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 Alsears (talk | contribs) at 21:18, 10 June 2019 (→City Vision University). 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: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

    Singapore Management University

    User had been adamant over a few days to restore advertisements in Singapore Management University page. Additionally user has removed the advertisement tag without solving the outstanding issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rongyao (talk • contribs) 11:38, February 28, 2019 (UTC)

    Iridium Communications

    Someone is apparently copypasting info from promotional material into the article.

    Rossy Evelin Lima

    This article appears to have been created and constantly updated by the subject's spouse, Gerald A. Padilla.

    advisorshares

    On August 10, 2018‎ a user with name 50.249.10.69 deleted two pieces of information from the AdvisorShares page giving the explanation that "fund.com no longer has any equity interest in AdvisorShares and Chuck Roberston passed away". I undid these changes on August 21, 2018‎ and commented that "These changes are made without citing any secondary sources of information. Also if the information reflected in these changes is not public, it is possible that the editor is connected to the company and has a conflict of interest". UserNameUnderConstruction made a similar change on January 16, 2019‎, which also stated that Charles Robertson passed away. I couldn't find any publicly available information online to confirm this. UserNameUnderConstruction should cite where they found this information or disclose if they have inside knowledge of the company's affairs. Zwx24f7 (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like someone raised a similar concern about the same account four years ago on the talk page: Talk:AdvisorShares#User_"UserNameUnderConstruction"_editing_the_AdvisorShares_page_needs_to_blocked creffett (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Highly suspicious to note that User:Zwx24f7 has only 12 edits and is already on this noticeboard. Also note that User:UserNameUnderConstruction was in the past a target of noticeboard complaints by users who are now banned socks.Adoring nanny (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:creffett you might want to take another look at this. Idk what is going on here, but it is awfully suspicious.Adoring nanny (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:creffett the user above, User:Adoring nanny opened a sock puppet investigation into me and the check user failed to show that I was related to these banned socks. There are serious reasons to believe that UserNameUnderConstruction and these edits with only IP addresses are made by employees of the company. They keep trying to hide publicly available information about AdvisorShares and they are adding information that is not publicly available and probably only known by a few people related to the firm, such as the death of an employee.Zwx24f7 (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    An anonymous editor, 2603:3003:703:c500:2907:fcb:ad77:cbea, again edited the AdvisorShares entry by deleting the information about fund.com, deleting the name of Charles Robertson and this time adding an unsourced sentence in the article that states, " The suit was later dismissed without merit." Instead of naming public sources for where they are getting information for these changes, they falsely accuse a "penny stock pump and dump" of being behind the changes they object to. If this user wants to make changes to the content of the article, I believe that they are supposed to cite secondary sources to back up their edits.Zwx24f7 (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sophisticated AFC subversion

    According to Smartse (diff), Stevey7788 was collaborating with a sockfarm to approve tens of their creations. I have a small inventory at User:Bri/COIbox87, but these are only the most obvious. There were similarities noted to the Boskit190 sockfarm. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I put the full list of patrols and AFC acceptances on that page. While I deleted most of the spam from the sockfarm, there's still a few questionable (and maybe even corrupt) acceptances and patrols. MER-C 18:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I think these slipped through the cracks. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    These I find suspicious based on content. There doesn't seem to be any connection between them, but you never know. MER-C 09:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Just noticed today that Shurtape Technologies was a declared-paid work, then AfC approved by Stevey7788. The creator, Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (has declared working at Full Metal Chicken, apparently an SEO firm) is invited to comment here. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bri: specifically in this case, but also generally, should accepted AfC submissions that are discovered to be UPE be moved to draft-space en-mass so that they can be reviewed? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    DannyS712, I think they should. But I think we need to ask a slightly different question here: should drafts accepted by a sockpuppet – or associate of sockpuppets – be automatically moved back to draft space? I believe they should, unless the page has substantial contributions from bona fide editors. Ping Bri and MER-C for their thoughts.
    What am I missing at Derek Fuhrmann? Could someone kindly spell out in words of one syllable or less why it's listed here? – I'm not seeing the connection. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Accepted AFCs later found to be undisclosed advertisements should be quarantined to remove them from search engine indices and deprive spammers of their products.
    Yes. A NPP/AFC patroller accepting payments from one spammer in exchange for reviews is corrupt enough to work with any spammer. Their reviews cannot be trusted.
    As for Derek Fuhrmann - it's definitely suspicious (see the deleted contributions of the creator) but seems unrelated. MER-C 11:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Justlettersandnumbers: The same account that created Derek Fuhrmann in August 2018 also created Amanda Mustard in January 2019. The latter AfC was approved by one of the socks blocked in Musbaunow SPI. There was a time lag of some 19 days, so the creator could be uninvolved. There's another connection too, involving possible Australian proxies, but I'm not ready to nail that down yet. Bri.public (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Thanks for the ping, Bri! I have no clue who this editor is. In my work with my agency (Full Metal Chicken, which is not really SEO agency - we're full-spectrum marketing), I was assigned to study the viability of an article for Shurtape Technologies, best known for its popular adhesive tapes (specifically Duck Brand tape as well as gaffer tape, formerly sold by Permacel and widely used in the entertainment industry). In my research I found that it was clearly notable and felt that I could write an excellent article on the topic - I also found the entire coverage of adhesive tape on Wikipedia to be lacking, so I was not surprised this was not covered. This also ties in to where I live, the Hickory–Lenoir–Morganton Metropolitan Statistical Area; Shurtape is one of the largest employers in this area. So basically, I felt this was an area that needed work and was confident this would be a valuable addition, so I began writing the article. You can find a full edit history at my project page, where I worked on it for several weeks.
    After producing what I felt was a satisfactory page, one that I felt met all Wikipedia guidelines (even in paid editing work I want to actually contribute to the project; my goal isn't to promote a product or band, but to expand on areas that are notable but have not been covered properly) and would be an excellent addition to the project. I went through the articles for creation process as required of paid editor. I made clear to my agency and client that this process would take as long as it was needed. The agency and client were extremely understanding and were in no hurry at all to confirm it - we want to do things legit, white hat, and that includes waiting for the process to work out on their own. We were willing to wait as long as needed for the review to take place - I believe the backlog was up to several months or something like that, but my client and agency as well as myself were okay with this. I think the article ended up being in wait around two months before it was ultimately confirmed.
    The long and short of it is, then, that I can say that I have no connection to this individual or his farm and my agency does not have any connection to them. Our client does not understand Wikipedia, really, so this was entirely run between me and FMC. I also operate here on a non-paid basis as User:Toa Nidhiki05 (in fact the vast majority of my editing is there), so I'm not part of a sock farm or anything of that nature.
    If there are any issues with the Shurtape Technologies article - and I hope there aren't, because I think I'm genuinely proud of how it turned out - I have nominated it for WP:GA but will gladly work with anyone to address them. I'm fairly confident it's a solid, notable article and I have the research to back it up, but obviously that's up to the community. My goal when editing from this paid angle is to operate completely transparently and in a white hat manner. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Long back and forth about proper disclosure for paid editors
    It's nice that you are upfront about being paid. However the first source I checked in the Shurtape article is from what I would characterize as a very bad source: Business NC. Here's the marketing brochure, which makes clear that it is really just marketing, not journalism. The first three sources use Shurtape itself as a reference for itself, fifteen times. A good article it is not. It seems to be paid promotion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What about that brochure says that? I see stuff about ad space but also about specific journalism awards.
    As for sources, it’s important to note what the hare used for. The first 8 citations are used in the infobox. Of those, several go to Shurtape but cite relevant information: what type of business this is (public or private), founding date, subsidiaries, etc. These seem appropriate for primary source coverage, although the information is almost certainly available elsewhere. The actually body cites the Business NC piece as well as the website, but mainly for useful historical info. This could probably be found in newspapers as well. Shurtape sources generally are used for information that is useful but not not necessarily requiring secondary sources. By my count, 17 of 52 go to Shurtape, but a lot of this is minor stuff, like opening a plant in Mexico (2), reorganizing Henkel purchases (2), and also with pairing another source for the Permacel purchase (2). Most of the 17 are used once for a minor detail. At the Chipotle Mexican Grill article, for example, the menu includes citations to the website used only once (see: citation 103). I looked to several articles like this for guidance on how to structure and word things.
    Regardless, I put it through AFC for exactly this purpose, to weed out any issues, so the fact it didn’t get legitimately approved is disappointing, as these could have been addressed then instead of now. You’re more than welcome to specific tag areas that need concern and I can do what a I can to propose fixes, like finding specific source improvements or trimming areas. The article is clearly notable, at least from my research (this is excluding newspaper access, which I now have with Newspapers.com). The goal genuinely isn’t to create an ad, it’s to improve the coverage of tape that is really not ideal right now (see: duct tape, gaffer tape, etc. as areas that are lacking). I’ll withdraw the GA for now. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Specific citations asserting the credibility of Business NC: *Former Managing Editor of the News and Observer has a regular column

    It seems to be a credible business source. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You have a clear COI, so your arguments are extremely weak. However, the larger issue appears to be that when you created the article, you had not disclosed your paid editing connection. So it is undisclosed paid editing.
    So it took you more than a couple of weeks to actually disclose that you were being paid to edit that article. For 20 days you edited the article numerous times without disclosing a conflict. After that you started adding "COI statement: I work for Full Metal Chicken, and Shurtape is a client." But for the first 20 days that it was a draft, you did not disclose. Would you not say that is UPE? I think UPE is something that leads to a block, as it is an abuse of the Wikipedia terms of use. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn’t create the article, dude. I wrote up in user space and submitted it to AFC because that’s what you do if you’re a disclosed paid editor. I nominated it for AFC in January’s and it was approved in March. I added the COI on the AFC talk later because I realized it might not be completely obvious I was paid, despite the user name and notice on my user page. The article was then approved and created by the user who was blocked up above, which is the reason it’s in this discussion. If you’re going to accuse me of something, please be accurate about it. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    this is clear undisclosed paid editing: doing paid editing in draft or article space without clear disclosure is UPE. You wrote the article and submitted it to AFC before you disclosed that you were being paid to promote the subject. Knowing that an article is by a paid editor is important for reveiwers, and, as you say above, you hid that by not disclosing on the article talk page. Your intention is obviously to promote your client, and you hid the promotional nature of your work for three weeks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure says:

    Editors who are or expect to be compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries.

    I did this on January 16. This is also obvious in my account’s name. My user space edits began on January 23. The link to that page is clearly visible on my user page. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How on earth is would anyone know that Full Metal Chicken (or whatever it's called), has Shurtape as a client? It's still UPE. All I can see is that you put a link to a "projects page" on your talk page, which is not the same as "They must do this on their main user page". You hid the project in a sub page. You did not disclose Shurtape, which is the ultimate client anywhere until weeks after you began editing. Let's see your first disclosure of Shurtape as client. It seems to be Feb 18th, long after you began working on their article. Finally, if it seems like I am giving you a hard time, it's because I am. You have not been clear enough about your conflict. Paid editors deserve a hard time and need to be extremely up front about their contribs. The wiki is better for it, as we are really not here to act as an advertising platform for companies. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re not “giving a hard time”, you are assuming evil faith and saying things that are blatantly untrue. It’s absolutely fine to criticize the article - that’s exactly why I nominated it through AFC, as policy demands.
    1) I did disclose I was paid, per policy. I did so immediately, on my user page, per policy, and specially stated I only use this account for paid editing. My name also pretty obviously discloses it.
    2) Shurtape is listed on Full Metal Chicken’s Website as a client. It’s literally on the page I linked to. Literally every client FMC has is listed there.
    3) I did not hide anything. I did what i normally do as an editor, which is work on articles in userspace and then make the change at once - or, in this case, per policy, nominated through AFC. You can’t nominate an article you AFC if it doesn’t exist.
    4) I added the separate disclosure to the AFC talk to make it as clear as possible that i was paid, if the username and disclosure on user page were not enough.
    You don’t like paid editors, fine, that’s absolutely your right. But that doesn’t exempt you from policy on interacting with other. That includes WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY. You incorrectly accused me of creating a mainspace page and hiding that I was paid and that’s flat-out false. I expect a strikethrough or at the very least an acknowledgement that what you claimed was not true. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm civil, and just stating the facts. The edit history is clear: you did not disclose your client, the article subject, on your user page, nor on the AFC draft until weeks after the fact. You hid the client in a subpage called "projects". The policy says "They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries." I'll give you some credit for admitting it later, but the client was not disclosed on your user page, the article talk page or in edit summaries until weeks after you started the draft and submitted it to AFC. You have a massive COI in creating this article, seeing as you are paid editor for the client. It's using Wikipedia as a promotional platform.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how many times I have to say this until you stop lying. I did not hide anything. I created this account - which explicitly notes that this is a work account in the name itself - on January 16th and literally my very first edit was a disclosure of my conflict of interest. To quote from that edit:

    Normally I edit on User:Toa Nidhiki05, but this is my account for edits where I have a conflict of interest or vested interest. I work at Full Metal Chicken and in this role will occasionally work to improve Wikipedia articles. In this role I will disclose that I am being paid and follow all guidelines about editing in such situations.

    I also added a link to this on my normal user page. As you quoted:

    They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries

    I did the first one, and even though that alone satisfies the requirement. It doesn't say "and", it says "or". I have been nothing but upfront about what this account is for and who I work for from day one- I even provided a link to the website of the company I work for, which has a list of every single client it has.
    On the 23rd, I went even further than my text-based disclosure and added the conflict of interest tag to my user page, which basically restated what I already said; by this point I had been editing the project page for a week, but it was already linked on my talk page, so again, it was not hidden. The link to the project page is directly accessible from my talk page. It's not hidden.
    And again - I did not create this article. I wrote a draft version (because if you are going to submit something to articles for creation, you should have an article already written) and then submitted it to AfC, where it would be reviewed by another user and approved or rejected. My username and user page directly indicated who I worked for (see: this is my account for edits where I have a conflict of interest or vested interest) - the fact my account name literally has "work" in the name could not be any more clear . I added an additional tag to the AfC, a couple of weeks later, to be even more transparent. The article sat there waiting for a couple of months until another user reviewed it and approved it. I did not create the page. I have made exactly two mainspace edits on this page since: adding a logo, with full disclosure of who I work for in the edit summary, and archiving sources with a bot. I was not dishonest, and I did not hide anything.
    You can like or dislike paid editors (and I get either one), but you can't just ignore rules and basic decency here. I am just asking you to stop saying things that are false. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You created the draft and sumitted it to AFC without disclosing the connection clearly on your talk page, as required. Read the page Wikipedia:Paid_editing#How_to_disclose. It's crystal clear. You need to post the client and affiliation on your user page. You did not. "The conflict of interest guideline further advises editors to place the connected contributor (paid) template at the top of the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (and to fill in the parameters), and to supply a clearly visible list of their paid contributions on their main user page. The template paid can be used for this." As well as that, you're a paid editor and you are being disruptive here and on the article talk page. About your paid editing project. The simple solution to that is to stop using Wikipedia as means to make money and to promote companies. I'm not going to reply to this any longer. Arguing with paid editors is a waste of the volunteer (unpaid) time and resources of the wiki.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Read what it says again.

    Editors who are or expect to be compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries

    I did this, on my user page, day one. I dislocated that literally every edit this account makes is a paid edit. The website has a full list of every client the agency has.

    The conflict of interest guideline further advises editors to place the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template at the top of the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (and to fill in the parameters), and to supply a clearly visible list of their paid contributions on their main user page. The template {{paid}} can be used for this.

    I also did this on the talk page as further transparency, although this is an advisory to do this, not a mandate. I do realize that I don't have a list of contributions on my userpage however, so I have added that now per guidelines.
    As for disruption, I'm not sure how I've disrupted anything. I provided sources to rebut a claim you made about the validity of Business North Carolina and responded to false claims you have made about me, so unless merely responding to you is disruptive, that's another false thing you have said about me. That you do not like paid editing does not exempt you from WP:WIAPA ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on the wiki."). Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Disruption by paid editors, for example, is when paid editors don't follow the disclosure rules and then waste the time of other editors.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI: I just sent in a private CU request regarding a different sockfarm and at least one of the articles above. MER-C 18:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You know what: the more I dig into the SPIs, the more I find. Pay very careful attention to the full list of articles patrolled and AFCs accepted especially for new users and frequently spammed topics. MER-C 09:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    West Virginia Radio Corporation

    50.73.174.35 is licensed to the West Virginia Radio Corporation (WVRC). WVRC owns a slew of radio stations under WVRC, but also as AJG Corporation, along with The Dominion Post newspaper. In 2016, they attempted to edit some of their company's station's pages here on Wikipedia and that was successfully shut down with a simple COI warning. In the past week or so, they have started up again. I have issued 2 more COI warnings. It's clear all the edits are coming from the WVRC IP and they are trying to make the articles less than neutral or more kind to WVRC and their owners. The latest edit was pure OR. I have done what I can, so I bring it to this board for assistance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:09 on May 25, 2019 (UTC)

    I previously had this as an ANI thread but was told to move it here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:09 on May 25, 2019 (UTC)
    Is this going to be looked at? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:38 on May 27, 2019 (UTC)
    It's been 8 days, people. Really? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:46 on June 3, 2019 (UTC)
    I've trimmed the puffiest parts of the article and added a sourcing tag. Following the trim, the article seems reasonably neutral and factual (if undersourced). creffett (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    100 Day Renovation

    Accounts:

    This is a group of accounts who previously came up at COIN for promotional editing of the above pages. The first five accounts all ended up blocked at SPI, and the IP was recently blocked as an anonymous proxy. Someone with an interest in the pages recently contacted our kind volunteer OTRS agent @Sphilbrick:, who contacted me as I had reverted a recent template removal. I don't know the details of the request, but presumably they want the templates removed. Seems reasonable to give them another chance, assuming no further promotional editing. So, two requests:

    • First, can someone look at the articles and remove do some cleaning in order to remove the templates? I won't revert genuine removals.
    • Second, we place many UPE and COI templates here-- do we have a policy for when they get removed?

    Thank you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ThatMontrealIP, Thanks for posting that.
    To any potential volunteers: Wikimedia received an email with an explanation of the situation. I can't share that without getting permission from the person who sent it, but if someone is willing to check to see if their explanation is adequate, I will arrange to share the contents of the email with a volunteer.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    South Africa Today

    South Africa Today in a controversial news site run in part by Gearbox4. The page was cited for multiple issues until today. Firefishy (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Small World Social

    The first three accounts have a clear conflict of interest regarding Small World Social. The first to obviously so, the third is a SPA that has only edited Small World Social and her username Lindseyrsws ends in sws.

    Prosnuts is a SPA who created an advert for HelpMe Feed Foundation. This foundation was formed by Small World Social. Unlike the others Prosnuts HAS declared a conflict of interest around SWS.

    Ch Yaseen Zulfiqar has all the hallmarks of a UPE. First edit included removing a coi tag from an article created by a sock of a blocked UPE [2], adding promotional material while claiming to be removing promotional material. Xe added more PR to SWS.

    This article was created by Julie345 whilst she was still called Smallworldsocial. Soon after she created Google Glass breastfeeding app trial, a project SWS is involved in, and Madeline Sands, project leader of that trial and a staff member of SWS. She also spammed that trial into other articles, eg [3], [4].

    Smallworldsocial despite their obvious coi removed the coi tag from Small World Social [5].

    The Small World Social article itself is a promotional disaster. Many of the sources used do not support the claims made in the article. Ones that do are often very short mentions and are played up in this article.

    Julie345 (as Smallworldsocial) heavily edited Priceline (Australia) and their parent company Australian Pharmaceutical Industries, both with a declared COI [6], [7]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    North Face product placement

    Undeclared paid editing and product placement, per [8] (see also the users' Commons uploads). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I was tempted to call this overreacting or coincidence at first...but most of the pictures they've uploaded do, in fact, have the North Face logo somewhere in it. Wow. Nice catch! Also, there appears to be some photoshopping going on: see File:Pico_do_Agudo_Santo_Antonio_do_Pinhal.jpg and File:Vale_do_paraiba_montanha.jpg - I have to wonder if there might also be some copyvio going on here... creffett (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear. Further digging on Commons (Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_User:Fhpatucci) came up with this link...looks like there's some more digging to do here. creffett (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Gmortaia vandalizing pages with guerrilla advertising. This is troubling, but we need to not throw the baby out with the bathwater; I've had one or two companies provide us with good images of their products, and intend to try more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudos to WWB (an above-the-board paid editor) for calling this out as "duplicitous" in Ad Age. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Moriba Jah

    The author of much of the article is clearly Moriba Jah. Twice under his username, and the bulk of the edits under two IP addresses associated with Austin, TX (where Jah resides), which have both only contributed to Jah's page (since 2009). The page itself has many unsourced anecdotes that are inconstant with a wikipedia biography.

    NSE co-location scam

    The user is repeatedly changing the tonality and removing content cited from credible citations. Apparently, someone is a huge fan of Ajay Shah. Also, he had every chance to defend his changes on the talk page but refused to justify them. This is simply disruptive editing. LeoStephenTwain (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    James Benjamin Rothschild

    This editor has e-mailed me and in that e-mail has told me they have been paid to create this article. Here is a quote from his e-mail " I am being paid to write this bio, that is why (James1770) has been created." The editor has been warned multiple times not to create inappropriate articles and has continued to do so. In addition the article has been created by different users also with James in the username.VVikingTalkEdits 01:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Viewmont Viking: Could you give some more information on the suspected socking? As far as I can tell from the logs, only James1770 has created that page. creffett (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I could be wrong about that, but I'm also not sure how to check past deleted pages. I remember at least once that the article was created by a different James, but I don't know the name. I didn't write it down or warn the suspected sock. I only warned the sock master. Sorry I don't have additional information on that part.VVikingTalkEdits 01:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Creffett and Viewmont Viking: I've checked the deleted revisions of that article and the associated draft and I can't see any other users. We've blocked and deleted so this can probably be closed. SmartSE (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Creffett and Smartse: Thank you both for your help on this, I agree it should be closed now.VVikingTalkEdits 13:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Charlie Wilson (singer)

    Somebody using IPs in the Los Angeles area, especially from Granada Hills, has been trying to puff up the biography of R&B singer Charlie Wilson, to make him seem more influential than he is. The problem started in August 2011 with this series of edits calling Wilson a "legend" who influenced Snoop Dogg, R. Kelly, Justin Timberlake and Kanye West. The person contacted STATicVapor in 2013 to complain about the removal of the promotional wording.[9] This promotional theme has been repeatedly returned to the article by the listed IPs, now engaged in edit warring. The article was put into pp-pc protection because of the IP edits. The conflict of interest component comes from an article link posted by the IP saying that Charlie Wilson was interviewed at his manager's house in Granada Hills, the same place as the IPs.diff, LA Times source.

    Charlie Wilson is not usually listed as one of the top R&B singers. Billboard lists 35 and Wilson is not among them. Another source lists Jackie Wilson but not Charlie Wilson. Of course Charlie Wilson is somewhat influential as a singer, having been the leader of a popular funk group, and having mentored Snoop Dogg to a degree, but he's not so iconic as James Brown or Otis Redding. The scale of puffery is too much for the topic. What do you all think should be the next step in terms of article protection? Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    TO WIKI COI TEAM: This is insane that a new Wiki user who happens to have an IP in Granada Hills and cites an article that mentions Granada Hills allows Binksternet to claim a conflict of interest and claim "puffery" and delete factual information included about Wilson because of his own personal opinion of Charlie Wilson's status. There has been zero "puffery" except indicating what Charlie Wilson has accomplished in the articles mentioned. How can wikipedia continue to allow Binksternet to police this and try to censor the facts with his personal feelings about Charlie Wilson by citing 1 Billboard article about R&B Singers (when there are numerous other Billboard articles actually indicating Charlie as a powerful and influential artist) and using his personal and biased opinion about what can be included from these professional articles like the LA Times and others that note Wilson accomplishments that I am simply including and need to be updated. As someone who follows R&B music there are hundreds of articles that show Charlie Wilson's relevance in the music space and his well noted collaborations with many popular and mainstream artists alike that have been indicated in his own personal discography and those of others like Snoop Dogg, Pharrell, Kanye West, Bruno Mars, R. Kelly, and most recently Tyler the Creator among countless others (this is what I am trying to show on his page and not puffery). In fact even though Wilson comes from an old funk band as Binksternet indicates, Wilson has a very accomplished solo career later in life and continues to be sought after by artists old and young. I am simply trying to include these and update events that are not indicated on the page. Wilson was honored with the 2013 BET Legend Award and presented the award by Justin Timberlake (whom performed with with Wilson and indicated his admiration to him) along with many other heavy weights that participated in honoring Charlie Wilson as a legend throughout the program. Yet Binksternet claims that myself and others are including this information on his page as "puffery" when they are simply facts and show Wilson's place with the R&B and music community. In my recent research revolving around this I also noticed he has a major tour following that rival other major acts like Janet Jackson and Lionel Richie where he sells out multiple nights at the Hollywood Bowl and the Forum and did a multi-million dollar tour last year which placed him as one of the highest grossing for R&B but am weary to post anything or update the Charlie Wilson page with this kind of information that is available because of Binksternet's constant censorship of the facts based on his own personal feeling as to what a legendary artist is or how HE FEELS about Charlie Wilson from his own point of view which creates the opposite experience of what Wikipedia should be about. I should be allowed to freely update the page with these facts and not arbitrarily be deleted or accused of things when I am simply stating the facts in the article and want to update certain things on the page that are missing with regard to this artist. This is not "puffery" nor is it the problem. The real problem here rather is censorship created by Binksternet and his biased policing of an artist's page that needs to managed and controlled so new users like myself can simply keep the facts included with the appropriate research and not be blocked by this man's personal opinion and feelings about the artist. PLEASE LET US KNOW NEXT STEPS as to ensure a proper update of this artist's legacy. Thank you. WP:DNB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.225.7 (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @47.156.225.7: Uh, what you just posted is pretty much textbook puffery - going on extensively about how great you think Charlie Wilson is, talking about you want a proper legacy for him, etc. Just looking at the edits, this is a borderline case for me - while the edits in question did not look excessively puffy to me, they aren't supported by the source either (for example, you listed a number of artists whom Wilson has influenced, but all the article said is that he has collaborated with them - and, in fact, at least one wasn't mentioned in the article at all!).
    With that said, you didn't answer the COI question, and that is kind of the purpose of this noticeboard, so: do you have any sort of relationship with Charlie Wilson? Please review WP:EXTERNALREL for a list of things that can be considered a COI relationship.
    creffett (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting also that the IP refers to themselves as "Us", which is highly suspect.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    He refers to himself as a new editor (linking to don't bite the newbies) but he's been doing this stuff since at least 2011. He was previously warned about a conflict of interest back in 2011, by 4meter4.[10] Not a new user by any stretch. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Binksternet 2011? Seriously? What are you talking about? I saw those edits from whoever you referenced earlier and even those edits were simply facts about Charlie Wilson. What is your personal hate to this man? I wish someone here on wiki can see how people like you with some authority on here bully and edit these pages to your personal tastes and when someone like me comes along that doesn't fit your ideal of the artist you throw everything at them including lies. In my opinion you have the COI and I believe you have a history with Charlie Wilson in some way maybe as a potentially disgruntled audio engineer (as you say you are). What other pages are you doing this too, using your powers to control the page based on your personal preferences? Wiki needs to try and contain individuals like you spewing inaccurate accusations and conclusions which are false and stop the growth of these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.225.7 (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SamHolt6 - the "Us" was simply referring to myself and Binksternet and hoping to get some answers from the wiki community on how to proceed for both of us and potentially have him revert his edits from his bias or mine with a solid conclusion; and so I do not continually get harassed, blackballed, deleted, blocked with the edits I wanted to do on the Wilson page moving forward. Nothing suspect or deceitful to read into there. User:Creffett I appreciate your response and yes my tone in my comments could be construed as "how great I think Charlie Wilson is" based after my research on him but what is the difference with Binksternet saying the exact opposite and his personal feelings about Charlie Wilson in all of his commentary prior and reasons for deletions and accusations/attacks on me which is the very reason we are now put in the scenario. Positive "puffery" = bad but Negative "censorship of facts" good/okay?? None of my edits "pufferized" anything that either wasn't already there or in the information I added. Binksternet said I was "promoting". What am I promoting exactly? The street should go both ways and his negative bias should carry the same weight as my accusations of "puffery" which is inaccurate based on my edits. And no I am not related to Charlie Wilson but have been following his career and fond of his accomplishments. My edits are simply stating facts I have read and have come from varied citations that have now been mixed and co-mingled thus why you indicated the article I cited had someone missing from the original paragraph that I was trying to re-instate. But that doesn't mean the facts are not there and that Charlie Wilson did not do these things and unfortunately it was my mistake in not putting together the exact citation with all this back and forth battling. It is going to be easily proven and referenced to show this however but at this point my ability and original intention to include these facts and stats and update the page are hampered and I feel like I have beaten by the wiki mob. Truly unfortunate and I don't feel this is in the spirit of how this was meant to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.225.7 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You wouldn't feel "beaten by the wiki mob" if your additions weren't so badly out of balance with the sources, so clearly promotional. If you had been making reasonable changes then your experience here would be positive. The article history shows a long-term and persistent attempt to puff up the man's legacy. I'm not blind... the persistent attempts are all in the same style, showing that you have been doing this for years, from multiple IPs.
    I refuse to comment on the ridiculous claim that I am somehow connected to Wilson myself. Totally unfounded, a flailing attempt at mud flinging. Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Badly out of balance? How is updating award statistics "puffery" or are you just upset he was nominated for awards because you truly are disgruntled or indeed have some sort of conflict interest with Charlie Wilson yourself? And the other edit I did was simply reinstating your deletions based on your negative bias to Charlie Wilson and that whoever did the edit prior was actually accurate for including in the first place. Plus that original section wasn't even written by me but was written by other wiki users so what am I promoting? Yet you sir have the persistent attempts to censor this man's page and try to stop those edits by claiming I am puffing it up. And it is you who seems to have some kind of obvious conflict, to quote you "but he's not so iconic as James Brown or Otis Redding". Who are you to determine that or make any sort of interpretation of his status when you say others should not do the very thing you are doing? I also find it truly suspect that the only thing you don't want to comment on was explaining how you are not connected to Wilson in some way especially after it is so easy for you to spread all your accusations and lies about others. (I will be researching to find this out sir as I am confident I will find out you somehow worked with Wilson or affiliated in some way and wanting to limit any positive research on him). Coincidentally, I also found this on you too which proves this is how you act, control, and bully others to push your biased agendas here on Wikipedia Binksternet bullying others on Wikipedia. I just hope a hero Wikipedia contributor with more power than you sees this "persistent" damaging pattern and does something to contain you.
    Attempting to be the voice of reason here.
    @Binksternet: Based on the IP user's comments, I'm willing to WP:AGF and call this non-COI, just an enthusiastic fan. Recommend taking this to WP:DRN. Also, the 2011 reference seems a little unlikely to be this editor if you only have IPs as a reference.
    @47.156.225.7: You aren't doing yourself any favors right now by accusing Binksternet of bias, control, and censorship. You may not have intended it, but your edits did come off as puffy. Please WP:AGF on the part of the editors trying to keep promotional and COI material off of Wikipedia. Based on this, I would also suggest that you bring up your edits on the article talk page so that other editors can suggest how to make them more encyclopedic.
    creffett (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello User:Creffett and thank you for being the voice of reason. I do want a truce and for this to come to an end and stop the warring but I dont feel I have been treated fairly here. I want to be clear that the few edits I did and as being labeled "puffy" or promotional still does not sit right. Of my less than handful edits they simply were updating award numbers or trying to merely reinstate a section of the article that Binksternet continued to delete outright. That section was previously written by other wiki members (and not me) and it was only until someone added Tyler The Creator to it (which was accurate based on Wilson's relationship with Tyler working together on Tyler's last 2 albums after I noticed in the research) and tried to reinstate that section. What part of those edits is puffery or promotion? It is evident Binksternet does not look at Wilson in the same light and using his powers to bully and censor the page and accuse me of all kinds of other edits to push his agenda. You said I am not doing myself any favors by accusing him of bias but that is hard to do when Binksternet himself says "Charlie Wilson is somewhat influential as a singer" and "he's not so iconic as James Brown or Otis Redding". This is pure bias and his personal opinion on how he feels about Wilson and should not be used to influence how he controls the page or other wiki contributors like myself. Am I missing something here? I also found this gem that shows this continued type of harassment and bullying done to others in the wiki community from Binksternet and the same tactics he has used here with me to push his agendas Binksternet bullying others on Wikipedia. How is this right? And this was why I was requesting help from other senior Wiki contributors. My edits are not the true problem but his edits and censures are and if anything he should be banned from contributing for this and at least to the Wilson page. I would also like to have my IP and talk page be corrected and reverted back to a status that does make it out to look like I was some sort of vandal because I want to continue to contribute and have learned a lot of the experience here and understand how to better the edits moving forward. I do appreciate the true wiki contributors like yourself that seem to care and move this forward positively. Thank you for that and I appreciate your help.
    If you think Charlie Wilson is in the same league as James Brown or Otis Redding, you are welcome to quote some WP:Reliable sources agreeing with your position. You won't find any. It's not "bias" to say that James Brown and Otis Redding have a greater influence and more extensive fame than Charlie Wilson – just look at the literature and you'll see nothing to contradict my position. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I Never said Charlie Wilson was in the same league nor made any comparison to any artists including the ones you mentioned. Ever. You sir did that and worse it is bias to arbitrarily say that those artists had a greater influence and more fame than Charlie Wilson. Its categorically the definition of bias. What is this bias based on? Grammy awards, Chart positions, what? It is your opinion and further proves that the very thing you are accusing me of is what you are actually doing. And then suggesting for everyone to simply "look at the literature" but then turn around and tell me to get WP:Reiliable sources while we have to go along with your biased opinion because that is the agenda you are pushing here. You are a pure hypocrite who has been outed sir. The same way you say to simply look at the literature anyone could have said the same for Charlie Wilson and you would have pounced with your deletions and threats yet others beyond you or me could perceive Wilson the opposite and which may be dramatically different than your opinion. Like everyone said opinions do not rule these wiki pages. Your personal beliefs on Charlie Wilson is as a result of either your lack of knowledge on Charlie Wilson in general and what adds to his statistics against your obvious and personal bias on where you think he belongs in your music circle which you yourself proclaim to be working in and a part of. In fact I'm sure there is COI somewhere with you and Charlie Wilson. Your actions here and on other pages as evidenced [11] along with your self proclaimed employment in the music space and this is truly accurate of your actions in the Wiki world and also includes other Wiki contributors complaining about your agenda of pushing music products that only you endorse among the same bullying tactics you have done here to push your agendas. The cited article definitely is accurate and sounds like you sir for sure always pushing your personal bias and negative agendas creating a net negative Wikipedia experience for us all. More on other wiki users accusing Binksternet of same tactics he uses to bully, lie, and push his personal agendas on wiki and other COI. I'm over this and know my point has been proven so I am done with this sir as you have shown your true colors and all I hope at this point is my IP restored and other wiki users see the same with this debate and the previous complaints other Wiki users have about you in those articles that I have dug up and pray that a good Samaritan wiki user finally contains you and stops your peddling of personal agendas and products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.225.7 (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Dongle

    User:Trusley Mike identifies himself as having been involved in the "invention" of the article subject, and has been adding self-citations of historical information pertaining to it that have not appeared in other secondary sources. He claims COI no longer applies because the company is defunct.

    Any opinions? ViperSnake151  Talk  21:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note from user Trusley_mike.

    I am not sure where to respond to this so I have added an entry to my own "Talk" page. Please let me know if it should have been placed elsewhere.

    Trusley Mike (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You could post it here. ViperSnake151  Talk  07:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you - I have have done so.

    Trusley Mike (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Trusley Mike is continuing to edit war references to himself / his software into the Dongle article. He's now adding primary sources, but they support that there was *a* dongle, but don't really support claims that this was the *first* dongle. He's now personalizing the dispute (accusing me of 'trolling' and 'hiding behind a user name', so it would be very helpful if some additional voices could join the discussion on Talk:Dongle. - MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jacob Kyle Young

    There is an editor, Uuuwiki, who does some pretty standard article partrolling for roughly 150 edits between May 2013 and March 2014. There is no activity until March 2019 when they suddenly make a new article (something they've never done before). The article makes claims about and provides a bunch of reliable sourcing for notable topics - but these sources do not include information about Young. The sources about the article topic itself are far less quality. In looking at what is more broadly available there quite a few press releases about the article topic but seemingly far less coverage from RS. The article itself is on the "barely OK side" of being eligible for speedy deletion for promotional writing. Two weeks later a new editor, EdHamilton223, posts a picture about this article subject to commons. All of these facts add up to me to UPE starting from a compromised account that wouldn't have needed to establish an edit history to be able to create in mainspace. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Assange

    Redirected the OP to RSN with their assertion that their edits should stand because of the quality and variety of sources they have cited to support them, as this issue has nothing to do with COI. General Ization Talk 01:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Rebecca jones (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Activities of these users on wiki ask question about Assange : User:Neutrality,User:Snooganssnoogans,User:Geogene, O3000 They have same interests on wiki about politics and spend all their time on wiki on same talks. Moreover O3000 has more 300 contributions about Trump during 2018. How consider his neutrality about Assange? These users are a same person ?

    They drop contributions with famous newspapers like Le Monde for example without explanation about it. Why ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca jones (talk • contribs)

    Rebecca jones was blocked for one week for edit-warring on Julian Assange last month, and has returned to continue this edit-war. I have no idea what her COI claims are about. (First time I've been accused of being an admin.) O3000 (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I explained, all these users User:Neutrality,User:Snooganssnoogans,User:Geogene, O3000 spend their time on wikipedia on the same subjects. They drop contributions from famous newspapers without explanation. Are they a same person ? They know well very well ? I don't know but I I ask me questions about their activities on Wiki. How explain neutrality of O3000 with more 300 contributions about Trump in 2018? Rebecca jones —Preceding undated comment added 14:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any basis to claim that any of Objective3000's edits have been non-neutral? Just because someone has made many edits to an article does not mean that they have failed to exercise neutral POV concerning the subject. Are you suggesting that the only way to demonstrate neutrality is not to edit a given article? General Ization Talk 15:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And no, there is no reason to think that the multiple editors you mentioned are the same person, and that claim, which amounts to an accusation of sockpuppetry, is one you had better have some evidence to back up other than the fact that they are all actively editing articles related to Julian Assange (and presumably all disagreeing with you about something). Lastly, this page is not the place to make such accusations. You are at the Confict of Interest noticeboard, and you have said nothing that amounts to a claim of COI with respect to any editor. Even an assertion of lack of neutrality is not the same thing as COI. General Ization Talk 15:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    All these users drop contributions published from several famous newspaper without explanation, why ? Moreover contributions of these users ask question about their neutrality, I have checked their contributions on wikipedia. Why they spend all their time on political subjects ? More 300 days by year for O3000 ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca jones (talk • contribs)
    The problems with your edits have been explained by multiple editors on the article talk page. If you want your edits added; then you need to respond to the stated concerns on the talk page and gain consensus. Repeatedly forcing the material in (which is how you got blocked) and making wild, baseless accusations about other editors (which is how you lost your talk page access during your block) clearly isn’t working. O3000 (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that a newspaper or other source is "famous" means absolutely nothing in terms of its utility to cite a specific claim in an article, nor whether the claim even belongs in the article to begin with. We don't judge content by the "famousness" of the source cited to support it. Editors can try and have tried to use reliable sources to support patently false content here, and not everything that is true necessarily belongs in a given article. Editors here are entitled to focus their attention on any topic that interests them; there is nothing remarkable about an editor who focuses on political topics. Many do. General Ization Talk 18:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm taking this noticeboard off my watchlist. Ping me if there's something of note. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you say Boomerang in French? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're assailing the neutrality of other editors after adding a section heading with the title Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange : an attack on freedom of expression ? If you make further blatant point-of-view edits like that, you'll be blocked for a longer duration. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have noted the lack of neutrality of wikipedia : the question about an attack of expression is not a point-of-view but a question, because several jurists in Europ consider this indictment as an attack on freedom of expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca jones (talk • contribs) 19:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we are encountering some language issues here. In English, and here at Wikipedia, creating a header like that is called stating an opinion as fact (the question mark at the end doesn't make it any less of a non-neutral statement). See WP:WIKIVOICE, which explains that you should avoid doing exactly that. You can relate the opinions of "jurists in Europe" without constructing a header that seems to be asking the question – and suggesting a conclusion – in Wikipedia's voice. And if you do so, you must also fairly and accurately describe other viewpoints; see Due and undue weight. General Ization Talk 19:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ::::@Rebecca jones: You don't have any rights on Wikipedia and making a legal threat will get you blocked. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia accepts to drop : "Several magistrates, politicians and associations consider that the arrest of Assange constitutes an attack on freedom of expression and international law [1]." Why ? Le Monde is not serious for Wikipedia ?

    Wikipedia accepts to drop also : " Tiny Kox asked the Council of Europe's commissioner for human rights, Dunja Mijatovic, whether the arrest of Assange and his possible extradition to the US are in line with the criteria of the European Convention on Human Rights, because Assange can benefit from the protection of the right to freedom of expression and information according the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights [2]." Why ? Tiny Kox is not an american ? He is a dutch politician and a chairman of the Party of the European Left in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe?

    Wikipedia accepts to drop : "In effect, a United Kingdom tribunal recognised WikiLeaks as a media organisation [3] and United Kingdom, a member of the Council of Europe, is committed to respecting Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights[4]." Why ? The Guardian is not serious for Wikipedia ?

    Wikipedia accepts to drop : "Ben Wizner .... adds "For the first time in the history of our country, the government has brought criminal charges against a publisher for the publication of truthful information. This is an extraordinary escalation of the Trump administration's attacks on journalism, and a direct assault on the First Amendment. It establishes a dangerous precedent that can be used to target all news organizations that hold the government accountable by publishing its secrets. And it is equally dangerous for U.S. journalists who uncover the secrets of other nations. If the US can prosecute a foreign publisher for violating our secrecy laws, there’s nothing preventing China, or Russia, from doing the same" [5] Why ? Ben Wizner and ACLU are not serious for Wikipedia ?

    For me, administrators of Wikipedia are not serious. Rebecca jones

    Law of holes. O3000 (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    “Although I am a typical loner in my daily life, my awareness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has prevented me from feelings of isolation.” Albert Einstein Rebecca jones —Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rebecca jones: I have already explained to you that this noticeboard, the Conflict of interest noticeboard, is designed for the specific and exclusive purpose of discussing editors with potential conflicts of interest concerning the articles they are editing. Your complaints have nothing to do with conflict of interest; rather, you are complaining that editors have reverted your edits which you claim are supported by reliable sources. That means that the appropriate place for you to raise this issue is the Reliable sources noticeboard, not here. Rather than further inconvenience the admins and editors who handle COI complaints here, I am closing this discussion. If you want to raise the issue again at the appropriate noticeboard, please do. General Ization Talk 01:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2019/05/24/assange-des-accusations-sans-precedent-effrayantes-et-un-coup-porte-a-la-liberte-de-la-presse_5466508_4408996.html
    2. ^ "La Convention européenne des droits de l'homme peut-elle empêcher l'extradition de Julian Assange vers les États-Unis ?". L'Humanité (in French). 12 April 2019. Retrieved 2019-04-14.
    3. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/dec/14/wikileaks-recognised-as-a-media-organisation-by-uk-tribunal
    4. ^ "La Convention européenne des droits de l'homme peut-elle empêcher l'extradition de Julian Assange vers les États-Unis ?". L'Humanité (in French). 12 April 2019. Retrieved 2019-04-14.
    5. ^ https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-julian-assange-indictment
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    More potentially suspicious articles

    Batch ending 17 May

    33% more than usual, probably because (1) I've added two search terms and (2) it is edit-a-thon season in the northern hemisphere. MER-C 17:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Batch ending 1 June

    Page Author
    1040 Sunshine Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ddmmyyy8 (talk · contribs)
    180 Medical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ScrappyYapper (talk · contribs)
    42Gears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Manisha13 (talk · contribs)
    Adam Guild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Preashren (talk · contribs)
    Albacora Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Keyerje (talk · contribs)
    Aleksei Kadochnikov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Manataworf (talk · contribs)
    Alexander Kabakov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Zircumflex2017 (talk · contribs)
    Algani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mehman97 (talk · contribs)
    Ameyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wikiclocker (talk · contribs)
    Amjad Atallah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Periodista1 (talk · contribs)
    Andrea Micheletti (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Manataworf (talk · contribs)
    Andrew Leon Hanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) OWUDean (talk · contribs)
    Andrey Adamovskiy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Zapadenec (talk · contribs)
    Apache Royale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Inukjuak (talk · contribs)
    Aparna Nagesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sunbeam112 (talk · contribs)
    Ashley Hunter (cartoonist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hannah benbow (talk · contribs)
    Atif Rahman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Zainkhalid0901 (talk · contribs)
    Belchertown Board of Selectmen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Prosbus (talk · contribs)
    Bill Goodwyn (executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Breezeye (talk · contribs)
    Billie (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) FrankieCP (talk · contribs)
    Brands Impact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) NarangD (talk · contribs)
    Cambridge Quantum Computing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Helmholtz10 (talk · contribs)
    Castle Placement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Baylormccrary (talk · contribs)
    CbdMD.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Vixhere (talk · contribs)
    Channel 8 (El Salvador) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AngelChavezCo (talk · contribs)
    Chidi Ajaere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Niftyrules (talk · contribs)
    Chris McNutt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mrchris386 (talk · contribs)
    Citizens First Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Iamorangelightning (talk · contribs)
    CloudApp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) SnickersCyclers (talk · contribs)
    Cobb Institute of Archaeology of Mississippi State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Aaastriddd (talk · contribs)
    Coldd Lassi Aur Chicken Masala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Teamdivek (talk · contribs)
    Columbus Girls Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Davidbolthouse (talk · contribs)
    Companies Registry (Hong Kong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Oscarsltong (talk · contribs)
    Conway The Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) CliffyBee (talk · contribs)
    Course5 Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) E2J3 (talk · contribs)
    Cristina Fonseca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) FastfabNA (talk · contribs)
    Cycas Hospitality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Curly Adventurer (talk · contribs)
    David Delaney Mayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) OWUDean (talk · contribs)
    De Modo Orandi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Finny Homoor (talk · contribs)
    Deevangana Chauhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Neel.joshi (talk · contribs)
    Diana Dowek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Agold009 (talk · contribs)
    Dion Todd (Musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rexchuq (talk · contribs)
    Dota Auto Chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) RonnieYang2000 (talk · contribs)
    Ecava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Tinkerwiki (talk · contribs)
    Elica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Genius Editor (talk · contribs)
    Eric Saperston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mountaingirl123 (talk · contribs)
    Eyegroove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Moholynage (talk · contribs)
    FEUTURE International Business Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) PQZZKYSOUSips (talk · contribs)
    FZ275 LGR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Pillebelgium (talk · contribs)
    Fingerprint Cards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wes97 (talk · contribs)
    Float (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Arsonjason (talk · contribs)
    Frank Koentgen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Kinkiee1 (talk · contribs)
    Free The Youth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk · contribs)
    Gateway Boys Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Davidbolthouse (talk · contribs)
    Gaztransport & Technigaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jonoweltman (talk · contribs)
    Gomathybabu Sadacharam Kulandai Velu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Nanukl (talk · contribs)
    Google Fast Pair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Vince789 (talk · contribs)
    Grace La (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mairakos (talk · contribs)
    Griffin v Wainwright and Hi2 Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Bodleyhead (talk · contribs)
    Guru Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Iamravitheja (talk · contribs)
    Haneda Airport Access Line Plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Bostonian9392 (talk · contribs)
    Hattons of London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hlondie (talk · contribs)
    Hedonistic Imperative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Damasen99 (talk · contribs)
    HelloGold Sdn Bhd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Vasu1206 (talk · contribs)
    Hi-tech Robotic Systemz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rm 1309 (talk · contribs)
    Hisham Hendi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Kiambiroiro (talk · contribs)
    How To Cake It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Renaclaire (talk · contribs)
    Hugh McElvaney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) DeirdresCoconut (talk · contribs)
    InnovateMR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Chatfielda (talk · contribs)
    Inphi Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 24Colours (talk · contribs)
    IntegraXor SCADA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Tinkerwiki (talk · contribs)
    Intellias Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Shecher11 (talk · contribs)
    Interactio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Peterroyer (talk · contribs)
    Iolevel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Bfistein (talk · contribs)
    Jamestown L.P. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) MorrisJumel (talk · contribs)
    Jammcard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) KAL4FreeEducation (talk · contribs)
    Jim Berkus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) UberVegan (talk · contribs)
    Joey Ghazal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Quirakintoo (talk · contribs)
    Jonah Ansell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Prof.Dr.Ikram Ullah (talk · contribs)
    Jungle Book Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Allanoscar (talk · contribs)
    János Végső (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Manataworf (talk · contribs)
    Kaan Gunay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Austino300 (talk · contribs)
    Kelli Valade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Cakaucic (talk · contribs)
    Kelsey Mellard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Tanriov (talk · contribs)
    Kingsley Otuaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Tomori Uriel (talk · contribs)
    Lani Lazzari (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Nyantiaz (talk · contribs)
    Leslie Gilbert-Lurie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Tjla12 (talk · contribs)
    Lifestream Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Anuk668 (talk · contribs)
    Loan-Out Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Calluuce (talk · contribs)
    Löve (game engine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ILevelUp (talk · contribs)
    Manus Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) DeirdresCoconut (talk · contribs)
    Marat Atnashev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Oleghv (talk · contribs)
    Marcellus Wong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Fingururu (talk · contribs)
    Mark DeMontis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Zech22 (talk · contribs)
    Martiza Dávila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Dtsen002 (talk · contribs)
    Mikey Alfred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Orealle (talk · contribs)
    Mindaugas Barauskas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Manataworf (talk · contribs)
    Molekule, Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Pebenea (talk · contribs)
    Monday Motivation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Benica11 (talk · contribs)
    Mpow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Alexlarsen2525 (talk · contribs)
    Nazifi Asnanic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Smartbash (talk · contribs)
    Neil Laughton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Salbliss (talk · contribs)
    Nel ASA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) S. Hager86 (talk · contribs)
    Niche Cocoa Company Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk · contribs)
    Nicolò Tron (diplomat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk · contribs)
    Nikolaus Kimla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) GlosyAbeki (talk · contribs)
    Orphaned Skies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Warpaltarpers (talk · contribs)
    Overtone Haircare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Greente28 (talk · contribs)
    PHP Tools for Visual Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Fernanda Liendo (talk · contribs)
    Pair of Thieves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) SneakyPerformer (talk · contribs)
    Party of Freedom (Lithuania) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Martynas16 (talk · contribs)
    Petroteq Energy Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Nikko Curtis (talk · contribs)
    Phoenix Labs (game studio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) JessiKa-ching (talk · contribs)
    PolicyX.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rahulagarwal890 (talk · contribs)
    PrintWithMe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Radsen12 (talk · contribs)
    Prithvi Hatte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) IGayathri (talk · contribs)
    QIMA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Alcibiade1 (talk · contribs)
    RAESR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Drumzkiqass (talk · contribs)
    Rajiv Dingra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Vixhere (talk · contribs)
    Ravi Kailas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Loperlone (talk · contribs)
    Raza Talish (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) MyNameIsJanMangu (talk · contribs)
    Rekha Chaudari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Kjogitha (talk · contribs)
    Relode LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) FrankieCP (talk · contribs)
    Remitly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Thesucculentking (talk · contribs)
    Rezo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Spazion (talk · contribs)
    Rina Fukushi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sweet lemoncake (talk · contribs)
    Rocket.chat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Cana181LOL (talk · contribs)
    Rohan Rathod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Suryarane22 (talk · contribs)
    Royal Science and Technology Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Carloschilo (talk · contribs)
    Ryujehong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Shaowiki (talk · contribs)
    Sage Automotive Interiors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ckredensor (talk · contribs)
    Sally Greene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Abcismeisme (talk · contribs)
    Sanjay awasthi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Awasthisanjay (talk · contribs)
    Sapphire Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Davidjsap (talk · contribs)
    Seun Ajayi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AmazonMod (talk · contribs)
    Sheikh Fazle Fahim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) NishorgaNiloy (talk · contribs)
    Shireen Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Decolonizingyourmind (talk · contribs)
    Short Term European Paper (STEP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) RYJ21 (talk · contribs)
    SlideDog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Daghendrik (talk · contribs)
    Slow Summits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mjn497 (talk · contribs)
    SouthGobi Resources (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Greatvictor999 (talk · contribs)
    Stefano Tomassetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Manataworf (talk · contribs)
    Swiss American Aircraft Corporation-23 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hot Blizzard (talk · contribs)
    Tachikichi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Myasuke (talk · contribs)
    Talal Khalifa Aljeri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Talal Khalifah Aljeri (talk · contribs)
    Tang Xiao'ou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Harbinger609 (talk · contribs)
    TechQuila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rohitpandit80 (talk · contribs)
    Ted Barr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) מתיאל (talk · contribs)
    Terry McEniff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) DeirdresCoconut (talk · contribs)
    The Groundswell Effect (Business) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Dj felines (talk · contribs)
    Three lions promotions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sportscanadabox (talk · contribs)
    Todd Spodek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Philipm1 (talk · contribs)
    Toshiba Memory Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Pigu (talk · contribs)
    TripBuddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) WalkerSutton (talk · contribs)
    UVeye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hellvikings (talk · contribs)
    Uma Shrivastava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Trilokization (talk · contribs)
    Umar Usman Kadafur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jonpotter01 (talk · contribs)
    V V Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) PQZZKYSOUSips (talk · contribs)
    Vayyar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Amyreed444 (talk · contribs)
    Veniamin Symeonidis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Manataworf (talk · contribs)
    Victor Kusi Boateng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) BedRockStar (talk · contribs)
    Viktor Yelisseyev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Manager1kz (talk · contribs)
    We Love Our Lamb Campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Nikjord (talk · contribs)
    William F. Shughart II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) HRShami (talk · contribs)
    Women's Fiction Writers Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mekhael88 (talk · contribs)
    Wordbee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) TMFalkner (talk · contribs)
    Wrington railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) FarFarBetterThing (talk · contribs)
    Yandex self-driving car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Alkanchik (talk · contribs)
    Yiannis Sarantitis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Crelmaws (talk · contribs)
    Young Academy of Scotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Shivoconnor (talk · contribs)
    Yousef Al Horr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Syedafarwazahra (talk · contribs)
    Zimbabwe Institute of Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Clivetagwi (talk · contribs)

    Now with tables! (Also, did I accidentally ping everyone on the above list?) MER-C 11:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Aren't these actually suspicious just by dint of appearing here to be examined? I.e. not potentially suspicious as the title says? Just pulling your leg! They are good candidates, I hope you keep listing. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Israel Adesanya

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. OmoYoruba45 (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC) I have a dispute with user: sfinlayson over Isreal Adesanya's page and I just want everyone to hear my side of the story and also contribute to the matter. Israel Adesanya is a Nigerian who moved to New Zealand at the age of 13 and he is a current UFC champion. Isreal Adesanya is a Nigerian and it only shows that he his a New Zealander on his page so I simply tried to change that to reflect that he is both but the user: sfinlayson reverted what I did and stated that I needed a reliable source saying that he is Nigerian and I replied by saying he is a Nigerian Because he was born in Nigeria and he only moved to New Zealand when he was 13. I also said moving to New Zealand doesn't change the fact that he his Nigerian. I then asked him What qualifies as a reliable source and gave the definition of who is a Nigerian by birth I said: "He is Nigerian by birth and this is my source [1] Every person born in Nigeria after the date of independence (October 1, 1960), either of whose parents or any of whose grandparents belongs or belonged to a community indigenous to Nigeria is a Nigerian" He then withdrew from reverting my edit. Secondly his profile says Nigerian-born New Zealander professional fighter... I changed it Nigerian-New Zealand professional fighter... because saying Nigerian born makes it seem like he is not Nigerian anymore or he is Officially representing New Zealander but that is not the case. UFC is an individual sport and he isn't officially representing New-Zealand he his only a New-Zealand citizen. If anything he is actually representing Nigeria because anyone that watches is fight will know that he has a Nigerian Flag beside is name during is fights also his official UFC profile says his home town is Lagos not Auckland New Zealand. The user: Rsfinlayson is a New Zealander and wants his page to only recognize him as a New Zealander and I was only trying to establish the fact that he is Nigerian also. He was even recently in Nigeria to present his championship belt to the governor of Ogun state because that is his state of origin. I would like you to include that he is a Nigerian-Zealander on his page and also a Nigerian-New Zealand professional fighter.... I would like everyone's opinion on the request. Thank you very much have a niceOmoYoruba45 (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC) day.[reply]

    @OmoYoruba45: This isn't the appropriate place to bring up content disputes. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution - first try to resolve the issue on the talk page, and if that fails, ask for other editors to help mediate the content dispute through channels like the dispute resolution noticeboard. creffett (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Imagination and others

    User:Vysha appears to be a subject matter expert. However, they have made numerous edits that center on a few sources (example) that appear to be the work of a single author: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. I raised this issue at the editor's user talk page: [17]. However, they never replied, and subsequently continued to make similar edits: [18], [19]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tryptofish: it is a very valid concern; looking at the articles list above, the sources by a Andrey Vyshedsky seem to have been cited on multiple occasions. Even if these edits are improving the encyclopedia (not all of the sources being cited by Vysha are related to Vyshedsky), this smells like self promotion. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting: the user has reached out to me at my user talk, and I've pointed them to here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Fingerprint Cards

    Listed in MER-C's June suspicious articles table. This has some weird buried news about insider trading, CEOs going to jail, etc. Needs someome able to determine if it's neutrally presented as written. Just doesn't seem the article quite matches its own sources with titles like "Insider Trading Arrests Hit One-Time Swedish Technology Star". ☆ Bri (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    World Water Council

    These IPs belong to the relevant organisations whose page they have been editing, edits have removed critical language, replacing it with the organisation's promotional language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.246.134.80 (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed

    My bad, I didn't see the references section nor its addition in the diff on my phone. This section can be viewed in the revision history of this page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Anoka Primrose Abeyrathne

    The user appears to be editing her own article, how should I tag this? The article has been edited by about 70 single purpose accounts (SPAs) (all the accounts in the article history without user pages except two). Edits by non-SPAs seem to be tidying the article rather than adding content. I have placed a COI message on the talk page of the last account used.TSventon (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Two further SPAs (added) have edited the account today, which is in line with the previous pattern of a new account being created for each day's edits. They have removed all changes to the article since 23 May, including unreferenced changes to the subject's academic qualifications by two IP accounts and attempts by User:BubbaJoe123456, User:Cmr08 and myself to improve the article. I believe these edits show WP:OWNERSHIP, conflict with achieving a WP:NPOV in the article and are further evidence of COI editing. It is also possible that the edits breach Wikipedia:Sock puppetry guidance on contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts and avoiding scrutiny.TSventon (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The page has been semi-protected, which will prevent edits by brand-new SPAs, and I've submitted a case to SPI, so we'll see if that helps.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has been returned to the last edit by User:Avengersarise today. The same editor has also requested extended confirmed page protection for the article. User:Nisallakmal had previously only edited two articles and had not been active since 2015. They were asked on their talk page not to add promotional content in 2015.TSventon (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    by * Nisallakmal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On the 30th of May, it was brought to our notice that the information had been changed purposefully to inaccurate(University of London was graduated from in 2013 and University of Colombo were graduated from in 2016. The degree certificates are available. Harvard University was not "signed up" for as it required over B grades, transcripts with A grades available. University of Cambridge was not 'signed up' for. Anoka Abeyrathne was matriculated at St. Edmund's College, University of Cambridge with a full scholarship to read for the Master of Social Innovation at the Cambridge Judge Business School through a competitive application. Faculty information and acceptance letters as well as current transcripts available. Thesis supervisor at Cambridge is Dr. Ana Aranda Jan - (Redacted). Anoka Primrose Abeyrathne's Cambridge email - (Redacted). In addition work and awards related information was changed purposefully by removal) information while Anoka Primrose Abeyrathne was presenting at an international conference. The participants of the conference brought this to the attention of the personnel involved in the said person's work. All citations are factual and non-promotional. The initial changes were made to discredit Anoka Primrose Abeyrathne, hence were reversed. Hope this clarifies the situation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisallakmal (talk • contribs) 09:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Please can any editors connected to the article subject read WP:COI and WP:PAID and disclose their relationship to the article subject and whether they are paid for their contributions. It is preferable for COI editors to request changes on the article talk page, not on this page which is for discussing conflicts of interest. I have listed above the two IP editors who amended the subject's educational record without citing sources. TSventon (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Nisallakmal has been blocked indefinitely (by NinjaRobotPirate) as a spam/advertising-only account, also undisclosed paid editing. User:Avengersarise and User:Pangeatonks have been checkuserblocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Erick Guerrero

    This promotional article has been heavily edited by Luis 0001, who hasn't edited any other articles. Help with cleaning up the article (and deciding whether the subject is notable) would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Artandimage

    This user says that they are not being compensated for their edits and they have no COI. I am not convinced either way so would welcome more opinions. SmartSE (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I find their contention implausible. Looking at Droga5 and David Droga, the awards section for each article is excessive. Every year we seem to get more and more award ceremonies, and the advertising industry is particularly rife with awards. Hardly surprising that the industry should seek to advertise themselves so much, but this "award-winning" stuff is getting ever more widespread on Wikipedia. I am not saying that these any of these are vanity business awards as such, but are they notable in the sense of Wikipedia having an article about the award? Edwardx (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Houzz

    Houzz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article has almost exclusively written by these single purpose accounts with some IPs thrown in to the mix as well:

    *YuMaNuMa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sorry this was a mistake SmartSE (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The most recent editor has confirmed they are an employee. The article is currently way too detailed, promotional and uses too many primary sources. Combined, it appears as if there has been a concerted effort over the last 8 years for this company to promote itself through Wikipedia. As well as the main article, they've added links to it to ~50 celebrity articles e.g. [20]. I've removed some, but there is more clean up to do, either via those contribs or Special:WhatLinksHere/Houzz. @Smallbones: This is a fairly blatant case of a major company abusing the project and far worse than North Face both in scale and time. SmartSE (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for bringing this to our attention. There have been 15 My Houzz episodes in total. All 15 My Houzz episode references have now been removed from the associated celebrity pages. These references were added in the context of cataloging their body of work, and in the same format as other references on their page. AGinCA (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Milken

    Openly declared representative for the criminal financier, here since 2011, has been shamelessly editing the article about his client to make him look better. This is not the first time this has happened, nor the first time we've tried to warn Weisenberg about this behavior. Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Teresathorne

    Is creating very promotional content in a draft space and user space. The user may also be using 66.131.2.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as their sandbox has the same content. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Our Planet

    Someone associated with Silverback Films has been editing the article recently. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Baurelia – University of Michigan

    The user Baurelia has, for the past month, been creating several articles exclusively about CS professors from the University of Michigan (see: their edit history). The prose in these articles is suspect as well. For example, on the article about assistant CS professor Danai Koutra, there's a 'Media' section with three articles where Koutra is mentioned only in passing, and the National Science Foundation CAREER Award – an award for junior faculty – is labeled "prestigious". Moreover, the subject herself is questionably notable, and while I haven't looked into all of them, the other subject I've looked into that they've written about is Nikola Banovic, who seems to be of even more questionable notability. In general, this editor's other articles, while I haven't read them in detail, seem to be equally suspect. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, NSF CAREER Awards are prestigious - some disciplines have pretty low rates of funding and lots of requests for funding - but I don't think they're anywhere near the caliber of award that we typically look for to establish notability as an academic.
    You might find it helpful to drop a line at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics); many of the regulars there have experience in making judgments about notability for academics. ElKevbo (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, of course, getting an NSF Career Award is better than not getting one, but they're given only to junior faculty in support of "early career development", meaning they're awarded more for potential than achievement. And they aren't that prestigious. Between Oct 1, 2017 and Sep 30, 2018, they gave out 21 such awards in computer science, a discipline that attracts a lot of funding. So, it's not exactly like getting a Turing award. Msnicki (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    City Vision University

    This editor claims to be the president of the university and has not only reverted multiple edits that fixed very clear, simple issues (e.g., an external link in the body of the article, incorrect case usage in a section title) but also asked that we "giv[e] [him and his colleagues at the university] more latitude to let us make edits to the page as we have over the past decade." I'm happy to work with him about specific issues or requests (with which we may or may not comply) but it may be helpful if someone else were to help him understand not only our COI policies but also our policies related to paid editing. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Will keep an eye on the discussion and join in if another editor's opinion is needed. I will note that this doesn't look like WP:PAID, just WP:COI (the editor is writing about the institution they're in charge of, but not being paid for the purpose of editing). creffett (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To me this is a SPA editor making blockable disruptive edits like this unexplained reversion. BTW Creffett they have self-outed as paid (if we may assume the CEO position is paid). ☆ Bri (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree; promoting a university is one the primary jobs of a university president. ElKevbo (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please use some common sense. Our school has a budget of less than $500,000 and essentially serves the Mother Theresa's of the world. Most schools our size will have most of their edits done by staff. To me this seems like a heavy handed editor not letting a school update the facts about itself when it is likely to be the only major source to do this. If you look at the talk page of ElKevbo, there is a long history of this type of complaint by other schools.Alsears (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alsears: Your university has a noble goal, but that doesn't really make much of a difference here. The fact of the matter is that you have a conflict of interest and are not following Wikipedia guidelines. ElKevbo's talk page has similar complaints because they were doing the same incorrect things. You are also displaying ownership tendencies over the university's article, which isn't permitted for anyone. Please take a moment to review WP:COI, WP:OWN (and while you're at it, WP:UNIGUIDE). You have broken a number of rules, and I'm honestly surprised nobody's requested a ban on you for disruptive editing. You are welcome to edit here, but you need to play by the rules, and if you don't you're going to get kicked out of the metaphorical sandbox. creffett (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ElKevboI get that you understand Wikipedia's culture and rules better than I do, and I'm trying to comply. Look man, I gave up a job doing Internet consulting for $200 an hour to train people working with addicts where I took almost a 10-fold pay cut. I'm trying to do the right thing here, and all the additions you just put on our wikipedia page are wrecking our organization's brand to prove a point. It's like you are driving a Mac Truck over Mother Theresa in your approach. Please tone it down, and try not to retaliate in your response. If you put COI notices on every small nonprofit organization that had staff update their pages, then they would exist on more than 90% of the nonprofit pages on Wikipedia. It's important to be consistent in enforcing the rules. You are not being consistent in enforcement because 90% of small nonprofits do not have that notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsears (talk • contribs) 22:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The tags at the top of the article are not punishments, they are tools used by the editing community to help with the editing of the article. That you took a pay cut to take your job is not particularly relevant to this discussion, and you may want to realize that you are dealing with a volunteer project where most of the editors are doing this work for absolutely zero pay. If you know of some other pages that are in a problematic state due to the actions of editors with conflicts of interest, you can point us to them so that we can see if they need to be tagged, but in general the argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a weak one, not a reason that we should ignore the problems here. Even after what scraping has gone on, there is still problematic content in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll admit that I could be interpreting WP:PAID incorrectly, but my read of it is that it refers to someone who is paid specifically for the purpose of editing Wikipedia (or, more generally, for advertising, and they use Wikipedia as an outlet for that). So if someone from a marketing department is editing their company's page on the clock, then that's definitely paid, since it's part of their job. On the other hand, if I (a mere software engineer) were to edit my company's page (and it weren't part of my job expectations and I hadn't been directed to do it), that would just be WP:COI. While I agree that a CEO/President/(whatever this editor is) has company promotion as a job, I feel like Wikipedia editing is outside of job expectations. Again, I could be misinterpreting, that's just how I understood the policy - if I'm wrong on this, I am completely open to correction! creffett (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PAID states "Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia." (emphasis mine) –dlthewave ☎ 16:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So it does (and I did miss that part, thank you for pointing it out). I think it comes down to what you consider to be "paid publicity efforts" - I just don't feel like an executive's job would normally meet that standard. I guess you could say that executives often have publicity as a big chunk of their job (being the face of the company, looking good for investors/shareholders/whatever, not doing monumentally dumb things in public), but that just doesn't seem right to me. creffett (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it's extraordinarily unlikely that "Edit Wikipedia articles" is a bullet point in the job description of a college or university president. But "represent the institution, promote it, and ensure it has a positive public image" is likely in the job description; for modern U.S. colleges and universities, external relations and fund raising have become the two overarching responsibilities of presidents. I think it all comes down to how someone interprets WP:PAID and how explicitly focused on Wikipedia and public relations on the Web someone's job description or duties has to be for their work to fall under that umbrella.
    Ultimately, I think it's a moot point in this particular instance (and probably most others) as the COI and POV issues are so prominent and pressing. ElKevbo (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I have nominated this page for deletion. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, the page on the university, not this page on COIN :p. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheAwesomeHwyh:@ElKevbo:@Dlthewave:@Bri:All I can do is apologize for my actions. I did not do them out of any intent to violate Wikipedia's policies, but simply out of ignorance. When ElKevbo reverted updates that I put significant effort into, I did not realize he was an editor. I had assumed he was essentially vandalizing our page and was angry. When I reverted his changes again, my goal was not to try to start some war, but simply because I thought it would be more productive to start with a page that was more accurate. I did not realize that was a major violation, so I'm sorry. Now that I better understand the guidelines, I get that there was a problem with some of my edits. Having said that, I corrected a number of facts that were simply wrong on the page, and those corrections got reverted. I don't know how to navigate all the rules of Wikipedia. If someone could please help me undo the mess I created it would be greatly appreciated. We train people who work with addicts. At the end of the day, I don't believe it's reasonable to delete our page simply because I was ignorant of the rules. We are an accredited university and have a significant history and impact that would justify having a Wikipedia page.

    Semtech

    I noticed some promotional and copyright violations made by single purpose accounts at Semtech and LoRa. LadyDuck06 failed to interact using talk pages and sometimes edit warred. Suddenly, their edits stop and a new single purpose account takes over. More eyes welcome. —PaleoNeonate – 01:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Greg Sestero

    See this edit from WikiFollowsFIlm (previously named "SesteroPictures") and this edit from WikiFilmAcct (obviously the same person). It looks to me like Sestero's company, Sestero Pictures, is trying puff up his bio. I've already requested semi-protection at WP:RFPP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rob Ryan (entrepreneur)

    User:Roaring22 created and is the majority contributor to these two BLPs. Thanks to our friends at Commons there appears to be little doubt this user is Robert J. Ryan, the subject of the first BLP and husband of the second (draft). Rob Ryan (entrepreneur) may or may not meet notability requirements WP:NBIO, depending on how one views his role as a co-founder and one-time CEO of Ascend Communications. Both article and draft use events at Ascend Communications years after Ryan's departure to overstate any such notability. Afterwards, the article places WP:UNDUE weight on various "educational" efforts to teach people to be entrepreneurs in their own right. The BLPs appear to me to be WP:PROMO replete with inline links to Ryan's various ventures. User:Roaring22 was first notified about WP:COI and how to manage it in 2016. User did not respond and seems not to have heeded the advice. SVTCobra (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rob Ryan (entrepreneur) is puffed up, but the person seems notable to me. The events at Ascend that occured after he left probably don't belong in his biography. Roaring22 probably does have some kind of COI but hasn't edited recently. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with rewriting it is the lack of sources. This source is so similar to the article itself, I suspect it too was self-submitted. The citations of Business Week and Investor's Business Daily are not available online. The only credible source I can access is this and it only mentions Ryan once, and not even as CEO. If I were to rewrite it, it would be incredibly short. What is the correct way forward? Also, is there precedent to nominate drafts for deletion or just watch them to see if they go live? --SVTCobra (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You can nominate drafts for deletion at WP:MFD. Sources don't have to be online to be valid. There are also sources on Google, such as [21] from Fortune, [22] from Inc., [23] from Entrepreneur, [24] from the Missoulian, etc. This version of the article doesn't seem so bad, and I don't think it needs all that much work. An IP editor already chopped out the worst of it, but he left a few things that are debatable, like stock prices (who cares?), the exact day the company went public (who cares?), and the company's performance after Ryan left (irrelevant to Ryan). Some of the claims should be better sourced, but if he's really "the principal architect of DECnet", that shouldn't be so hard to cite. There are hundreds of books available on Google Books that tediously detail the history of everything related to computing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know print sources are valid, but when there's COI or other reason to mistrust they were used correctly, I am unable to verify. I have found some mentions on Google Books that could be useful. What tool did you use to find the magazines you listed? I have come up empty for such sources in my google searches even using the date range tool to seek out older sources specifically. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like I was wrong above; the IP editor was reverted, and it was Melcous who did the pruning. Anyway, I'm usually more worried about grandiose claims than outright lies when it comes to COI editing. For example, claiming to have "helped create the modern Internet". I don't usually do anything special to find stuff on Google. I've been working on BLPs for a decade now, so I can usually spot useful sources quickly, and if they don't show up in the results immediately, I search them manually, like "Rob Ryan" "ascend" site:inc.com. If you use "ascend communications", you might miss out on a journalist who's too lazy to type out the company's full name. If this were a British entrepreneur, I would have searched the Financial Times instead. Eventually, you learn where to look if you want the best results. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I worked on the article and posted to the talk page if you are still following this. --SVTCobra (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    WICS

    I recently added a controversy on a local news station the other day, per my references this was not an isolated incident and controversies on articles of companies or organizations is not without precedent. I believe this user has a COI due to the fact that the supermajority of their edits are on articles of stations that belong to Sinclair Broadcast Group. Whenever a user questions them, they regurgitate whatever WP namespace page might be relevant, but that doesn't make it relevant. This user's article space history coupled with the fact that he did a revert without notifying me is suspicious. I cannot help but believe there is a possible COI and they might be affiliated or employed by Sinclair based on their contributions. --Charitwo (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Charitwo: I do not work for Sinclair or any other station group. I edit TV station articles based on facts from reputable sources. In your case, the paragraph was poorly written, so when it was put back, I cleaned it up a little. If you were offended, my apologies. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Poorly written may be subjective and both accurate at the same time, if not a little judgmental...however the circumstances as described are suspicious. Sinclair is taking active measures to try and sweep this under the rug by deleting/blocking comments and users on pages under their control and removing the relevant video of the meteorologist from any place it's uploaded to with no notice or reason. If you had simply cleaned up the article in the first place instead of blindly reverting without any notification to myself, we wouldn't be here. I do appreciate the cleanup, however, as constructive criticism on writing is perfectly acceptable. --Charitwo (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sharyl Attkisson

    Outside of Wiki, Sharyl Attkisson has been attacking her article as being "attacked by agenda editors" and has created her own sanitized version on her website that deletes any negative coverage (namely, her promotion and endorsement of anti-vaccine promoters and theories, such as that there is a link to autism) and promotes positive coverage (journalistic awards). Her twitter is currently rife with attacks on her page's inclusion of this, as well as attacks on specific editors she dislikes:

    She has launched a "Wikipedia Correction Project" and attracted interest from Rasmussen Reports, who are similarly upset their article is not a promotional piece. This is concerning.

    On top of this, she has edited on the talk page or main page with the two accounts above on-and-off from anywhere from a few months to a few years, and has only recently revealed her identity. I suspect 130.85.199.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is her as well, given it is a single-purpose account that has scrubbed negative content.

    To put it bluntly, this is unacceptable behavior. She clearly wants to exercise control over her Wiki page, which is not what should happen. Given she only operates under IPs, there is no single account that can be banned, but some action needs to be taken. Toa Nidhiki05 01:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    "Some action must be taken." LOL Your own biases are showing. Fortunately, your desire to control what people say and do, and keep unfair/biased/incorrect info ON a Wikipedia page is limited to this tiny universe. You are unable to control what people say off of this platform. Sorry about that but #Reality #LossOfControl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.210.72 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    My biases? What would those be? Toa Nidhiki05 23:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Further note: Attkisson has mentioned this thread on her Twitter account. Worth noting. The response in this thread was made at around the same time as the tweet, so it is possible this IP is also Sharyl Attkisson. Toa Nidhiki05 01:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - we are supposed to strictly adhere to NPOV and as volunteers, make sure that "conflicted" editors do not directly edit their BLPs without scrutiny from uninvolved editors. I ask, where have we failed with regard to this BLP's article? Our PAGs tell us COI editors can make suggestions on the TP of the article, and if they directly edit something that is not acceptable, we can simply delete it and request discussion on the article TP. What in this particular instance has not been followed? Atsme Talk 📧 01:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A few specific examples:
    • Including in the article this completely incited list of awards and honors that Attkisson requested be added; this section was added to the page without real question at the talk and more concerningly, was added without any citations. Many of the actually notable rewards are already mentioned throughout the article, leaving the need for this section dubious, but it also included non-notable honors like "team awards" at CBS and New York Times best-seller lists, as well as biased descriptions of her articles ("the dangers of certain prescription drugs and vaccines" and "Bush Administration's Bait-and-Switch on TARP"). This section should not have been included in its present form, if at all, which is why I removed it.
    • The use of various accounts and IPs, making it difficult to tell when it is her. Attkisson has used IP accounts to edit the article without immediately disclosing her COI, and also used User:Honeyplant to make major changes to the article that align perfectly with her complaints today (incorrect birthplace, puffery of her achievements, mention of awards, removal of vaccine coverage). She used this same account to rant about other editors on the article. Basically, she's been trying to influence this article for years.
    I am concerned by her off-website attacks on Wiki and her page - I don't know if she can be trusted to operate in good faith here, given she is routinely attacking other editors (including myself, now) on her Twitter account (she has alleged the article is being edited by Big Pharma and claimed the vaccine industry could be making false edits) and personal blog, combined with her specific complaints with the article (not including all of her awards and including her coverage of vaccines and counter-opinions). This has been going on for years at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 02:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like those things either, but we aren't the Twitter police. R2 (bleep) 02:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand the point of this discussion. Sharyl Attkisson has been totally up-front about her identity and has repeatedly said that she will not edit her own article. She has limited her contribution to making self-serving but fairly civil comments on the article talk page. As far as I can tell she's adhering to COI best practices. I don't see what the problem is or what good will come from reporting her here. R2 (bleep) 02:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it's clear she was involved in a lot of conflict back in 2012. How that makes this an "ongoing issue" I have no idea. R2 (bleep) 02:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One more not clear what Toa is asking for. Ms Attkisson is allowed to be unhappy with what we have written on our article about her, even on Twitter. She is allowed to ask us to change it. She is allowed to say things that make her look good. It is, after all an article about her. She would have to be a saint to remain perfectly neutral given that. Sure, we would prefer that she be a saint, but all that we can require is that she not edit her own article, which she seems to be complying with. That's all that we require. Now we have to, politely, listen to what she is saying, and, politely, add the statements that meet our policies, and not add the statement that do not meet our policies. That's the similar requirement of us. It's not trivial, admitted, it is a lot easier to edit an article that doesn't have the article subject complaining about it. But it is what we have to do, we can't stop her complaining, complaining is allowed. Toa, if you don't think you can edit the article given that, please don't edit the article. There are a number of other editors that think they can. --GRuban (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s an ongoing pattern of behavior over multiple years that concerns me. Specifically, I think it may be worth it to indefinitely semi-protect the article, as Attkisson has used numerous IPs since 2012 to make major changes to the article without disclosure and other IPs have made edits that go the other way and make claims or attacks that violate BLP. This would not impact her ability to comment on the talk, nor her ability to create an account or use her existing one (User:Honeyplant), but it would remove one avenue she has used to try and influence the page without disclosure.
    I am also specifically concerned as well with her ability to operate in good faith given her history on the page and attacks on editors who disagree with her (granted some of them were off-wiki). These have risen to claim of libel as well as claims that the page has been hijacked by Big Pharma. While she is more cordial on the page now, she has been less accepting off-wiki and I think that is worth noting. Toa Nidhiki05 19:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The last IP edit to the article was on May 31. It was pretty biased, and survived for approximately one minute. If we start getting regular biased IP edits, yes, we should semi-protect the article, but since we haven't had any for a week and a half, I think we don't need to semi-protect quite yet, and certainly not indefinitely. There is something to be said for being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and not having semi-protection be the default. --GRuban (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Gregorio Casar

    First few edits by this user have been inserting mentions of this politician to multiple articles that could do with careful scrutiny. I haven't notified them, instead blocking because they are quite likely to be a sockpuppet partaking in a sophisticated undisclosed paid editing operation. MER-C 14:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Elaine Chao

    The Elaine Chao article has an endemic problem with COI accounts adding poorly sourced flattering content about her and removing reliably sourced content. I cleaned the article up last year (the article was just one big promotional piece). In recent days and weeks, IP accounts and newly created accounts have sought to remove reliably sourced content, and add bad content. See, for example, this edit[25] by DoveBar which is basically the same copy-pasta text that got a number of COI accounts blocked in October 2018[26]. The account Megrei is also very likely a COI account: the account has only edited the pages of Elaine Chao and her mother Ruth Mulan Chu Chao. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    From the October discussion you pointed to this looks more like a potential socking issue than a COI issue (though it might be both). Pinging Alex Shih, who did the blocking last time. R2 (bleep) 16:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    StorMagic

    It turns out user Crackers250 who created StorMagic article works for StorMagic. Doesn't look good. From the user page here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crackers250). "Huge motorsport fan, that's where virtually all of my edits have been made. The CoI box above refers to the fact I work at StorMagic."

    @NISMO1968: I have moved the article to the draftspace citing DRAFTIFY, and have added notability and paid contributions tags to the draft.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SamHolt6: I appreciate! NISMO1968 (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=901283109"