent Search Engine Optimization analyst (they're transparent enough to use their own name as their username)

    Hello. I didn't realize the potential (hard to be coincidental) severity of the situation until I started looking at their edits and discovered this (potentially) deliberate sneaky use of Oliveboard as a source in another article: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Seabed&type=revision&diff=869792352&oldid=864647903 I imagine this is to boost search rankings. I'm a new editor, so I think I'm out of my depth here. Someone else should take over for me. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 11:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi everyone. I think that they didn't notice my notice on their talk page, so I replied to them on the Oliveboard talk page and encouraged them to come here for help. Here is what I wrote:
    Hi, Abhishekkramesh. Sorry for not replying until now. If this is some kind of mistake, then of course you are editing legitimately. Obviously my intention is to help you. However, because I am a new editor and I don't have enough experience with (potential) conflict of interest editing, I deferred to the conflict of interest noticeboard. There you will find experts who will better be able to help you! I provided a link on your talk page to it, but I will link you to it here too: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Oliveboard article created by apparent Search Engine Optimization analyst (they're transparent enough to use their own name as their username). They will be able to answer all of your questions. Be warned: they might be less friendly than I am, but if you are persistent and assertive while talking to them, you should get resolution.
    They have questions about how to prove that they don't have a conflict of interest. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI

    Jytdog appears to be leaving: User_talk:Jytdog#That's_all_folks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    My guess it's a "you can't fire me I quit" situation in light of the Arbitration case that's about to be opened to look at what he's been doing offwiki. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well not quite, as he says "I urge Arbcom to do just do a motion and indef or site ban me." So I think it's more a case of "you can fire me, but I will have already quit". A shame really as this was, as far as I can see, a big mistake rather than something really malicious. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard C. Lukas

    This little edited article (93 edits over the past 12 years) has been edited rather heavily by SPAs (all the users above edited only or mainly the Lukas article. Some of them also added Lukas material to other articles - e.g. [1][2]. Content over the years has consisted of unsourced flattery - e.g. the first edit of the bunch which introduced "He is recognized as a leading authority on Poland during World War II.". RichardLukas admitted a COI - diff "These changes were directed to me by my father, Richard C. Lukas. For any questions, please contact me at <redact>. Thank you." in a minor marked edit which wasn't minor. The latest editor, White Eagle 70, has been adding (in minor marked edits) flattering OR - [3] "the first systematic English language study" (an assertion which per my reading of this very well trodden field (going back decades) - is false), as well WP:OR/disparaging content towards some of Lukas's critics - diff - which included Jew labelling an historian (while un-linking his article). Some help from a COI regular would be helpful here.Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with your assessment. I went in and did a first round of POV-scraping, but there is more to be done. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    United Daughters of the Confederacy

    This article appears to be one of several targets of an organized, coordinated editing effort by members of the subject organization. See the article's talk page for details. I came across the article while patrolling for vandalism, and am not going to intervene myself at this time as the issues are complex, the edits are not vandalism, and the subject matter is outside my area of expertise. The article could use attention from neutral editors. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I am guessing the relevant thread is Talk:United_Daughters_of_the_Confederacy#United_Daughters_of_the_Confederacy's_project_to_"fix"_Wikipedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    UDC does not like sources that define them as White Supremicist, KKK supporters, proponants of the Lost Cause narrative and other such truisms. More eyes always needed at UDC Legacypac (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that quite a few of us are already aware of this issue, but as Legacypac notes, more editors having the article on their watchlists would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Wilson (pollster)

    I stumbled upon this edit by User:Amy Catherine R while I was RC Patrolling the edit filter log, and it caught my interest by the wording, so I took a closer look at the page history. A lot of it seemed like PR to me, and was almost identical to this edit from May. I came to the conclusion that the editor might have been an undisclosed paid contributor, so I warned them with the paid disclosure template, none of which have been answered. Looking further at the page history, it seems that editors that have claimed to be from WPA Intelligence in the past have made edits to this article going as far back as 2012. Because of that, I tagged the article as having a potential COI as well as a potentially undisclosed paid editor involved in it. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked both accounts as spam only accounts. Alex Shih (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The Culinary Institute of America

    After some recent warnings/instructions at User talk:Jnormy from Jytdog on not directly editing articles, Jnormy continues to directly edit The Culinary Institute of America. I would notify Jytdog, but it appears they've left Wikipedia. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Meh. Yes, editing under a COI is to be discouraged, but it has never been outright banned, and the content here seems fairly neutrally worded. The recent additions are of a tone I would expect of someone to write in who didn't have a conflict of interest. If you had written it, I wouldn't change a word of it. For that reason, I don't see the issues with the recent edits. COI is only an issue when it produces bad writing, and when it doesn't, I don't see the problem. We only require that people declare their COIs and that they write otherwise neutral text. The user seems to have done both. --Jayron32 19:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, these edits look fine to me as well and seems to be within existing guidelines. Only when they start to insert promotional/corporate puffery under the disguise of "updated information" I would start to be alarmed. Alex Shih (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well they have in the past... Just because these recent edits are okay doesn't mean they can subvert WP:COI and only request-edit when they think it'll be problematic, can they? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Subvert WP:COI"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:恒冰

    This user appears to be a single purpose editor. They have not responded to three requests by me on their talk page to disclose their CoI status, and they continue to perform problematic edits.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwmhiraeth (talk • contribs)

    Blocked by Edgar181 for undisclosed paid and disruptive editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Niall Ferguson

    Negative material being removed without explanation, and replaced by more positive material. Failure to use edit summaries, failure to respond to User talk notices. DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked Koolhausmedia for the username. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    General advice on COI policy - New article I am creating - advice if this is a COI issue?

    Hi - I'm a University librarian (in the Business faculty) and a Wikipedian. I'm creating a page for an academic staff member who is also a composer of note in another faculty (Music). Is this of itself, a COI issue? While we both work for the same institution, he isn't in the same department, and I'm not otherwise connected to him, and not doing it for the cash....just to help out. Any advice here would be good, thanks!!! Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Deathlibrarian, and thanks for reaching out in advance for advice. I see you've been around Wikipedia for a long time so I imagine you are pretty well-versed in policies and guidelines. If you aren't representing his interests, then I don't see a conflict of interest. Nonetheless, putting a brief note on your userpage (User:Deathlibrarian), summarizing you wrote above, would reassure everyone that you are editing in good faith. If you have any kind of personal or professional relationship with him as a colleague, friend or acquaintance, it would be good to note that. Here's an example I whipped up, which you could alter to your liking:
    I work for (institution). I created an article about (person), who is also a faculty member at (institution). I am not being paid to write about him. (Any other relevant details)
    Perhaps other will have different opinions, but I think that should be enough. Good luck with your article! --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much Drm310, I'll do that.If anyone else has anything else to add, or sees it as an issue, please comment - (I've now added the draft of the article to this post as well).Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Koko.BMF

    British hip hop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Koko.BMF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User appears to be promoting themselves as an "up-and coming road rapper" on the page - see [4] [5].

    Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a reply for them at Talk:Koko, here. Hopefully that gets the message through. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Epic Sciences

    New user; username suggests they are affiliated with or representing the subject organization. The only 2 edits so far have included removal of the Undisclosed Paid COI template from the article. Amp71 (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Amp71. I left a response on my User talk page. Apologies for the confusion. My previous edits were not meant to include removing the 'Undisclosed Paid' COI (I'm not a native coder) and I must've deleted it while drafting new text. The goal of updates was to refresh the history, funding rounds, and current offerings of the company. How do I best disclose that I work for Epic Sciences when posting? Thanks, EpicSciences (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Meprolight

    Extra eyes on this article would be appreciated, MeproUS was warned about COI with no response and then another new user Cadlaxer23 shows up and starts making edits. shoy (reactions) 14:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    NeedaAnsari00

    Returning to an editor I took an interest in previously, NeedaAnsari00 created a number of suspiciously-high quality articles before ceasing to edit. I asked them about having a possible COI, but they continued to edit without responding. However, I recently was contacted on my talk page at User_talk:SamHolt6#Conflict_of_Interest/Paid by the subject of one of the articles created (albeit because of a different issue), where they more-or-less confirmed they were in contact with the editors who created their article. As such, it seems fairly easy to conclude (when given the quality, disparate topics, and disappearance upon being questioned) that NeedaAnsari00 was at the very least a COI editor and at the worst an undisclosed paid editor. I have boldly moved several of the articles they created and edited without the input of other editors. I started this thread to inform other editors.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Claire E. Walczak, Ph.D., Indiana University & Draft:Valerie Dean O'Loughlin, Ph.D.

    While perusing the AFC feed, I noticed an interesting phenomena. Before I begin reviewing an article (Walczak's), I always check to see if the author may have a conflict of interest. While the article seemed clean, (for some reason) I clicked back on the new pages feed. I don't know how to explain this with words (in an efficient manner) so here is an image. Im not really sure what the protocol for handling this is, so I figured I would ask.

    The author of these posts appear to be the subject of the opposite.

    SilverplateDelta (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Pranay.offcl

    User created draft talking about themselves in a heavily promotional way, which I tagged as G11. I have also left a COI notice on their talkpage. Agent00x (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The username alone suggests a COI and I will block this user. Deb (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Leonid Afremov

    Draft:Leonid Afremov Copyedit (minor)

    Pages on this artist are being spammed. I can't see what account has been doing the previous spamming because the articles have been deleted. The account is probably a sockpuppet, but I need admin help to identify the sockmaster. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=874025585"