Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. | ||||
{{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. | ||||
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| ||||
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Search the COI noticeboard archives |
Help answer requested edits |
Dilara Fındıkoğlu
- Dilara Fındıkoğlu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Palaangelino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Palaangelino is a Turkish Wikipedia user, and one year ago he was banned for his undisclosed paid contributions. 3 days ago I nominated Dilara Fındıkoğlu for deletion and he commented on the AfD. He continues hiding his connections etc. Also, he attacked to me on the AfD. I request sysops to get involved in the incident. Regards, Kadı Message 05:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- [1] PR contributions in WD. Kadı Message 05:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- First of all, I'm not a Turkish Wiki contributor cose of you all Turkish community that explains why TR Wiki was closed for years. Secondly, what are my connections? Non-sense complaint. I defend myself and my contributions cose Kadı requested spam deletion for my article for dilara and then all my wikidata items in just 20 mins. I request sending this user back to Wiki TR. Palaangelino (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep trying Kadı, not today ser :) Palaangelino (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Last warning: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Kadı Message 08:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yup, that's awesome you finally linked this here. I know you and so I was waiting for it. Now click the link and check it again, if it's personal attack or not that requesting deletion for every single item and an article of a user in minutes. How did you come, do research and decide all of my contributions are paid/PR/not notable in just minutes? How is that possible? Such personalized actions. Let's just make sense and stop this personal non-sense. Last words: Wikipedia:AVOIDYOU :) Palaangelino (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- I do not know you in real life, so I can not have a personal problem with you. When the items are examined, it can be easily understood that they are created for PR and promotional purposes. Your accusation of sock puppetry and your writing style match those of the advertisers I've encountered. @Vincent Vega also banned you, remember please. The items are going to be deleted in order to build a valuable online encyclopedia. Before you start contributing here, you need to understand Wikipedia's philosophy. This is my last reply. Kadı Message 10:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- You're so funny saying "you don't know me in real life" then ending with "before you start contributing here, you need to understand Wikipedia's philosophy" like you already know me. I know you very well, and I know you know me. You know my issue with TR Wiki that happened a year ago. A huge year and still chasing me. How don't you know me? It feels like whole TR Wiki talks about me. I'm being honest here. It was just TR Wiki issue and we all know how poor TR Wiki is, like how modern-illiterate the community is, needs how much more improvement in general - so Vincent and your other friends didn't tell you that they didn't even listen to me and my reasons - just straight banned me and also my friend with false accusations. Such a shame. These words explain TR Wiki so well: "Your accusation of sock puppetry and your writing style match those of the advertisers I've encountered" like y'all sitting online to just catch PR pokemons all day until you die. Also saying "when the items are examined" like you really examined them. If you examined enough, how it took only couple minutes to request deletion for that many items? You must be a compute bot or something. Please stop this personal non-sense and continue your Turkish PR pokemon catching activity. Have fun with your life. :) Palaangelino (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- I do not know you in real life, so I can not have a personal problem with you. When the items are examined, it can be easily understood that they are created for PR and promotional purposes. Your accusation of sock puppetry and your writing style match those of the advertisers I've encountered. @Vincent Vega also banned you, remember please. The items are going to be deleted in order to build a valuable online encyclopedia. Before you start contributing here, you need to understand Wikipedia's philosophy. This is my last reply. Kadı Message 10:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yup, that's awesome you finally linked this here. I know you and so I was waiting for it. Now click the link and check it again, if it's personal attack or not that requesting deletion for every single item and an article of a user in minutes. How did you come, do research and decide all of my contributions are paid/PR/not notable in just minutes? How is that possible? Such personalized actions. Let's just make sense and stop this personal non-sense. Last words: Wikipedia:AVOIDYOU :) Palaangelino (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Last warning: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Kadı Message 08:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep trying Kadı, not today ser :) Palaangelino (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- First of all, I'm not a Turkish Wiki contributor cose of you all Turkish community that explains why TR Wiki was closed for years. Secondly, what are my connections? Non-sense complaint. I defend myself and my contributions cose Kadı requested spam deletion for my article for dilara and then all my wikidata items in just 20 mins. I request sending this user back to Wiki TR. Palaangelino (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well, Kadı might not know you, but I do, and still remember how much of a headache you were back then. The user in question has been indef blocked on trwiki for paid editing. The evidence was found and reviewed by three admins (Courtesy ping Vincent Vega, Uncitoyen, Elmacenderesi), who in the end concluded that there was an obvious violation of the T&C. See the discussion there. I'm not going to comment much on off-wiki evidence I haven't seen myself, but if three experienced admins say something, that stuff is likely to be true. Less than two months after the block, the user proceeds to create this article on enwiki.
- I'm going to only judge based on what I have seen myself. The only article created by Palaangelino on enwiki is Dilara Fındıkoğlu, which reads more like a press release in itself rather than a encyclopedia entry: "Since then, [...] are some of the names that have dressed her creations in red carpets and stages."
- Most images uploaded by Palaangelino on Wikimedia Commons have "press photo" in their titles. This file depicting AYDEED, the subject of the article that resulted in his trwiki block, is taken from her own website and has OTRS/VRT permission, which means that he was at least in contact with them.
- tr:Hair of İstanbul was created by Seyit12. Seyit12 is also indefinitely blocked for the same reason: undisclosed paid editing. Seyit12's case was quite a bit obvious, as he had been blocked for the exact same reason on the English Wikipedia a few months prior, and is now globally locked.
- Why do I bring this up? Because Palaangelino created now-deleted item Q108462152 on Wikidata, which according to the deleting admin was also about Hair of İstanbul. To me, this says that Palaangelino is either the same person as Seyit12, is a part of his team, or offers a similar service as Seyit12, which in all instances means that he is also involved in paid editing. Some of his items at Wikidata have been created on trwiki by SPA's, and are now deleted. Seni seçtim Pokemon. ~StyyxTalk? 10:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I requested CU. Thanks @Styyx. Kadı Message 13:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- So I'm currently looking at Draft:Yasin Hacıoğlu, which is also recently created by a possible UPE. When I look at Wikidata item, Q106672382, I see that this has also been created by Palaangelino over a year ago. Every line we take just connects to an increase in suspicion. I think we are having too many coincidences here to still believe in AGF; Palaangelino himself is an UPE. ~StyyxTalk? 12:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- In regards to that draft, I suspected a COI campaign to create the article in question, because there are multiple users (I count 4) involved. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Swiss School of Business Research
- Swiss School of Business Research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- List of Unaccredited Higher Education Institutions in Switzerland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Historyman66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 190.35.60.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has in the past years only edited the [Swiss School of Business Research] page as well as related pages. It appears to me that they try to make the school look as good as possible, and are spreading misinformation about its accreditation. The user consistently aims to add information that the school is accredited by [Swiss quality label for further education institutions], which does not accredit nor deal with higher education. The user is also trying to remove this school from the list of unaccredited Swiss higher education institutions.
My worry is that this user has a conflict of interest. Another user, [User:ViRajPty] was notified of a potential conflict of interest and has said there is none, and they have engaged in talk page discussions. Historyman66 has never responded to talk page discussions nor to my notifying them of the potential COI on their own talkpage.
I would like to add an IP adress to this potential situation, as several edits containing the same misinformation were committed by users not logged in.
Functionist (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was directed here via AfD, where the Swiss School of Business Research is up for deletion for the second time. There have been a lot of copyvios, all of which have been revdel'd from the AfD version, but there's now another version in Historyman's sandbox with extant copyvios. It's pretty clear to me that they're not really getting the memo. Iseult Δx parlez moi 14:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- The article has now been deleted so I imagine this conflict of interest is no longer really relevant. But we will see. Functionist (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Samir.hashisho
Samer.hashisho just keeps resubmitting over and over drafts for companies that are owned by the same parent company. They've never responded to messages on their talk, including one asking them to disclose their clear paid contributor status. Never made a talk posting anywhere. valereee (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- It seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. The dairy article, that has been floating about for about two years in various forms. Now I recognise it. scope_creepTalk 14:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- And also undisclosed WP:PAID. I'll leave them a warning about that just so it's on the record. --Drm310 ? (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- They are still editing while refusing to communicate. I've had enough... I've contacted paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org with the relevant on- and off-wiki evidence. --Drm310 ? (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Samer.hashisho is now blocked for undisclosed paid editing, and all of their promotional edits have been deleted. Good report, Valereee. --Drm310 ? (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- They are still editing while refusing to communicate. I've had enough... I've contacted paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org with the relevant on- and off-wiki evidence. --Drm310 ? (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- And also undisclosed WP:PAID. I'll leave them a warning about that just so it's on the record. --Drm310 ? (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Emil.stanev
Another one, trying to create the same two articles from the same parent company. All the versions of La Crima Dairy that have been created so far need to be salted, IMO. Draft:LÀCRIMA DAIRY. valereee (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Ahmad Fawzi
- Ahmad Fawzi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Klhartog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A long-standing suspicion of undeclared COI (the article was written in 2015), based on several red flags:
- Single-purpose account: the user that created the article has only (with the exception of 4 edits) contributed to this article thoughout its existance.
- Tone the tone of the article is quite "PR puffery" and reads like a typical UN-format CV.
- Subject it seems rather strange that a new user decides to start (and end) its Wikipedia experience by creating the page of a rather obscure UN bureaucrat unknown to the general public.
- Timing: the article was created in October 2015, just 2 months after the person described in the article received quite some negative publicity following the scandal of an unpaid UN intern that was sleeping in a tent and Mr Fawzi held a press conference (shown also in a documentary on the subject: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/callmeintern) where he made questionable remarks about young people working in his office as well as statements on the existence of a UN General Assembly resolution that later turned out to be false.
- Editing modality: most of the article's content was added as a single, large edit ([2]), suggesting some pre-written text was provided.
- Information not publicly available. The sentence on the marriage status, daughters and languages spoken by the subject of the article do not appear to be in public domain, and are in fact not sourced. They are however common on UN official bios, suggesting that the editor was provided access to UN bio notes by internal sources, possibly the subject of the article himself or somebody from his office. A number of sources link up to documents stored on some google drive, including official letters of thanks, which are clearly private documents, not publicly available: another red flag that the editor may have personal connections with the subject of the article.
- Type of sources: in connection to the above point, the user, in one of its first edits, indicates he has "supporting evidence in PDF files" about the subject of the article, once again pointing to the possibility he may have been emailed documents by the commissioning entity in order to be used to create the article.
- Uploading of images: the editor, after posting images downloaded from the internet - later removed for copyright infringement - has then uploaded UN copyrighted images not publicly available on the internet, which raised the suspicion that the images had been received by the user from an internal UN source, possibly linked to the person subject of the article. Following the removal of those images too (see here, here and here) the user only recently claimed those images were available in public domain. While only one of the images claimed appears to actually be in public domain, I do recall however this was not the case when these images were nominated for deletion, and a quick search via the Wayback Machine shows there are no archived copies of the images now in public domain pre-dating May 2022 (while it was added by the editor in 2015): see here. Equally suspicious is the fact that - unlike the other photos released on Flickr by the UN Geneva account - only the 2 indicated by the editor have a public domain licence, suggesting a potential link or affiliation between the editor and staff in the UN Geneva account (run by the information service, incidentally the office previously directed by the subject of the article).
- Possible personal contacts: the editor has voluntarily shared his linkedin profile, which shows he is based in the same city where the subject of the article resides and works for the past few years.
- Shared concerns: suspicion on potential COI have been expressed by a number of users here and here.
Desyman (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Did you mean Ahmad Fawzi? PRAXIDICAE💕 20:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have been through the article Ahmad Fawzi and removed content that was fairly resume-like and was not verified by the sources cited. There may be enough left to meet WP:GNG, and there may be more available elsewhere that can be properly sourced, but it certainly read to me like a PR piece. Melcous (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae: Oh gosh, so sorry about the misspelling, of corse you're right :) I have corrected it!
- Thanks @Melcous: for the "purge" of non verifiable materials, the fact that private letters linked via google drive were used seems to me yet another red flag that this is a commissioned article. I am not so sure the notability is sufficient for this person (usually we do not have bios of mid-rank public officials not famous for other events), but that's probably for another discussion. In my view there are plenty of pointers here that suggest an undeclared COI/commissioned article.--Desyman (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have been through the article Ahmad Fawzi and removed content that was fairly resume-like and was not verified by the sources cited. There may be enough left to meet WP:GNG, and there may be more available elsewhere that can be properly sourced, but it certainly read to me like a PR piece. Melcous (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Herman Otten
- Herman Otten (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Karemsingh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Oetmon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jason586 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Non-notable page created by SPA, User:Karemsingh. It seems likely they are connected to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hammad Chaudhry/Archive (blocked UPE) as Sabel Naveen was working on thier sandbox, User:Sabel Naveen/sandbox when they recieved a block. Most of the sources are trivial, so if kept we have to clean-up the promotional edits. User:Oetmon and User:Jason586 edits are also suspicious. User:Oetmon is likely connected as they have edited their Dutch language page [3]. Thank you. 2A02:8108:4CBF:AE80:F875:1E6D:E013:D624 (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- and you are? Note for others, this is also at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 7. Star Mississippi 17:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Another note for others: Herman Otten (actor) was nominated for deletion once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Otten (actor), which was closed by Star Mississippi as No Consensus, and with a note that there was the smell of sockpuppetry. It was then nominated for deletion again, this time by an experienced editor, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Otten (actor) (2nd nomination). This may be a case of good hand, bad hand, or a slow-motion gunfight between sock farms. Wikipedia does not permit us to kill them all and let Jimbo Wales sort them out. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Culver City Police Department
- Culver City Police Department (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- 64.183.83.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2600:1012:B16D:5058:A975:2A7E:430A:975B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
IP has been consistently adding unreferenced information to this article since yesterday, and its ISP appears to be the Culver City Police Department. Two warnings have been given on its talk page by other editors, and all of its edits have been reverted. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've added a second, apparently related account. 2601:188:180:B8E0:3852:ACFE:34E1:8A4C (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Singapore Art Museum
- Singapore Art Museum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Sgartmuseum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User's only edits are to that article, and his username looks like the article's. Viewer719 Talk!/Contribs! 09:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- They've been blocked by 331dot. Just a suggestion for Viewer719, if the username is identical (or reasonably close to) the name of a real-life organization that the user is writing about, then they can be reported to WP:UAA. The username policy forbids accounts from representing organizations or groups of people. --Drm310 ? (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Aniruddha Jatkar
- Aniruddha Jatkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- AnuragIC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Thriver1983 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The editor has been adding 4000-5000 bytes of very promotional content here much of which is unreferenced which I have removed but he has partly reverted, added extra promotional content here and also removed the templates for blp sources and advertisement here. Then I reverted again here with a warning on his talkpage here but I don't want to get in an edit war. With this edit summary here he implies that he is editing on behalf of the subject of the article, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Added a second WP:SPA that has only edited this article, concurrently with the first one. The article also has a history of undisclosed paid and WP:SOCK editors. --Drm310 ? (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, added references from reliable sources to the Achievements section which was removed. Do not understand why the whole section was still removed. Please help out here AnuragIC (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Editor AnuragIC seems to have coi or is perhaps a UPE. scope_creepTalk 10:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor
- Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- WarpingSpacetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 10
The subject editor was given a standard conflict of interest notice and responded without addressing the question of conflict of interest. They then bludgeoned the deletion discussion, and are now bludgeoning the DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
SpaceX tourists
- Christopher Sembroski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Hayley Arceneaux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Sian Proctor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Anna Menon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Sarah Gillis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Scott Poteet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Jared Isaacman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Inspiration4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Polaris Dawn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Xpenz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Isaacman has contracted SpaceX for a vanity space tourism operation in which he is described as a "mission commander" and the occupants of the fully automated capsules are described as astronauts. I opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#Are space tourists astronauts? Are they flying "missions"? on how Wikipedia is describing this, I would appreciate if more editors chip in there. I am concerned by Xpenz's edits who has been adding the astronaut designation to these tourists for quite some time ([4], [5]).--StellarNerd (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is not correct, all of these people you mentioned all received FAA Commercial Human Spaceflight Recognition wings, witch allows them the commercial astronaut title. However this ended in late 2021. And all none government employed people who reached space and orbit cannot be called commercial astronaut anymore. Axiom Mission 1 is a mission that took place after 2021 and none of these people are called commercial astronaut, I all labeled them as Space tourists. Same goes with Blue Origin NS-20 and Blue Origin NS-21 Xpenz (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- @StellarNerd: What has this got to do with conflict of interest? Unless Xpenz is being paid by some of the space tourists or works for SpaceX, this isn't the right forum for discussing it. SmartSE (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- The very promotional framing of these people and narrow focus on these people and company. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- @StellarNerd: What has this got to do with conflict of interest? Unless Xpenz is being paid by some of the space tourists or works for SpaceX, this isn't the right forum for discussing it. SmartSE (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Azeus Systems Holdings Ltd.
- Draft:Azeus Systems Holdings Ltd. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Azeus Convene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- NinaLyons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Author has declared a COI on their user page, but keeps putting these two spam articles in the mainspace instead of using WP:AFC or in general letting someone uninvolved decide upon them. The articles are filled with primary sources and peacock or promo speech. Fram (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Edit warring, removing AFC templates and not listening to anyone = blocked. SmartSE (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
AAR Corp
- AAR Corp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Fgbwashdc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor has repeatedly been instructed to comply with WP:COI and stop adding puffery and advertisements to the article, yet the editor continues to defy WP:COI. Earlier today, the editor literally added a video advertisement to the article.[6] The editor also appears to have added a radio advertisement about how wonderful it is to work at the company. The editor's behavior has been on-going for more than a year. Thenightaway (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Link to previous COIN discussion from April 2021: /Archive 171#AAR_Corp (again) --Drm310 ? (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Oxygen
- Oxygen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Over the last few years, a single editor has edited a large number (~60) of science articles to state as fact the controversial claims made in his (AGF; the user account identifies openly as the researcher in question) peer-reviewed published papers.
Since these mostly concern the chemical properties of oxygen, I have attempted to discuss this with him on the Talk:Oxygen page, which links to a number of other venues in which discussion has happened.
(I believed (and believe) these claims to constitute pseudoscience and a fringe theory, and to be "not even wrong". However, there is no consensus supporting my views in this matter on the WP:FTN. I would have preferred a simple resolution based on the fringe theory guidelines, which is why I hesitated to use WP:COIN.)
Attempts at engaging with this author using the ordinary dispute resolution mechanism have come to an impasse: he insists on language that is unacceptable to me and does not address my concerns.
I believe this is evident from his latest response: [7] (please note that I dispute his contention that recent edits were in keeping with any kind of consensus we have reached).
An RfC on Talk:Oxygen has established that his claims are indeed, at best, controversial, with two strong statements of opposition to the inclusion of his claims. There was no discussion of these claims prior to inclusion that I am aware of. I feel that, at this point, WP:COIN involvement is no longer a "trump card" to prematurely end the dispute, but merely a method of arriving at the foregone conclusion a little sooner, and to conserve everyone's resources.
As stated initially, this concerns a large number of articles. I'm willing to provide diff links or other documentation for the others, if it helps at all.
Note that this does not concern the very good (IMHO) copyediting work done by this editor, his contributions to established science, or his prizes and achievements.
On a more general note, I think it would make sense to clarify whether reporting COI editors to WP:COIN is a responsibility, a suggestion, or merely an option for editors who become aware of them. My understanding, and the reason I'm writing this, is that it is a strong suggestion.
IpseCustos (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is a pretty clear cut case - this paper is WP:FRINGE as is evident from only a cursory glance at the title and the fringe theory noticeboard agrees. It is problematic that Klaus Schmidt-Rohr has been adding it to numerous articles, even if it was done in good faith. Whilst it has been cited by other researchers, from looking through their titles, it doesn't appear as if the "Fundamental Corrections to Traditional Bioenergetics" have been accepted by the scientific community. It's currently cited 41 times all of which probably need removing. SmartSE (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- There's a list at User:IpseCustos containing the above-mentioned ~60 articles (for the high-energy oxygen claim) and ~20 more citing the fringe papers. IpseCustos (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll take it out, of the 41, starting now. scope_creepTalk 20:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done one by reversion, but looking at the rest seem to be custom work on each article. scope_creepTalk 20:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Is it okay if I tackle some of them, or would it be preferred for someone else to do this? If it's the former, is there a template for the edit summary that it would be advisable to use? IpseCustos (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, please go ahead. I did notice the paper was added to a lot of articles around mid-2020, so it is well embedded.Edit summary, I would put something like "Restore. Oxygen paper removed... WP:FRINGE Please see the Coin discussion". Some combo thereof would be good. scope_creepTalk 22:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Is it okay if I tackle some of them, or would it be preferred for someone else to do this? If it's the former, is there a template for the edit summary that it would be advisable to use? IpseCustos (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done one by reversion, but looking at the rest seem to be custom work on each article. scope_creepTalk 20:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll take it out, of the 41, starting now. scope_creepTalk 20:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- There's a list at User:IpseCustos containing the above-mentioned ~60 articles (for the high-energy oxygen claim) and ~20 more citing the fringe papers. IpseCustos (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: Yeah I did a couple yesterday but they do take a while to work out what needs removing - no simple reverts AFAICT. @IpseCustos: Please do and you can use an edit summary like "rm WP:FRINGE / WP:REFSPAM - see Special:Diff/1093097666" - that's to my post above, but choose a different one if you like. SmartSE (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @SmartSE: That looks like a pro edit summary to me and ideal. Ignore mine. I had to withdraw when I saw the complexity of the embedding. It is really outside my knowledge domain unfortunately. Even the one I reverted was slight wrong so I'm better out of it, which has since been fixed by @IpseCustos:. A start has made, which is good. scope_creepTalk 13:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh. Sorry I'm only seeing this now, since I used a link to WP:COIN rather than a permalink to the diff.
- Anyway, I started removing the problematic claims and references, making sure not to mark my edits as minor.
- @Klaus Schmidt-Rohr: you have reverted at least one of these changes (just once) and asked others to weigh in here. I've stopped reverting these changes for now, but would like to resume doing so. It seems crystal clear to me that the original edits were in violation of Wikipedia policies and reverting them now is a legitimate course of action. Do you disagree? IpseCustos (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @IpseCustos: Can you please do the rest. scope_creepTalk 10:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done, I think, as far as ref spamming is concerned. I'll have to do a few more searches to make sure I didn't miss any fringiness. Let me know if you see anything I've overlooked. IpseCustos (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Or at least I thought I was done. More instances keep popping up. At some point it might make sense to go through Klaus Schmidt-Rohr's contributions directly rather than just searching Wikipedia for suspicious phrases, but I don't want to violate WP:HOUND. IpseCustos (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @IpseCustos: That doesn't apply here. Its not the correct context for it to apply. The paper must be removed. Its not scientific consensus. If you can find more instances, please remove them. And, thanks for doing the work. scope_creepTalk 22:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I went through the contributions. Things are fixed for now, but I may come back asking for help if and when the removals are reverted. Thank you both for your help! IpseCustos (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @IpseCustos: Thats coolio. Good work. Hopefully they are not reverted. If you see it, please revert and point them to this conversation. Great work. scope_creepTalk 15:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I went through the contributions. Things are fixed for now, but I may come back asking for help if and when the removals are reverted. Thank you both for your help! IpseCustos (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @IpseCustos: That doesn't apply here. Its not the correct context for it to apply. The paper must be removed. Its not scientific consensus. If you can find more instances, please remove them. And, thanks for doing the work. scope_creepTalk 22:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @SmartSE: That looks like a pro edit summary to me and ideal. Ignore mine. I had to withdraw when I saw the complexity of the embedding. It is really outside my knowledge domain unfortunately. Even the one I reverted was slight wrong so I'm better out of it, which has since been fixed by @IpseCustos:. A start has made, which is good. scope_creepTalk 13:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: Yeah I did a couple yesterday but they do take a while to work out what needs removing - no simple reverts AFAICT. @IpseCustos: Please do and you can use an edit summary like "rm WP:FRINGE / WP:REFSPAM - see Special:Diff/1093097666" - that's to my post above, but choose a different one if you like. SmartSE (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
West Ta East
- West Ta East (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- 123.208.65.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The unregistered editor states, in an edit summary, that they have watched the show on Youtube as a paid member. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Ta_East&type=revision&diff=1093134583&oldid=1093104073&diffmode=source
This is a conflict of interest and should be declared, but the unregistered editor has not acknowledged a conflict of interest in response to the notice by User:Bonadea. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
To add to this, the IP edits are extremely similar to previous edits (see here in particular) by Einstientesla, who identified themselves as being the copyright owner of an image sourced here to someone who would almost certainly have a COI. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is not a problem confined to West Ta East. There have been repeated efforts
- to create an article about the show's producer Ramiz King: see Draft:Ramiz King (creation log); COI declaration of one of the previous users creating this, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramiz King
- to add promotional text about him or name-drop him in other articles: [8], [9] and [10] (same article, clearly same user with different IPs), [11], [12]
- to create drafts and/or articles about other projects of his: Draft:The Hype House India, Draft:Life According to Ramiz, Draft:BaChashem.
- In addition to Einstientesla, an editor who has been heavily involved in promoting King is Positiveilluminati who has also edited as Godlypresence. There's also an editing overlap between Einstientesla and Positiveilluminati in Digangana Suryavanshi, where Positiveilluminati has a clear COI. Positiveilluminati and the IP listed above do some very similar things (MOS violating use of bold text, increasing image size in infoboxes, longish and rather uncivil edit summaries, garbled English in articles and elsewhere), so it's obvious to me that they are the same user, and that they are hired to market Ramiz King on Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 14:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is not true, I have nothing to do with what you’re saying and you’re hiding away from the point I mate about why would you remove such a credible and the most current article from
- ABC, on what basis when that explains the entire concept, I agree I may not be as experienced as you but I do not write falsehood, I take accountability for my err I’m in writing in a promotional tone but the premise of the show I have only stated it as per ad what ABC news reported it as which you’re hiding or removing repeatedly. Why? For instance even if I was from Ramiz King team which I am not does it still give you the right to take vengeance and remove credible sources and write your own personal v understanding ? Positiveilluminati (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you’re so very right then allow another party of editors to do an analysis on the source which you removed which was the parent source to the one additional source and then you can undo the edit if they too deem that the ABC news is spreading falsehood. Your current doing is basically implying ABC AUSTRALIA is incorrect in their reporting and spreads falsehood. Positiveilluminati (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have nothing to do with the allegations you’re putting on me all I’m asking on what basis you removed ABC Australia article when it’s an australia commissioned show and they personally interviewed them and why are you removing the premise of the show I wrote aw per aw the source? Forgive me for the promotional tone but the premise is what I fight for, it is misleading what you’re writing. Positiveilluminati (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Actual sequence of events: between 23:27 last night and 11:01 this morning (UTC), you made multiple edits (logged in and logged out – please make sure that you are logged in to this account when you edit Wikipedia), which were problematic for many reasons including violations of the Manual of Style, nearly incomprehensible phrasing, inappropriate image size changes, and promotional style. You also made multiple personal attacks in the edit summaries. Somwehere in there, you added the source from abc.net.au, which hadn't been in the article previously, though it looks like you thought it was. Since the changes overall were disruptive and completely ignored the talk page discussion, I reverted them in one fell swoop at 12:49 (UTC). You restored most of them at 13:40, and instead of reverting you again, I copyedited the content, fixed the formatting, and did some other necessary edits, publishing that version at 13:57. The abc.net.au source was not removed (well, I added another copy of it by mistake, so I removed the duplicate). Your posts above are from 14:17, 14:21, and 14:27, so you are registering a complaint about something that had already been fixed. This is not the point of the discussion, however. The point is that there is a coordinated effort to promote Ramiz King on Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 15:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Immanuel’s High School Trinidad and Tobago
MER-C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who typically does an excellent job with quarantining horribly written promotional pieces, not only draftified Draft:Immanuel’s High School Trinidad and Tobago but also tagged the draft as undisclosed paid and even blocked the editor. The strange thing is that nothing about this draft or the page creator (who is now blocked) looks spammy or promotional. Usually we can easily tell apart undisclosed paid editing with all those perfectly formatted new articles about so-called serial entrepreneurs and financial startups created by SPAs, but I am very surprised that a school like this could be undisclosed paid-for spam.
I have asked @MER-C: at User talk:MER-C#High school article, and he replied, "It's a private school which felt the need to promote itself in those references." To me, this is not enough of a justification. The presence of 3-4 cheap paid "fake news" or PR sites does not necessarily mean that the Wikipedia draft itself is necessarily paid-for spam, since it could be equally, if not more, possible that a random student or teacher at the school had created an inadequately referenced draft and had gotten those references from Google searches. We can tag it as not having enough references or not meeting WP:NSCHOOL, but why the block and undisclosed paid tag without any explanation to the community whatsoever? MER-C does not like to spill the beans, which is something you can't do all the time when dealing with spammers, but doing this to a school stub, which I see as being more similar to geographical location stubs, should require some plausible explanations.
In any case, I'm just a random uninvolved lurker who is wondering why this could happen. I could care less about this school itself, but what concerns me is that does this mean that any random amateur editor could potentially get blocked and have his content deleted or draftified simply for accidentally using the wrong sources from Google while creating a stub about a random neighborhood school? Also, I'm not accusing MER-C of doing this, but this could theoretically happen if something had happened off-wiki between the admin and the page creator or the subject of the article, or in other words, "the tip of the iceberg" of some kind of off-wiki drama. Skokesquak (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- The sources in that draft are really weak, half the content is an uncited list of past principals and "notable" students none of whom are blue links, and you are the only WP:SPA in the conversation. You've come here to announce your own CoI? In the bad old days this would be enough for a CU check. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Skokesquak: So you're a "random, uninvolved lurker" who just happened to stumble across the existence of this article/draft? And you seem to be keenly aware of MER-C's excellent track record and reputation, and Wikipedia nomenclature... despite your account being only two days old, and having no edits other than to MER-C's talk page and this one? Maybe you were an IP editor with a more extensive edit history and experience, but it's impossible for us to know if that's true. Anyway, this seems like a pretty spurious accusation to me, and attempt to create drama where none exists. This has the scent of either WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. --Drm310 ? (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- The WP:DUCK on this one is off the Quack-O-Meter. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe the OP is a sock. I do not know. I am curious about how MER-C concluded that a school that closed down 50 years ago
felt the need to promote itself in those references
. How could this defunct school pay anyone to write a Wikipedia article? That simply does not add up. Cullen328 (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)- I recognise that article as been on Wikipedia before, under a slightly different name. Looking at, it's not the school itself, it is the list of names that are important. Somebody on that list, wants to be on Wikipedia but doesn't have an article, that is why the list is so prominently displayed. scope_creepTalk 23:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- That someone paid for those "articles" used as "references" too. MER-C 03:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well they are dated as brand new. There is many digitial agencies that would creates these these types of articles, for not a lot of money, anywhere. They are not articles in the true sense, nor PR or clickbait. These seem to be these types of non-articles that are seo orientated, essentially a framework article, to drive to traffic to the site and promote the site in Google. It black-hat seo but it is also bog standard digital advertising now. They are intellectually empty. One of them is a press-release from Comtex an aggregation site. They collect them and run analytics and ml on them, to extract business intelligence. I wouldn't be suprised if these articles were just created for a few hundred quid, last week. scope_creepTalk 08:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to WP:AN. Skokesquak (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well they are dated as brand new. There is many digitial agencies that would creates these these types of articles, for not a lot of money, anywhere. They are not articles in the true sense, nor PR or clickbait. These seem to be these types of non-articles that are seo orientated, essentially a framework article, to drive to traffic to the site and promote the site in Google. It black-hat seo but it is also bog standard digital advertising now. They are intellectually empty. One of them is a press-release from Comtex an aggregation site. They collect them and run analytics and ml on them, to extract business intelligence. I wouldn't be suprised if these articles were just created for a few hundred quid, last week. scope_creepTalk 08:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe the OP is a sock. I do not know. I am curious about how MER-C concluded that a school that closed down 50 years ago
- The WP:DUCK on this one is off the Quack-O-Meter. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Skokesquak: So you're a "random, uninvolved lurker" who just happened to stumble across the existence of this article/draft? And you seem to be keenly aware of MER-C's excellent track record and reputation, and Wikipedia nomenclature... despite your account being only two days old, and having no edits other than to MER-C's talk page and this one? Maybe you were an IP editor with a more extensive edit history and experience, but it's impossible for us to know if that's true. Anyway, this seems like a pretty spurious accusation to me, and attempt to create drama where none exists. This has the scent of either WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. --Drm310 ? (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of who is asking, this is a legitimate question as Cullen328 has pointed out. You can do whatever you want with a CU or SPI, but I don't care because that's not the point.
This school shut down 50 years. There were four references and they weren't very good. Typically the proper administrative procedure is this: Draftify, warn, remove references. But for this school, there was no explanation whatsoever about why creating a stub about a defunct school warranted a block. This could spook other good-faith users who are creating minimally referenced stubs about defunct schools.
Question:
- Why this article in particular? There are perhaps dozens of stubs about defunct schools popping up every week, often with poor referencing. Why is this particular school subject to such unusually harsh measures?
Skokesquak (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Skokesquak: lol. This reminds me of the time someone accused me/ Wikipedia of favoring some boating manufacturers over others; as if. When the community points to facts indicative of nefarious purposes and the first thing you do is side-step the question, then you are almost certainly guilty. Please tell us who your client is. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked already. Quick work by @Bbb23:. Good on you. scope_creepTalk 21:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Walker Corporation and Hattie124
- Walker Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Hattie124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hattie124 is a user who is, by their own admission, an employee of Walker Corporation and is trying to bring the article up to date. The problem is that their definition of "up-to-date" includes extensive lists of projects, an issue that plagues the article even without his edits, and while I am sympathetic to some of their goals they've gone about it in a less-than-ideal way, making the article somewhat worse on the promotion-by-overdetail front than it already is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Jeske Couriano. I appreciate you taking the time to provide feedback. Could you please expand on what the specific issues are so that I can fix them. The extensive list of projects are factually correct as they are all Walker Corporation projects - therefore, could you please explain why this would plague the article as it is factually correct and the alternative you suggest? Additionally, when you state "gone about it in a less-than-ideal way", could you please advise the better way to approach this? I have attempted speaking to Wikipedia help chats to try and improve the page and ensure we are abiding by all guides, however, I am not getting any responses - so it would be really beneficial if you could please guide me in the right direction. Thank you. Hattie124 (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- The main issue is promotion by overdetail, with a secondary one being disclosure. With respect to the former, we're not interested in exhaustive lists of everything a subject has ever done - only the most relevant/important work, as determined by press coverage of those projects. I actually did respond to you, albeit belatedly, both times you were in -en-help to try and raise the issues and discuss them. For the latter, you need to disclose your employment on your userpage, not on the article proper.
- The best way to go about getting changes made is to request edits be made on the article talk page given your conflict-of-interest, not to make the edits yourself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Cassava Sciences
- 71.41.248.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 2600:1700:bb80:88a0:5140:14e2:6268:6f13 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- Cassava Sciences ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Simufilam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lindsay Burns ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This company has been accused of falsifying some data about their Alzheimer's drug which is currently being trialed. It's been pointed out on twitter that 71.41.248.226 is registered to Cassava Sciences (under their previous name of Pain Therapeutics Inc) and they have been making dubious edits to Simufilam and to Lindsay Burns, a Senior Vice Principal of the company, without disclosing their COI even after being warned about the need to a month ago. There are also a lot of similar edits by this IP range. Both articles could do with more experienced eyes to check that they are neutral, verifiable and also compliant with biographical and medical sourcing requirements. SmartSE (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- What a coincidence--there has been a section added June 14th on Cassava by a new editor in the The Journal of Neuroscience article which Tryptofish and I have flagged as of undue weight. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}
20:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)- Thanks for the ping. I don't have much to add about the J. Neurosci. page, except that it strikes me that the editing was done by a new editor whose only contributions so far have been to the Journal page and the Cassava Sciences page, and the edits have had a strongly anti-Cassava POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish and Mark viking: Yes there are definitely some SPAs on the other side as well. I've removed that section as I agree it was undue. SmartSE (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- It sounds like it'd be worth taking several of these pages to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. A month of semi-protection, maybe? Or is there some particular day (e.g., planned IPO, expected regulatory announcements?) that anyone could suggest? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish and Mark viking: Yes there are definitely some SPAs on the other side as well. I've removed that section as I agree it was undue. SmartSE (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I don't have much to add about the J. Neurosci. page, except that it strikes me that the editing was done by a new editor whose only contributions so far have been to the Journal page and the Cassava Sciences page, and the edits have had a strongly anti-Cassava POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Jeanie Roland and her restaurants
Jeanie Roland and the articles for her restaurants The Perfect Caper and Ella’s Fine Food and Drink were all created recently by three different new accounts. This is clearly not only undisclosed paid editing but also clearly attempts at hiding that fact. valereee (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- valereee, handled (was alerted to this by someone else) - everyone here is Confirmed to one another and to known Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bodiadub accounts. I've done a whole bunch of G5ing, and the two articles up for AfD are also G5-eligible (but I prefer not to G5 when there's an ongoing AfD). GeneralNotability (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Lil Smoky
- Lil Smoky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User claims to be an amateur rapper, is posting blatantly promotional stuff on their user page, user talk page, and their draft at Draft:Lil Smoky which has been nominated for deletion. He has also promoted himself in mainspace articles such as [13] and [14]. (Redacted)... (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 00:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)