Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 145

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 140←Archive 143Archive 144Archive 145Archive 146Archive 147→Archive 150

Peter Corke

This editor has edited with undeclared paid conflicts of interest (in 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, and now 2019) as an employee of Queensland University of Technology. They have been aware of the paid conflict of interest policy since at least 2017 based on [1]. Orville1974talk 01:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I will make no further edits to my own page or those related to my employer (the latter were just frustratingly badly written, the edits were not directed by, or paid for by my employer).

Peter.corke (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Peter.corke, you can post edit requests at Talk: Peter Corke and Talk:Queensland University of Technology as long as you declare your conflict of interest. It seems that you are a recognized expert in robotics. As for citing your own work, please see WP:SELFCITE. This is OK if your work is widely recognized by your peers as important in your field. Please cite your peers as well. Your goal should be improvement of the encyclopedia rather than promotion of your own work. Uninvolved editors are a better judge of that than you are, so please do not be aggressive in pushing ahead. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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

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)

  • 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)
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)
I don't like those things either, but we aren't the Twitter police. R2 (bleep) 02:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
That edit almost definitely wasn't her anyway. Different geolocation, and inconsistent with her recent pattern. I think Toa's proposal is a solution in search of a problem. As best as I can tell there literally hasn't been a substantial COI problem since 2012. R2 (bleep) 22:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Tao it's time for you to recuse yourself. Neutral is the most important word here. You clearly aren't. The subject's page should represent the subject's career, in its entirety. Nothing more, nothing less. CleoDulane (CleoDulane) 05:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Additional from Sharyl Attkisson, who has now published a blog accusing Wikipedia editors of being “Pharma Industry Agenda Editors” and “vaccine industry agenda editors”, saying the page contains “false and defamatory content”, and accusing Wikipedia of slander and censorship. This verges on a legal threat, something Attkisson has gotten in trouble for before. In fact, her IP was even blocked for making legal threats. The fact she is saying this off-wiki does not exempt her from the policy against personal attacks and/or harassment. Given her extensive history of ownership, undisclosed COI editing, personal attacks, and legal threats, I think a topic ban of all of Sharyl Attkisson’s accounts for all content related to Sharyl Attkisson, broadly construed, might be an appropriate sanction; her continued insistence on legal threats in concerning and she clearly has not learned her lesson on that front. Toa Nidhiki05 17:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OK, that is probably a blockworthy offense. So which active account(s) is positively identifiable as Sharyl Attkinsson so it can be blocked? @Toa Nidhiki05:, it is very unclear to me what you want. Do you want the WMF to file a defamation lawsuit? Or send a cease-and-desist letter? These aren't viable options. As far as I know, she hasn't encouraged her supporters to mass-edit the article only to submit stuff to her own website. Should we have more editors add the article to their watch page to guard against such an attack if it happens anyway? It might not be a bad idea. But what actual action is it you are seeking through this discussion? Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 173.66.57.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the most recent account she has used, as of a few weeks ago, so that would be the one to block. She tends to hop around across IP accounts, with the exception of User:Honeyplant, which is inactive and only had a few edits; this is what makes it difficult to identify which accounts are her, historically. There are a total of four accounts (including this on) on Talk:Sharyl Attkisson that I have positively identified, with confirmed diffs (she usually self-identifies after making an initial edit to the page).
  • Obviously no legal action should be taken, but blocking her most recent IP and considering a topic ban either now or in the event of future legal threats is worth looking at. She’s been trying to influence this article on and off since 2012, and I don’t think she plans to stop any time soon. Her concerns are remarkably consistent as well: namely, increasing the number of awards listed and removing all coverage of her vaccine reporting.
  • As for anything else, adding to the watchlist is definitely a good idea, along with perhaps Rasmussen Reports (which is making similar claims on Twitter and is working with Attkisson on the Wikipedia Correction Project). Toa Nidhiki05 18:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • A fifth account that I suspect she used; it links to her employer at the time, uses similar language (including a fixation on “Dr. Offit”, Pharma industry, was also blocked for legal threats. This account was blocked indefinitely on September 2, 2012; another was blocked on September 25, 2012 for legal threats as well. So this would be, presumably, her third block for legal threats.
The 173.66.57.46 IP does resolve to be near her reported residence. Is that conclusive proof, however? Also, as you say, she probably is on a dynamic IP so is there a point to blocking it? I doubt anyone would agree to range block an entire ISP or geographical region for an issue as small as this. I think Wikipedia is robust enough to swat the flies as they come. If dragons start swooping in, then I'll grow concerned. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Understandable. Just wanted to bring this to awareness here. The account has actively identified as her, however. Toa Nidhiki05 18:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Update: she has returned with a new IP, but has unfortunately accused the page and me specifically of libel. She has previously been blocked twice for legal threats. Toa Nidhiki05 15:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

Rongyao has been blocked for socking. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

User:LAKBURN123

Originally reported at WP:UAA but directed here. This user is WP:NOTHERE, instead trying to promote themselves rather blatantly as shown by the fact that all of their contribs are to their Sandbox which is talking about a non-notable DJ. CTB TripleThree (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I've deleted their promotional draft, and warned them about autobiographical edits(in case it is the user). I'm not ready to say they are NOTHERE yet, though it may end up that way. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing reference spam for a book "Pathway of the Birds"

If you search - within Wikipedia - for "Pathway of the Birds", you'll see multiple recent references to a single book: "Crowe, Andrew (2018). Pathway of the Birds: The Voyaging Achievements of Māori and their Polynesian Ancestors". All of these references were added - within the last few months - by IPs beginning with "118.93" (in New Zealand). There's clearly some sort of COI going on here, but, despite several requests on the IPs' talk pages, the editor(s) have not explained themselves.

I have reverted several of the most blatant reference spams - e.g., [2], [3], [4], [5]. However, I left several references to this book 'as is', because they appear to add useful information, and - if not for the apparent COI - appear to be legitimate references; e.g., [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].

I'm wondering what we should do about this. On the one hand, some of the references do indeed seem to be useful. On the other hand, the integrity of this encyclopedia is being compromised by this blatant spamming, and the clear, though unexplained COI. Should we be removing all references to this book - or only the most blatant examples of 'reference spam'? Ross Finlayson (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Other than the fact that the edits can be traced to Vodafone New Zealand, a major NZ ISP, (hardly surprising for a NZ publication on a NZ subject, added to articles about NZ and NZ-regional topics), what is your evidence for asserting a COI? Your edit summaries refer to it being "your [the anon editor's] book"; please explain this assumption. In this edit, for example, you removed the fact that the Kapingamarangi language is related to Maori. How does that help the encyclopedia, and its readers? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
One would rather expect a book about New Zealand, written by a New Zealander, and published in New Zealand, to be most commonly read, and referred to by, editors in New Zealand. DuncanHill (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Rsfinlayson, when I get a new reference from the library for an article I'm working on, it isn't uncommon for me to see if there are other articles that would benefit from that source. It could be completely innocent that this book is being used as a reference on multiple articles in a very short period. If the sourcing is helpful, it's not spam. If it's being shoehorned into barely-related articles, that would be a problem. --valereee (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
One would have to be extremely naive to assume that adding the same reference to dozens of different articles (sometimes more than once) is "completely innocent". Ross Finlayson (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't an important question be whether Andrew Crowe is a credible expert on the subject? All his other books seem to be about birds, insects and edible plants. --SVTCobra (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic for COIN, but I agree with SVTCobra's comment. Crowe's bio can be seen here: childrens books, popular science, travel and nature books. No mention of academic or professional scientific credentials. This aspect should be clarified, before such sources are used for scientific facts about migration, archaeology and other complex topics. And I doubt, that the systematic addition in several dozens articles is coincidence. A COI is atleast likely. GermanJoe (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I've gone through the book. Crowe's a good popular science writer, and it's an excellent summary of recent research into Polynesian voyaging. It's blurbed by the main names in the field. There hasn't been an overview of the field like this published for many years. The content is relevant to numerous articles, and I was going to go through it myself and do something like this; glad to see someone's doing it for me. It's perfectly possible that someone's just bought a copy of the book and is going through it methodically. To me it's irrelevant who's adding the content, me or an anonymous IP. All that matters is whether it's directly relevant to the article and improving the encyclopedia; perhaps we should look at the edits on a case-by-case basis and see whether they're improving each article. What Rsfinlayson calls a "blatant reference spam" ([11]), for example, is actually laudable: replacing a general fact taken from a Fodors travel guide with more specific information from a well-researched book. Why would we revert that? —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Blurbs are usually just brief endorsements. Even from prominent names, they are usually not thorough in-depth reviews and shouldn't be treated as such. But to clarify my stance a bit more: Crowe could occasionally be used by uninvolved editors as source for uncontroversial common information ("bird X lives in Y" or similar details, that any knowledgeable lay author could provide). Uninvolved editors are welcome to add or keep such a reference on a case by case base, agree. But he should not be used for complex scientific information (historical research, archaeology, linguistics, and similar topics). As far as I know - please correct me if I am wrong - he has no scholarly or professional scientific expertise in these topics. Where he faithfully summarizes existing scholarly literature, these scholarly sources should be used as sources instead. GermanJoe (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
There's no reason why Andrew Crowe has to be any sort of expert on the subject, he can still meet WP:RS despite. This is a trade called "journalism", for one thing, the ability to take information from other expert sources and to report it accurately, without also needing to become equally expert. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Remember when we thought adding references to articles was a good thing? Gamaliel (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm appalled by blocks and treatment like this Special:Contributions/118.93.145.132 (and came here to raise it). Comments like "rmv - book spam, scientific content based on speculating non-expert source". Sorry @GermanJoe:, but had you even read the book, or studied the bona fides of Andrew Crowe before you wrote it off as non-expert speculation? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
No, I didn't read his books. Yes, I carefully read his bios and other credentials (as far as they are available online). In fact, I was the one who linked the information to his credentials in this discussion (see above). Maybe read the entire thread, before posting borderline-insulting personal allegations. Aside from personal opinion, I haven't seen a single piece of verifiable evidence that this author is a topic expert for complex scientific information. Reliability is not a matter of good faith or of like vs. dislike, but of verifiable evidence. What's really troubling in this case are regular, respected editors defending systematic book spam (several dozen edits in quick succession by multiple dynamic IPs) with a negligent laissez-faire approach. Any form of advertisement is not only against Wikipedia's fundamental principles, but also undermines the project's credibility as trustworthy source of information. GermanJoe (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
If you're going to start throwing divine policy at us, I think you need to start with AGF. Also it would be good for you to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a training school for hall monitors. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Although I increasingly wonder if I might just be wrong on that last one. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rsfinlayson: Thank you for pointing out this problem. I have cleaned up a few more problematic instances, but kept ca. 20 added references for this book intact (where uncontroversial information was covered or the reference might be useful to look for better sources). I don't dislike the author or his book, but popular science publications without evidence of scholarly expertise should not be used for complex scientific theories and analysis. Of course any good-faith editor is welcome to disagree or discuss specific cases to find the best solution. GermanJoe (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I find it a bit strange that this has gone from a suspected COI case – still without any hard evidence that the author or publisher is involved – to an attack on the accuracy of a secondary source that none of the attackers has even read. I haven't read the whole thing, and my expertise is NZ palaeontology not archaeology, but what I saw looked fine. The book's been well-reviewed in the Listener and the Weekend Herald and has the OK from experts in Pacific archaeology like Pat Kirch and Lisa Matisoo-Smith, and that's good enough for me. It's perfectly appropriate to reference it extensively in Wikipedia, the same way I'd cite books by science journalists like Carl Zimmer and Ed Yong; Carl Zimmer's book Parasite Rex is cited extensively in Wikipedia; and you wouldn't replace all those refs with links to the primary literature, as Wikipedia is supposed to be summarising secondary sources. So can people stop attacking the work of a writer they've never read, and concentrate on determining whether this is case of excessive self-promotion by the writer or his publisher? —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Here's an example: GermanJoe removed information about long-tailed cuckoo migration being used by the ancestors of Māori to find NZ (the standard view, by the way, in the scientific literature on Polynesian migration) as rmv - speculation based on non-expert source. How does he know it's speculation? How does he know Crowe, who has apparently been researching this book for 15 years, is not an expert? How does he know the book is not WP:RELIABLE? He's never even seen it. I undid the reversion and added another reference to back it up; I could have added half a dozen. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
But GermanJoe is a logged-in account, therefore considered to be omniscient unless proven otherwise. The refs were added by an IP editor, so are treated badly, as a matter of course. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Based on the diffs presented above, I think it is the same editor adding the references due to the precisely identical way of filling in the citation template. The url is always pointing to Goodreads (not Google books or other) and the Auckland location of publication is always included (a parameter which is often skipped). Does that make for COI? It could easily just be someone reading the book and cross-referencing with Wikipedia. --SVTCobra (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The user reporting this supposed conflict of interest is ideologically opposed to anonymous editing(see e.g. [12]) That, rather than any actual evidence, seems to be informing their approach here.146.198.193.63 (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Well I'm not the reporter but I'm "ideologically opposed to anonymous editing", if by "anonymous" you mean IP editing without accounts (which is actually quite a different thing). But in the meantime, such IP editing is permitted, and so it's quite wrong to judge any contributions on that basis, and I try hard not to. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I know you are. You've undone edits of mine in the past for no reason other than their being from an IP address. This is thus pure hypocrisy. If you're ideologically opposed to people without accounts, you and the reporting user should not be wasting your time at an encyclopaedia that does not require registration to contribute; it will only make you unhappy and leads to timewasting like this report, and like your undoing of productive edits for no reason. 146.198.193.63 (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
If you're going to accuse other editors of being hypocrites, then post diffs. And ideally in a thread somewhere else, it doesn't belong here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No clear evidence of a COI has been presented and, in any case, wholesale removal of suspected COI contributions is not the appropriate response. Repeating the edit summary "Please stop spamming your book (across multiple Wikipedia articles, by multiple (though related) anonymous IP addresses). You clearly have a conflict of interest here; you need to report it" in this context shows an unacceptable lack of AGF. –dlthewave ☎ 12:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment: this approach seems like a very effective way to reject new users' useful contributions and put them off improving Wikipedia permanently. There are many reason John Cummings (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment: As the author of Pathway of the Birds, I have just stumbled across this page. Wow! I had no idea all this was going on. Many of these contributions could indeed be from me, but I have contributed much other material to Wikimedia for which I quote other references. The book is a peer-reviewed summary that took 15 years to research and write and is endorsed with a Foreword from Pacific expert Patrick V. Kirch (Chancellor's Professor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley) as a 'scholarly synthesis'. From Wikipedia's guidelines I understood that using material I have written or published is OK if it is relevant, but that it should not be excessive. It pains me to learn that so much time spent on improving the quality of information available on this subject is being treated as mere 'reference spam' and being deleted. Surely any test for 'disruptive editing' should hinge on whether information is being added gratuitously - ie without making any material improvement to the encyclopedia. That is the test I apply to myself.118.93.22.58 (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
118.93.22.58, thank you for responding to the discussion. Wikipedia's guidance tries to balance achieving a neutral point of view and not discouraging editors. As you wrote, the Citing yourself guidance allows using material you have written or published if it is relevant, however "adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming". I looked at the larger edits of one of the IP accounts mentioned earlier and saw over twenty references to "Pathway of the Birds" and none to other works, so it not surprising that some editors thought it looked like spamming, even though that was not your intention. The guidance on citing yourself is part of Conflict of interest guidance, which recommends that all conflicts of interest should be disclosed. I think that this discussion shows that is better to disclose any conflict of interest in advance, than leave it to the reader to speculate.TSventon (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks TSventon for taking the trouble to explain. Hopefully others will take up the challenge of improving Pacific coverage. For most entries, the history starts and ends with the arrival of a European, and, if Polynesians are mentioned at all, it is in connection with an early carbon date that has long since been discounted for sound technical reasons. That said, I am more than happy to give my corrections a break for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.129.228 (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
118.93.129.228 Thanks for encouraging me to read some more Polynesian Wikipedia articles. I forgot to mention the best way of avoiding reference spamming, which is to reference your peers' work as well as your own.TSventon (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

XLinkbot shutdown

XLinkBot has been shut down by its operator. More spam may be getting through as a result. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Dave Joerger

In the diff linked below, we can see that this IP is claiming to be a manager and friend of the article topic. I don't know if this is allowed or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Joerger&curid=39649637&diff=903580977&oldid=892198501 TitanSymphony (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@TitanSymphony: No, it is not allowed. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. I have reverted the edit. Whether there is actual WP:COI is almost secondary as it is WP:OR even in the best of scenarios. It is also highly inappropriate for this to be in the lede of an article which is completely devoid of anything about his personal life. --SVTCobra 16:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible UPE case

Till date the user had been repeatedly recreating pages about not-so-notable bengalis, I posted a UPE notice, he replied its for his personal interest,he's not being paid. But the new bio-page created now doesn't follow the trend of bengalis, and I suspect false UPE declaration. Daiyusha (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I cannot speak to the deleted pages, but of all the ones that are still up, the common thread seems to be cinema from the sub-continent, not just Bengalis. For a relative newcomer to create pages for actors of whom they are a fan and feel deserve a Wikipedia article is quite normal. I feel the suggestion that it is WP:PAID or WP:COI is unwarranted. Is there any reason this can't be handled through the normal channels of nominating for deletion on notability grounds when applicable? If previously deleted pages are recreated over and over again, it is disruptive editing and should be punished according to those guidelines. --SVTCobra (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: I would argue that it spans outside cinema, and its unlikely that a single person would be a fan of an upcoming director in kolkata(sandip pal), a very remote actress from mumbai highly unlikely to have fans at this stage of her career(Kate Sharma), a celebrity dermatologist(supratim paul). Amrita chattopadhyay is the only one with credible claim of significance. IMO these are the kinds of people who pay to get their articles written. Heck, even I would do the same if I were in their place. Daiyusha (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not an Admin, so I can't see the deleted Sandip Pal article, but are you sure it wasn't about the film director from Kolkata? As far as Dr. Supratim Paul is concerned, he seems to get a lot of press in India for his work according to his Instagram in Bollywood. Kate Sharma is verified on Instagram with over 400 thousand followers. I am sure she has fans that are willing to steal a photo from her Instagram and create a Wikipedia page for her. She's been the star of a TV show even if her film career is not yet a reality. I am not saying she is notable, just that I don't see evidence for COI or PAID. Also, what are the deleted pages which were supposedly recreated? I haven't seen any. And who would pay someone who is unskilled at editing Wikipedia without delivering a polished product? If it was a source of income, I doubt a person would limit themselves to a few edits a day on only a few days a week (with the exception of April 23). Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Sandip Pal was about a journalist turned film director from Kolkata. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
My bad, it was about the director. Its just that there is no correlation between the people who have articles written about, they are too remote to have fans enough to write articles, and too varied to have a common fan. Daiyusha (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
You keep saying that, but all of them seem to be quite popular. They all seem to have achieved a level of success which isn't going to be helped by having a Wikipedia article about them. You also say they are not connected to each other in any way. So ask yourself, which is the more likely scenario: All of these unconnected people somehow contacted the same editor and offered to pay them for creating articles? Or: Some random film fan thought these people deserved Wikipedia articles? --SVTCobra (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
We would need a 3rd person to comment on this with his views, both of us have stated our opinions. That said, I've reported users before as being a case of UPE and quite a few of them turned out to either be socks or some other editor found webpages linking the reported person to a "digital marketing agency". That experience makes me biased towards similar users being guilty. And his talk page indicates he was recreating deleted pages Daiyusha (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't disagree a third opinion or even a checkuser could be useful, but I do disagree the talk page shows any history of recreation. [[Sandip Pal] was only deleted once. It was nominated, but not deleted on a speedy criteria, but subsequently deleted on a DR. On the other hand, the user has not edited in three weeks. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Self-promoting issues on Nathan Rich

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
 – The more appropriate board and the one better able to assess whether this has crossed the outing like Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Recently I have noticed an article, talking about a YouTuber called Nathan Rich. I read this article, its talk page and its history. According to the user name and REMOVED provided by User:Trufeseeker, I think that User:Diaozhadelaowai is Nathan itself, which is very WP:NOTHERE. It's kinda of non-revealed self-promotion issue. Also, no sufficient 2nd-hand sources are listed, most of which are BBS threads, Podcast programmes and YouTube videos, some of them are even link farms, eg East Day, Daily News, China.com, etc. Hoping that the problem could be solved. --Cameoskulk (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

REMOVED --Cameoskulk (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I am curious why you and Trufeseeker have only ever edited or commented on Nathan Rich. Is it possible that you also have a COI? Beach drifter (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Then? Appeal to motive? Or Ad hominem? No way can I know Trufeseeker. I just watched a video made by Nathan Rich. The story he told makes me feel weird, so I created an account to try to find out something. And here it is. --Cameoskulk (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
You have the tags and the db spam added to the article, I would think that would be plenty for now, or you could try at the COI board. From the top of this page: This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Beach drifter (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Is this not WP:OUTING? Also, OP failed to notify the reported user on their talk page. This could easily have been taken care of with a COI notice on the user's talk page or at the COI noticeboard first, not here. But now that the issue has been raised, I find Trufeseeker's edits on the page to be more problematic, including PROD'ing it multiple times. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I share CaptainEek's concerns that some of the above posts may have crossed the OUTING line. However I'm not experienced enough to say so hopefully people here at COIN (where I moved it) can better comment. I've also informed Trufeseeker of our PROD policy and informed User:Diaozhadelaowai of this discussion especially since as mentioned above no one informed them of the ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Attempting to identify a user on Wikipedia by full legal name is against the policies of Wikipedia, and attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block. See also WP:PRIVACY.
As the page in question is that of a political commentator and the users have no other edits, it's likely political or other opposition, in my opinion. Recommendation for me is "do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information," as it encourages outing, so I will do neither. An article on an individual with Associated Press, CNN, Hollywood Reporter, Huffington Post, etc does not seem to fit the description you lay out. If you feel the article is lacking, edit per Wikipedia policy. I've temporarily "REMOVED" the attempts at outing in an edit, as I'm not sure about undoing an entire COI thread. However, the policy does say: "Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently." Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I have fully protected the page due to the edit warring over the last few days. Diaozhadelaowai, Trufeseeker and Cameoskulk - you all need to learn to be civil and focus on the content of the page and sort it out on the talk page. You are all on thin ice in my books. Sasquatch t|c 03:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: Sasquatch have blocked both users involved in this edit war. Rockstonetalk to me! 21:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

@PaleoNeonate: Hi editor, is it a conflict of interest if these are factual additions to the aforementioned page (and backed by credible sources)? Please let me know, thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidepikiw9102 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I never noticed the above message before, since it was unsigned, WP:PING did not work. In any case, I'm writing here as an update: editing has resumed at LoRa. —PaleoNeonate – 19:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Aidepikiw9102 and LadyDuck06: if you are working for a company to edit Wikipedia, there are clear policies about mandatory disclosure (please see WP:PAID for details). Policies also don't forbid, but strongly discourage editing related articles, but to instead propose changes at the article's talk page (WP:COI for more information). I am not the best person to help with COI, but this is a noticeboard where others can notice to help and/or apply sanctions if necessary. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: confirmed as sockpuppets and blocked. —PaleoNeonate – 22:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Keven McDonald

The subject of the article, User:Kmacjdwiki, is now discussing at Talk:Keven McDonald. Any further concerns should be raised on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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.

Kmacjdwiki (talk · contribs) has identified himself as the subject of the article on Keven McDonald, which he has been editing extensively to add unsourced self-promotion; this appears to be the user's only purpose here. He seems to have become quite belligerent (see previous diff) after SportsGuy789 attempted to revert some of these unproductive changes. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Has anyone attempted to engage the user in a constructive manner and explain policies? All I see is warning notices being plastered on his talk page. --SVTCobra (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, so I given the user the Wikipedia:Notable person survival kit essay with the hopes of reaching an understanding. --SVTCobra (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: Thank you. As to your first question, the user did receive some helpful, non-templated advice in this thread. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Keven McDonald. I've been instructed by "SportsGuy789" to refrain from further editing of the page of which I am the subject until I join the conversation on this page. What would you like to discuss?

Kmacjdwiki (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Keven McDonald

All – I will clarify the exact issues with the edits on the Keven McDonald talk page , but not right now. It's a plethora of things and will take a while to put together, which is why I haven't yet done so. SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I would have closed this as {{Resolved}} except since I got myself involved, I cannot do that. Cheers, --SVTCobra 13:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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.

Louis B. Rosenberg

Also Zoe Rosenberg (who I believe is Louis's daughter). The IP seems to be closely associated, but has not declared a COI. Ross Finlayson (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I have trimmed some content from both articles to hopefully make more neutral and encyclopaedic. Melcous (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Touro College

Perhaps it's my fault, but efforts to communicate with Lillibetsy have so far failed. Touro College has a fairly extensive history of WP:COI editing, and this appear to be more of the same – insistent addition of non-neutral content showing every sign of having been copied from somewhere, though I can't identify the source. However, COI is denied. Would someone else care to take a look? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi--you don't know me and your accusation that I have a conflict of interest is completely unfounded, as is your accusation of plagiarism. My changes are not copied from anywhere; all content is written by me and is unbiased and in line with Wikipedia standards. Your behavior on the Touro College page, along with JesseRafe's, is not in the spirit of making the page better. If you have constructive edits or additions to make, please feel free. In the meantime, please stop reverting changes and putting up maintenance tags. Also please stop threatening and harassing me, thanks! Lillibetsy (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I just reverted Lillibetsy's last change which involved the large-scale removal of sourced content. Chetsford (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I concur that there appears to be something going on here. I'm especially concerned about the whitewashing of the article - referenced information about the 2007 bribery scandal was removed for no apparent reason, and a quick Google search reveals that the scandal was covered by multiple reliable sources. Additionally, Lillibetsy has only edited about Touro College since the account was created five days ago, and several editors have tried to communicate with her with no success. I'll keep an eye on this article too. Aspening (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Lilibetsy has removed the 'multiple issues' template from the article five times since 23 June. Since there is disagreement on whether the article issues have been fixed, this removal should wait for consensus. The five reverts take us into the realm of the edit warring policy, even though Lillibetsy did not break WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Azusa Pacific University

User appears to be a paid public relations employee of the university linked above.[1] The editor has not disclosed this information.

Philistene94 (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Philistene94

References

  1. ^ https://www.apu.edu/articles/apu-partners-with-veoride-joining-the-race-toward-green-transportation/

Editor spamming and edit-warring his self-published research into articles

The editor Haiying123 appears to be adding his own self-published research into articles, even going as far as a to create an entire article which just summarizes one of his papers. The editor has also violated 3RR on Immigration where he's adding his self-published research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

e-print archives (RSP entry) are generally not reliable sources either. -Mys_721tx (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Center for Immigration Studies

There are weird things going on at Center for Immigration Studies. Multiple editors have repeatedly edit-warred out content from the lede of CIS which a a Nov 2018 RfC concluded should be in the lede (one account going so far as to repeatedly violate 3RR to keep the content out). I've checked these editors and pretty much all these accounts are accounts whose first edits to Wikipedia where to CIS or CIS's founder Mark Krikorian, and whose editing careers have mostly revolved around CIS:

It's also worth noting that both Darryl Jensen and ModerateMikayla (the two most active of these accounts) demonstrated familiarity with Wikipedia policies and practices in their early editing. 20 minutes after ModerateMikayla555 gets warned about violating 3RR, suddenly the SPA Griffy013 shows up for the first time in three months to continue the edit-warring where ModerateMikayla left off. To me, this seems weird. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Definitely suspicious. Might be worth opening a sockpuppet investigation as well. Toa Nidhiki05 17:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I didn't plan on spending much time on CIS, but repeated disruptive edits from Snoogansnoogans have repeatedly drawn me back to the page, among a range of other areas I've edited. I have no conflict of interest and nothing to hide, and resent the accusation that I'm acting in bad faith. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Being clear, the edit warring seems to involve moving the anti-immigration statements lower in the lede section, after delineating the Center's expressed position (low-immigration rather than anti-immigration). However this does seem like an attempt to circumvent the RfC in spirit if not in practice. It should be noted that this is a fringe political group and thus, we should treat it as per WP:FRINGE WRT to assigning due weight to the organization's statements about themselves. All that said, this particular nativist group has long been a hot-spot; but I'm not sure whether CoI/N is the right place or if it's more appropriate for WP:AN - to get it on some mop-wielding watchlists. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not looking to move it lower--they were trying to move it higher. The longstanding version--for the past few months--has been to have the phrase "anti immigration" in the second paragraph. That was the case all way up until Aquillon made an edit here adding the phrase to the lede in an additional place (the first sentence) three days ago. If you look at any version prior to his edit then, anti-immigration was indeed in the lede--it was just only in the second paragraph, rather than in both the second paragraph AND the first. I was just trying to restore it to the consensus, longstanding version that's been there for months, ever since the RfC ended, before Aquillon's edit. The RfC didn't specify *where* in the lede the phrase should go, so I just kept it where it's been. The short version is that I'm not the one trying to change the lede, I just simply want to keep it how it's been for months. Regardless, I appreciate your input and objectivity on the issue, which I know has gotten unduly heated, partially my own fault. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I can't do it at the moment. I strongly encourage someone else to do it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Done. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm trying to be on Wikipedia less, but that looked like a righteous SPI in retrospect. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The Common Good (non-profit)

This article has had three single-purpose editors pop up in the past week, all of whom have exclusively edited about this organization. The pattern here seems consistent with undisclosed conflict of interest editing, so I'm requesting additional eyes on it. Aspening (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding usernames and yes, COI/undisclosed paid editing is obvious. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Potential COI and Sock Puppet Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Appiah Akoto

Hello,

I have two users who work for the same company and edit in very similar ways. You can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Appiah Akoto their actions. Pambelle12 has had a huge history with deletions and seems to know quite a bit about the person who is being Nominated for deletion. Benebiankie Works for the same company as Pambelle and edited in a similar style. Note how they both used a bullet point with out a "Keep" or "Delete" comment. They made the same mistake. It seems suspicious and there is no COI tag either. Could someone please assist me in investigating?

Thank you AmericanAir88(talk) 16:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: I'm not convinced that there's sockpuppetry going on with these two accounts. Using the editor interaction analyzer tool [13], I see minimal subject editing overlap. This doesn't discount the possibility of WP:MEAT, however. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Drm310: If a sock is not very possible to occur, I feel that WP:MEAT and a general COI search are the way to go. AmericanAir88(talk) 16:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sharon Palmer

The article Sharon Palmer is highly promotional, full of puffery, and written entirely by editors/socks with an apparent conflict of interest. One editor has a username that matches the subject's name. Three are apparenly socks of each other. All are single-purpose promotion-only accounts. Is the subject of this biography sufficiently notable to warrant an article in the first place? Peacock (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I've toned down the puffery, but there are still serious sourcing and notability concerns. Melcous (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@PCock: I would start an WP:SPI for at least the three Joseph Navarro accounts, if not all five. --SVTCobra 13:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, but two of the Navarro accounts haven't edited in several years, so they are definitely too old for SPI. Both Sharonpalmerrd and Seattlemvp95 edited in April - I'm not sure if they will fall within the range of what a checkuser can investigate. I'll look into it. Peacock (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and filed a request at SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sharonpalmerrd. Peacock (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

There are some copyright concerns, too - a large portion of the article as it stands is copied almost verbatim from another website. The Earwig tool is coming up at 47.6%, but from closer examination it does not appear to be a legitimate duplication. I also checked the diff where the problematic text was originally inserted and that is coming up at 88.5%, so what likely happened here is a succession of edits that changed the text ever so slightly but did not resolve the copyright problem. I'm going to revert the article back to the last clean version and tag the article accordingly. Aspening (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Sharon Palmer, I don't think she is notable at all. Publishing one book doesn't do the trick for me or WP:BIO. Diet blogs are not significant or reliable secondary sources. Perhaps, WP:DELETION is the appropriate course of action here.--SVTCobra 18:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Article has been WP:PROD'd by Hut 8.5, so let's see how that goes. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Gerard Lyons

Long term abuse of this article by many SPAs, some IPs and all COIs (by nature of behaviour) going way back to 2016. This article is shamelessly self-promoting. We do not need 32 previous roles listed (only 7 referenced, some of significantly un-encyclopaedic quality). Similar issues exist throughout the entire article. I have grappled with the COI issues a little over the past 3 years but can't quite trace my actions at the various times this article has flagged up on my watchlist. I'm happy to trim down the article, but with this not being my area of expertise, I'm unsure without a great degree of effort which parts are notable and which are promotional. And of course any edits will undoubtedly attract once again the attention of the PR machine working in the shadows, so I thought best to refer it up to the COI board for a more focused fix. Rayman60 (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Liam Halligan

The state of this article is near comical. Self-promotion of an extreme degree by clearly non-standard SPAs who care little for format or guidelines. The absolute detail of the subject's career is excessive, obsessive and clearly not notable/encyclopaedic. The article is poorly sourced. It was started in 2006 by the subject himself, and has since then, almost all content has been added by one IP in one edit (20% of content) and one SPA (whose entire 71 mainspace edits have been on this article, adding 65% in a flurry of edits in Jan 2014). The article is so poor, I just don't know where to swing this particular axe, but I feel those more used to such profiles and articles would more effectively be able to judge just what's actually notable and worthy of salvaging. Rayman60 (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

On first glance at the article I couldn't see what you were talking about Rayman60 .... kudos to Viewmont Viking for having already come in and swung the axe, still some issues but so much better. Melcous (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Matty Cardarople

Editor is apparently subject's publicist, and has made edits "per subject's request", originally under a spamusername. Even after being warned about undisclosed paid editing, she has not made any disclosure. Orange Mike | Talk 01:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Vangogha (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as a sock. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Listing blocked sock as well as MattyCardarople, who identifies at the article's subject in the edit summary here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Matt Mason (author)

A very poor article. Standing at over 23,000 bytes, all edits of any significance have come from 4 SPAs, 2 of which are IPs. The article is excessively positive, promotional, like an extended resume that employs weasels and shuns NPOV. Again, I don't feel like I know the subject or their area sufficiently well to cut this article down to just the notable/encyclopaedic stuff, and would really be looking more towards the WP:TNT end of the spectrum unless someone else would like to have an attempt? Also note copyvio from linkedin profile Rayman60 (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Rick L. Danheiser

Left a COI template several weeks ago, and then left a another message, asking if their being paid, but the editor doesn't want to reply. scope_creepTalk 21:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I have added a COI maintenance template to the article and remove some unsourced content. Melcous (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Username is itself a problem; reported them to WP:UAA. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
First user blocked; adding another who appears to have undisclosed paid edits to this and other articles. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Baby Meenakshi

SPA with no edits outside "Baby Meenakshi". The user was asked to disclose COI, but has yet replied. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

High Point University‎

This editor has exclusively edited the university's article and a few others directly related to it but has refused to answer direct questions about his or her relationship with the university. The detailed and promotional nature of his or her edits makes it natural to suspect that he or she has a COI. ElKevbo (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The Rubettes

We are dealing with a number of promotional edits at the article by Massapequa4. This image file appears to identify the file creator as Barbara Sobel , whose business website Sobel Promotions identifies "The Rubettes ft. John, Mick and Steve" as their clients. Some of the edits by Massapequa4 at the article - now reverted or at least amended - were a total copy of material at that website. The question also arises of the content, and notability, of the article on Barbara Sobel herself (created by SPA PeachesCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Any advice? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm barely finding any sources on Barbara Sobel that are not self-published or passing mentions. I'm going to nominate the page for deletion. As for The Rubettes, I think that the page should be monitored and potentially protected if this behavior continues. I'm going to keep an eye on it for now and encourage others to do the same. Aspening (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Another note - now that I've nominated the article, it appears the article was deleted once before in 2010 for the exact same issues. Aspening (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Alvey Reels

Both users seem to be directly tied to the subject of the article. Both users have added substantial content with only one edit. Hard to discern how much of an impact it will have on the article. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 01:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Louise Robey

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Ladyhoney24 (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC) My name is Louise Robey. I have briefly edited my page. I realize that there might be a COI however I do not know why a malicious source in 2017 has been able to add inaccuracies and they stay on my page. Some of you leapt to my defense earlier this year which helped a bit however so much else is simply wrong or left out. I have only begun with the top 2 paragraphs to tweak. As the timeline is all wrong and much is left out what would you suggest? Please may I have some help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyhoney24 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for coming to the COI notice board. The most helpful step is always to WP:DISCLOSE when a COI exists. Then we can focus on mitigating the situation rather than worrying about establishing COI. I see that 195.194.187.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has identified as Louise Robey in edit summaries, if not elsewhere. Are you Ladyhoney24 declaring that not only are you Louise Robey, but you also made the edits from the IP 195.194.187.132? It may seem pedantic, but it is important to establish if we have two editors claiming to be the subject of an article, or just one. Cheers, --SVTCobra 11:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Just a procedural remark to note that 195.194.187.132 is the IP of my local public library; I have edited logged out from there several times. I don't believe I am Louise Robey. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Camp Cody (summer camp)

This user has been adding promotional content and created the article. I accepted this article a while ago at AFC, but the user concerns me. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Cumberland County College

This editor is likely connected to the college (it would be WP:OUTING to specifically say why I believe this is the case but I am confident that others can come to the same conclusion). He or she has not responded to messages left on his or her message and continues to edit the article. ElKevbo (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: She said the she is "A member of the college's communications office". Doing research has led me to several pages with the users name. According to linkedin, she makes a decently sized impact on the colleges marketing. Definitely a COI. AmericanAir88(talk) 17:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Alejandro Chabán:

This editor has made highly promotional updates. No response to warning on their TP and the promotional changes were put back again today. MB 00:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Exit (festival)

I'd appreciate it if some of you could have a look at this article, which is in pretty bad shape. In many ways it's typical of the kind--just a whole bunch of names with no secondary sources--and that's not good. In addition, there's a very likely COI editor/IP who has undone some of my cleanup and, worse, removed tags. Now they're accusing me of vandalism, of course. Anyway, I don't like working on those articles which are always too much like the company websites; maybe some of you can whip it into shape, and point out along the way, to the IP editor, what we are and what we do. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I've removed all of the uncited. I suggest full-protecting the article, or at least semi-protecting. Softlavender (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Softlavender, Melcous, Malcolmxl5, thank you so much. I am confident y'all will have this up for GA review in a few days. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Tang's Living Group

I reviewed the draft at AfC and suspected that the new editor, so far an WP:SPA had a COI and was probably an undisclosed paid editor. A Google search for "mark tang" "tang's living" indicated that the company has an employee of the same name working in a marketing function. I left a uw-paid1 message on the editor's talk page. The editor has since replied there claiming to have no connection to the company. I find this implausible. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

weather-atlas.com

User:D.Nino has already made a WP:COI declaration and was asked in 2017 to refrain from adding links to weather-atlas, though I noticed they've added quite a few lately. User:Kubaski has also added a batch of new weather-atlas links. It's not apparent if Kubaski has a COI here (my instincts say probably not). User:D.Nino has contacted Kubaski offering support for addition of data from weather-atlas. As a source, weather-atlas seems reasonable, but I want to bring it to the wider community for review as it's currently being added to quite a few articles. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no relationship with the company Weather Atlas or user D. Nino, as I saw that was added the parameter UV index I decided to insert, however I usually also use other sources for other data types, other than ultraviolet data not found in any another source, I say in monthly averages, just for weather forecasting. I saw that for some data the website uses NOAA data that is quite reliable and so far I have not found another source with this information taking as averages.Kubaski (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification. I assumed that your additions were made in good faith, but included your name in the discussion given the batch of recent additions. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Akshaya Patra Foundation ‎

The user adds unsourced and promotional material to the article without explanation. Clear case of WP:SPA Coderzombie (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

UCL Business

This SPA editor has "updated" article with promotional language that sounds like it is straight out of the marketing dept (and removed all existing refs}. I've restored the old article twice and have been reverted twice. Editor has not reponded to COI warning on their TP. MB 00:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I reverted to the previous article, and requested ECP. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The content was indeed straight out of the marketing department. Copyright violations revdeleted, editor advised that disclosure is mandatory. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Sisters of Notre Dame of Coesfeld

This has been turned into a recruiting pamphlet, with lots of smarmy hagiographic glurge about how wonderful they are. I assume the editor is a member of the order, or wishes to be, and naturally wants to present them in the best possible light. Sorry, sister, that's not what we do here. However impressed I might feel as a human being about what these women do or have done, this is an encyclopedia, not a fundraising venue. Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

[14] seems to support a COI. Nil Einne (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Very much appreciate your quick response. Your guidance is duly noted and well-received. Was aiming to add information into one unified page from their various website sources. Will work to make the content purely encyclopedic. Many thanks. --Tresagowland (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

​ Could you please clarify your relationship, if any with the Sisters of Notre Dame of Coesfeld? TheAwesomeHwyh 21:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Gina Loudon

There is an obvious COI account, GStephens92178 edit-warring on this page. The account returns regularly to remove unflattering RS content and insert poorly sourced puffery. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I brought this to the COI Noticeboard in Nov 2018 but nothing was done about it (as far as I remember). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible WP:UPE at Arjun (singer)

On June 5, Nat1991 posted at the Wikipedia Teahouse that he/she is an employee editing on the behalf of Arjun. Nat1991's last edit to the article was on June 7, but right before that and ever since there have been a number of 112 IPs showing up and adding content to the article. The 112 IPs all geo-locate to Sri Lanka where Arjun was born, so it could be just some fan (or fans) trying to add content. It does, however, seem to be more than coincidence and that there's at least some connection between the IPs. So, I was wondering if some others might mind taking a look at this and seeing if it's anything to worry about and whether it might be a case of WP:UPE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Some other editors came along and tried to help clean up the article, but an new IP 112 showed up again and basically continued on as before. WP:PP might be a little premature at the moment, but I still strongly think there may be some undeclared COI or UPE editing going on by these IPs. Is there another way besided WP:PP to try and sort this out? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Glass Lewis

Multiple users have expressed concerns about undisclosed COI editing at Talk:Glass Lewis and the user talk pages.

Courtesy ping Drm310 and Wikijnhgf2A. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I made the last set of changes to the page. I only removed "controversies" that were not sufficiently backed up, and removed misstatements in the remaining one to make it more balanced. I am a student currently researching Glass Lewis in regards to the proxy advisory industry and controversies. I am not affiliated with the Company. 185.113.248.250 (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

185.113.248.250, thank you very much, I am not affiliated with the Company is all I was wondering about. Let's see if someone else has comments as well; else, the thread will be archived after 14 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
While the changes appear to be valid (removing unsourced info), I will note that the IP 185.113.248.250 is registered to Glass Lewis [15]. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
If the IP is affiliated with Glass Lewis it seems to be the end of discussion, and all edits that IP made should be reversed. And further, I don't agree with the characterization that his edits removed unsourced information. Thankfully, there's no reason to debate it because the IP is associated with Glass Lewis (like all the other editors), but, for the record, his edits didn't remove information--sourced or otherwise--his edit simply added a more favorable characterization of the events. So much so, that the entire paragraph became nearly indecipherable. wikiedits123531 (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Moreover, it's absolutely not credible to believe that editor is a 'student' researching a topic, when all his other edits were section blanking, and adding things like Glass Lewis logos to the wiki page.wikiedits123531 (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Kirkland & Ellis

There's a persistent problem with IP numbers and single-purpose accounts removing controversial info and adding puffery-style content to Kirkland & Ellis. One of these IP numbers, 74.108.49.43, also removed puffery from rival law firm articles,[16][17] which seems to suggest biased motives (even if the puffery should of course be removed from all the articles). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Verisys

Article was created 2010 by ColinA3 and is maintained almost exclusively by said user. ColinA3 updates the article shortly after a new version of the software is available. The last 4 or 5 edits were by the user to update the version number within days of a new version, even though it does not even state a version number on the website. See: [18] and [19]

No mention of association is made anywhere on their userpage or article page and I doubt the person behind the account is a dedicated user. More likely the owner of the company behind verisys.

On the talk page you can see people questioning the notability of 'Verisys' when it was first created and TransporterMan stated "you might also want to take a look at conflict of interest" showing that even when the article was created it was suspicious on multiple levels. [20]

95.47.116.93 (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I have tagged the article with multiple issues. It does not appear to meet notability and it relies exclusively on primary sources. Searching for sources on Verisys or its developer Ionx is complicated by the fact there appear to be larger products/organizations using those same names, but searches did not immediately come up with any reliable secondary sources. I also notified the user of this COI discussion. My initial recommendation would be a WP:PROD on notability grounds and not worry so much about COI or WP:UPE. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Z/Yen

These two pages have a long history of abuse of Wikipedia as a marketing medium. I've stabilized the situation by applying ECP and handing out sanctions notifications (under WP:GS/Crypto), but these articles need the axe taken to them. MER-C 10:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I've swung the axe at the biography, if someone else would like to take a look at the company. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:JAMES WEST

This s.p.a. has posted two copyright-violating versions of this "article", each of which was deleted in due course, and has now requested undeletion of the second copyvio, stating we rebranded, hired a specialist, have more verified references, and ready to update our page accordingly. She has been asked pointblank to declare her obvious status as a paid editor, and has refused to answer. At this point, she's gone beyond clueless and is verging on WP:NOTHERE (commercial/spammer version). Orange Mike | Talk 18:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

BOLO – potential reference spam on behalf of a VPN website

I was recently solicited (via email) by a freelance marketer asking if I would be interested in "editing and inserting links to English Wikipedia articles". The party that contacted me named their client as vpnmentor.com, so we should be on the lookout for editors spamming references to this website. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, does anyone know if a tool exists that allows for editors to search Wikipedia for links to particular websites? It may be useful in light of the above.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
​Either insource:"example.com" in the search box or Special:LinkSearch will get you the results you want. Note that Special:LinkSearch needs separate searches for HTTP and HTTPS, so you'll need to do two searches like this: HTTPS search of example.com and HTTP search of example.com. The {{Domain uses}} template gives quick links for all three searches. For example, {{duses|example.com}} produces example.com HTTPS links HTTP links — Newslinger talk 23:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Chatime

Depaheqee has repeatedly inserted promotional content related to Chatime into other articles, mostly backed by unreliable sources and with edit summaries accusing editors who remove the content of "Deliberate vandalism". See the following edits for details:

​— Newslinger talk 22:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Depaheguee also makes a lot of references to automakers BYD Auto and Luxgen For example [21], [22], [23], [24]. I suspect some kind of marketing or SEO firm. - MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I've started a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Didetaexe. — Newslinger talk 22:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Depaheqee has been blocked by Someguy1221. This incident is most likely related to Pepardiger's sockpuppet ring, which promoted Tencent, BYD Auto, and Luxgen, investigated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pepardiger/Archive. — Newslinger talk 23:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Luke Howarth

Saundersashm has twice removed content from the wikipedia entry that the subject would not like people to know about, and replaced with puffery and use of poor sources straight from the website of the subject. Also, incorrectly logged edits to make it sound innocuous. After the first instance, I posted a COI template message on Saundersashm's talk page, warning about COI, I did not receive a response, but then Saundersashm did it again. This is a single use account, has not edited any other page. As per the talk page, there has been a history of COI edits, with the IP linked to a government department (the subject is a politician). I have made some changes to the entry to counter the puffery, to improve neutrality, and present a more well balanced entry. However I am a fairly inexperienced editor and don't pretend it is perfect. Powertothepeople (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Also a number of anonymous users and limited accounts have contributed to this page, possibly sockpuppet, so I have added them too for consideration. 202.14.81.60 is from a government IP address. Powertothepeople (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Midwest University

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation.  Eyer contact  03:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC) I am looking for advice on how to work with this editor who has an undeclared conflict of interest:

  • The editor stated on User talk:Tbum777 "I have been instructed my the President of the institution to correct the information".
  • The editor stated in an edit summary of Midwest University "I am an employee of the University and I have corrected information."
  • The editor has been reverting the work of two other editors, including removing the COI template (though it's present now). Efforts to engage with the editor on User talk:Tbum777 have proven unsuccessful.
  • On the advice of a Teahouse host, I will stop my own editing and try to engage with the editor on Talk:Midwest University instead. On the advice of a different Teahouse host, I am alerting this noticeboard (and asking for advice).

Thank you.  Eyer contact  03:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Definitely some WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF problems with this editor. It also looks like they've tried to back-pedal ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29]) on their earlier admissions of being an employee and directed by the employer to make changes. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Avner Dorman

Subject editing and creating articles about himself and his work. So far has ignored warnings on talk page. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 18:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Profiles for People and Michael Dakin

This user clearly has a person connection with the company and person. The username is very similar to Michael Dakin. Dakisan = Dakin? There is no sourcing for Profiles for People and the sources for Michael Dakin are very weak. AmericanAir88(talk) 19:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Fraser T. Smith

For a long time, this article has suffered from significant COI-SPA activity from a number of accounts intent on using this article for promotional means - most notably by listing every work this person has ever contributed to. An example of the article in its excessive form is here, before a discography TNT tonight by myself. Going back to March 2018, when I first came across the article, I have challenged this multiple times because I find the list inappropriate because it is unsightly - poorly formatted, overly detailed, promotional, unreferenced. The subject has been a session musician for over 200 songs and I find it wholly unnecessary to list in intricate detail every one here - that seems far more the purpose of Discogs or a personal website. There also seems to be an arbitrary distinction between entries in 'discography' and 'other credits'. I have raised these issues on the talk page and advised the editor(s) of the relevant guidelines but their determination and will to continue adding these discographies does not abate. I appreciate the subject has worked on some significant but having this list in this form is not suitable. As an example, I clicked one and subject did vocal engineering for one track on an album, and that was added as part of the discography. Rayman60 (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I have removed some more puffery and unsourced content and put it on my watchlist. Hopefully some extra eyes on it will help. Thanks Rayman60 Melcous (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rayman60,

In which way you find actual facts "promotion"? The only thing I'm doing is giving to Wikipedia readers factual information that can be proved by accessing to any music related institution, such as PPL/PRS, etc. Just to give you an example, to publish that Bohemian Rhapsody was written by Freddie Mercury would be consider "promotion"? Publish that the Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo da Vinci in 1503 is for you "promotion"? The only facts I am adding to Fraser T Smith wikipage, is his WORK, HIS collaborations with other artists, the songs that HE HAS produced, written, played an instrument on it, etc. There's nothing on that related to "promote" his actual work whatsoever.

I would like to ask you what is your interest in deleting the facts provided? What do you have against Mr. Fraser T Smith to keep investing your time and other contributors time in erasing this information and deny it to the rest of the world?Inca28a (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, it would be better to merge Discography and Other Credits tables to make it shorter instead the long list you mentioned? Inca28a (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Direct Action Everywhere and Wayne Hsiung

There are at least two connected contributors active at Direct Action Everywhere and Wayne Hsiung. I confronted one of them and she disclosed her affiliation. Please see histories of these articles and the associated talk pages. I presented firm proof of a meatworld relationship between another editor and the subject of Wayne Hsiung. It is not clear what the extent or nature of this relationship is but it has existed for years and seems to still exist now given how hard that particular editor has fought to stop these articles from being tagged as having been edited by connected contributors. Additional eyes and voices are needed. 112.119.86.128 (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Likely cross wiki paid editing farm

An editor brought up the first article to WP:RDS. When looking in to it, I was surprised there were 4 different language versions along with the English one for someone relatively obscure. Sure enough a check of the other 4 found they were all created recently. I noticed that the creator of our version Nolime had also created or made new versions of 2 articles as translations. One of them, on a Russian chess club seems to look ordinary. But the other one shows the same dubious history with the Italian version that the new English version came from also created very recently. I have added the user names of the cross wiki creators although only one of them, Rk has any edits here. The current RfC on whether cross wiki info can be referred to has not been closed so hopefully people don't consider it WP:Outing. Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

See also [30]. Some of Ross kramerov's other article creations (Ellington Properties, Renowned LA, Chelsea Bunn, Rubin Naiman) are also suspicious. I'm blocking for UPE. MER-C 09:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I had been looking into this myself as well, since that RDS post. Ross and Nolim's article creations also have a lot of overlap with pages or drafts that were previously created by known UPE sockfarms, which could just represent the same people hiring multiple people over the years to try and make an article. I think uncovering the full extent of possible connections to other accounts would require someone with global sysop to look at page creations and file uploads across multiple projects. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked:

for restoring the paid-for spam on Mariela Garriga. Account was Red X Unrelated [32], but is likely to be a meatpuppet. (Note: Ross kramerov created it:Mariela Garriga.) MER-C 09:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked:

as part of this UPE ring. Spam pages: Draft:Izellah Connelly, Carolyn Creswell. MER-C 08:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Digital interpreneur

Promoting Sun Media. Interstellarity T 🌟 14:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Their promotional userpages have been deleted and they have been given a warning. That's probably sufficient for now. Peacock (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Suhail Al Zarooni

Note: I added Cmsfreiberufler who created the article and uploaded all the images. --SVTCobra 07:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Long history of controversial edits with this article as a whole, beyond the three users mentioned here. Questionably notable, but has always suffered from a lack of NPOV. Suhailzaroo declared to be the subject himself [33], and has reverted users who have changed his edits. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 04:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I also noticed the same edit attempts to assert a WP:BLPPRIVACY issue about family information. Curiously, however, Suhailzaroo seems to be removing names of his brothers, but proceeds to add the names of his wife and five children. --SVTCobra 06:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it might be best to go for some level of protection which prevents the article from being edited by relatively newly-registered (and low edit count) editors. Just a suggestion. Mar4d (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Requested ECP. Also submitted SPI case. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Afrazwarsi has informally declared himself to be the subject's chief of staff [34]. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 15:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Lamar University‎

In a recent edit summary, this editor wrote: "As the new public affairs director at Lamar University, I'll be making some major updates to the LU page during the next month and then hope to keep it updated for the long-term. Today, under recent history I updated information about the opening of the Setzer Center and the Science and Technology Building. I'm a bit nervous about "citing" articles but hope I did that correctly." I left a copy of the paid editor user warning template on her Talk page but she has continued to edit the article without responding on her Talk page (or anywhere else). ElKevbo (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Based on the declaration you quoted, I have tagged her at Talk:Lamar University as a paid connected contributor. I've also added the article to my watch list. —C.Fred (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

North American Mastiff

I am frankly amazed that this article draft got accepted.

The Monsterpiece Kennel North American Mastiff (™) was developed over many years by selectively cross breeding seven mastiff type breeds. Monsterpiece Kennel, operated by Percy

Dailey and Desiree Coleman, was founded in Missouri, USA. They developed a new type of mastiff called the North American Mastiff (or NAM) to be an attractive family guardian that is

great with children but could also be a working dog and protect the family or property.

The sourcing is equally bad. RoySmith, did you even bother to read through this article? Bitter Oil (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I stripped out some of the most egregious stuff. Also reported the username to WP:UAA. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm looking at the version I accepted. I'm not a dog expert, but it didn't look too bad to me. I'll admit, I didn't notice the username. In any case, I'm not perfect. Feel free to go to town on it. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein

Within the last 10 days, there have been 250 edit changes to this page which are politically motivated to redact Democratic Party's association with Jeffrey Epstein, multiple edits with automatically accepted. 500 edit changes since June 2018. This is ridiculous for any Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff00seattle (talk • contribs)

That is POV pushing. We only address that here in an indirect way. You should roll the edits on the article back to the last neutral version and then ask for page protection. 112.119.86.128 (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

2019 BNP Paribas Sopot Open

The above user is a WP:SPA that only edits articles linked to the ATP Challenger tour but has made no declaration of COI. This is IMHO a promotional account for the organisation. their user nam was originally User:Sopotopen and they were blocked as having a promotional user name and were warned at the same time about making promotional edits. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Have you asked the user what their relationship is to the Sopot Open tournament? Perhaps they will tell you. Also, don't forget to notify users that there's a discussion on this board so they can participate (I went ahead and did it in this case). Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: I must admit I took their unblock request here to be a clear admission that they represented the organisation. I shall clarify. And my apologies about forgetting the notification, I consider myself trouted. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The good news is, they aren't adding fluff and some of their (reverted) edits proved to be verifiable by sources, but we should see if we can get them to WP:DISCLOSE. --SVTCobra 16:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Beacon Pharmaceuticals

The sole focus of Mstselim's editing is to add content related to Beacon Pharmaceuticals, a Bangladeshi generic drug manufacturer. Mstselim's only edits include creating Beacon Pharmaceuticals and adding the company's trade names to pharmaceutical drug pages. It clearly looks like paid editing to me, so I left a {{uw-paid}} message on their talk page. That message includes the directive "do not edit further until you answer this message", but they have continued to edit without responding. What's the next step? @Doc James: your input may be helpful here. Thanks. Peacock (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree. We may need to simple block them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay have blocked them to see if that will help with them figuring out how to use the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Dizzy Gillespie


Hello, My name is Jeanie Bryson, and I am Dizzy Gillespie's daughter. Someone has removed my name from my father's biography on Wikipedia. I would like to know who has the authority to do this, why they removed my name, and I would like my name to be restored to his page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Radjibirksbryson (talk • contribs)

Almost any editor may remove information that does not meet guidelines. Do you know the last time you were aware that your name was in the article(it's easier to examine the edit history that way), and if it had a reliable source? I believe what you say, but we have no way of knowing that any user is a particular individual, this is why published sources are required. Do you have a published source of any kind that indicates his children? 331dot (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It appears to have been removed in this edit. I would also like to point out Jeanie Bryson has an article as well. --SVTCobra 23:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems to have been sourced from The New York Times, but I don't have a subscription. @Vmavanti: Do you have some insight? --SVTCobra 23:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't remove sourced material. I have removed material from articles if it sounds like an obituary or in the interests of privacy. Sometimes people try to latch onto a famous person as free advertising. I'm looking over the article now.
Vmavanti (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
In the current version of the article, the following information was added without sources: "he died of pancreatic cancer on January 6, 1993 at the age of 75 and was buried in Flushing Cemetery, Queens, New York City. Mike Longo delivered a eulogy at his funeral. Dizzy was survived by his daughter, jazz singer Jeanie Bryson, and a grandson, Radji Birks Bryson-Barrett." Any unsourced material can be deleted. That's the first problem. Others are using Gillespie's first name and writing a sentence that reads like an obituary in a newspaper. There's no need to say who he was survived by. That's what newspapers are for. WP is not a newspaper. This is an article about Dizzy Gillespie, not his relatives. Interested readers might like to read our rules.
Vmavanti (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I had hoped you wouldn't get so defensive and I wasn't accusing you of wrongdoing, just noting you made the edit in question. Like I said, I cannot read NYT. But it is odd a Lefel 5 Vital Article would contain so little about his personal life. This is far outside my range of articles, but it is either true or false. We can't have articles diametrically opposed. --SVTCobra 02:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Sukavich Rangsitpol‎

There were previous related threads at WP:BLPN and WP:ANI that are now archived (1, 2, 3, 3 seems COI-only). Editing and spamming the talk page by likely-COI single purpose accounts and sockpuppets is a long term issue at this article (what can be seen at the recently archived second talk page are deduplicated instances of what is commonly posted, which archive page one also shows instances of). One related sockpuppet investigations page that I know of is this one (latest report inconclusive). There currently is an interesting recent "fake-consensus" at the talk page, competing against a legitimate ongoing RFC above. It's always urgent to whitewash, it seems. Since it needs more long-term attention, maybe this noticeboard is more adequate, unsure. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: I previously didn't mention/add any users other than the SPI, although there were multiple. I'm now adding and notifying ‎Yosakrai (not 100% single-purpose-account, but has reverted/deleted many times at the article and bludgeonned the same material at the talk page (talk page archives have more), and keeps doing so ([35], [36])). —PaleoNeonate – 07:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Update and notice of admin action: The user in question requested speedy deletion of the article's talk page, which I declined. --kingboyk (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I have protected the page due to edit warring. I have no background on the dispute or conflicts of interest, but there appears to be an awful lot of heat which needs to be looked in to. --kingboyk (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Roblox games

Looks like this user creates content only about Roblox games despite several warnings on their talk page and speedy deletions of some of their creations. Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It also seems like the editor is creating some hoaxes in draftspace, namely Draft:Toy Story 5, Draft:Rio 3 (2022 film) (which seems to be a copyvio from here, which I have tagged for speedy deletion), and Draft:Cars 4. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
It should also be noted that text identical to the Rio 3 draft appears on a suitibly licensed wiki, at this page, however that wiki seems to also be a copyvio, as the fanfiction page was seemingly created earlier. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

John William Loudon

The user JimboLimbo appears to be a COI account. The account has almost exclusively edited the John William Loudon page, including adding images to it. Note that the Wikipedia article for John William Loudon's spouse, Gina Loudon, has a long history of COI editing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Almost every edit since April 2013 is on this article. Edits show a bias to removing issues regarding the BLP's life such as this [37], and avoiding discussion with other editors, such as BubbaJoe123456 and Eyer, on these issues on the talk page. Britishfinance (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

QA InfoTech

SPA denied paid editing but some off-wiki evidence confirms he is working for QA InfoTech and handle their digital presence. He was asked to follow the AfC process but sound like he's not interested at all and also moved Draft:Adhyan Dhara that was created by another now blocked paid editor. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. MER-C 12:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Burney "The Burnout" Wong

user is blocked and article deleted ☆ Bri (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

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.

Editor is editing his own talk show page. IsraeliIdan (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

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.

Henley Passport Index/The Passport Index

Closing this discussion here, as there is another discussion on ANI with the same statements and information from this IP user here (permalink). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

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.

(Carried forward from [38].)

There is this summary revert, in which its editing summary said something about 'series' [39]... I instantly consider this to be suspicious.

(The summary revert basically restored all kinds of factual errors.
E.g., (Error 1) The people of the Isle of Man and the people of the Channel Islands are (under domestic/national (non-EU) British (British Nationality) law), no less of British citizens than the people of the United Kingdom: i.e., the IOM and the CI are not foreign countries for British citizens (e.g., see the British Nationality Act 1948, section 33(2) [40]); and
(Error 2) British citizens do not have an automatic 'right of abode' in Gibraltar if they do not already also have Gibraltarian status [41];
(Error 3) British citizens in Ireland (Republic of Ireland) are covered by the Common Travel Area regime (implemented by domestic/national Irish law [42]) rather than by the EU Freedom of Movement regime;
(Error 4) There is (de facto) no EU/EEA Freedom of Movement rights in Liechtenstein for British citizens [43][44]; I could go on...)

All in all, it is just incredibly strange/bizarre for a single-person, unpaid, amateurish/hobbyist editor to create, edit and 'maintain' (as 'the user' sees it) articles about (and only about [45]) the entry/visa requirements of (almost) all nationalities in the world, since 2013... unless, the person(s) behind the account is/are working for/with Henley & Partners [46] (which are based/registered in Jersey in the Channel Islands)[47] and run their own Henley Passport Index. [48][49][50][51][52][53]

In no time did the user/editor explicitly declare any such links. (Personally, I think he/she/they is/are, and this sort of errors are deliberately introduced in order to manipulate the passport 'powerfulness' score, as Henley & Partners would see it.)

194.207.146.167 (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The editing history for Henley Passport Index is also questionable [54], to say the very least! 194.207.146.167 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
And so is that for The Passport Index [55]. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Under "series" I mean you should follow the same style used in all articles under Category:Visa_requirements_by_nationality which contains about 200 articles all using the same designations. But yeah go ahead and conduct any checks on me, none of the things you suggest are true. I don't care about your personal attacks much but I don't know if the company you mentioned might find your out there claims libelous. I am simply asking you to read and apply the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You didn't really address the other points which I have raised, such as that British citizens do not have automatic 'right of abode' in Gibraltar. The 'right of abode' is term coined by the British Nationality Act 1981 ("An Act to make fresh provision about citizenship and nationality, and to amend the Immigration Act 1971 as regards the right of abode in the United Kingdom.") for the United Kingdom and the UK only. Gibraltar has its own immigration system, and the term 'right of abode' is apparently not (yet) used by the government over there.[56] 194.207.146.167 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
These issues seem to be the issues for the article talk page not the discussion about my supposed corruption. I have already addressed several issues on Commons anyway.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Your reasoning that eTA [57], ESTA [58] and eVisitor [59] equal visa free in the Commons is bogus; and our invoking of the Manual(s) of Style is also bogus. There is no inherent requirement (or good reason) for every single Wikipedia to read and sound the same… unless, you are promoting them (different passports of different countries, for different nationalities) as commodities for 'sale'. The present page Visa requirements for British citizens read like an investment immigration promotional literature to some Russian, Ukrainian, Chinese or Indian oligarch or ex-military man to read rather than for the benefit of someone who lives in the British Isles, where the vast majority of British citizens are based (otherwise, you wouldn't need to include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands in the visa/visa-free lists, because virtually every adult person who can read and write the English language in Britain, is a British citizen and actually has a current unexpired British passport would know this almost as a given); the arguably equally bogus inclusion of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands (Virgin Islands of the U.S.), Guam, the CNMI and American Samoa in Visa requirements for United States citizens would serve to confirm this. A lot of these articles read awfully like Henley & Partners or Arton Capital touting for business using Wikipedia on an unpaid basis rather than serving any useful purpose for the vast majority of this site's readers (if there is still any!)… otherwise, can we just remove all references to Henley, Henley & Partners, The Passport Index, the Henley Passport Index and Arton Capital, and if not, why not?! They have nothing to do with e.g. Brits (or any other nationality) wanting to go on a holiday (or vacation) aboard (or overseas), which is what these articles are primarily supposed to serve, not how many 'doors' a Passport issued by Country A would open versus Country B like some competition! 194.207.146.167 (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
This is insane. Please stop harassing me.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

194.207.146.167 (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a copy paste of the same thing the same IP user posted on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_145&oldid=1131534209"