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 |
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:
|
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)
- Oh, definitely another undisclosed paid editor here. I've left a
{{uw-paid1}}
notice but if they come back without disclosing, I'm not going to wait around before reporting them. --Drm310 ? (talk) 17:12, 29 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 ([1], [2]).--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)
- Xpenz blocked as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Warbayx. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:51, 22 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: [3] (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: [4], [5] and [6] (same article, clearly same user with different IPs), [7], [8]
- 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)
To my justice, yes IP address can be similar I never denied a connection with them But it’s only because we are using the same wifi network I think? And there’s a group of people who don’t promote Ramiz King Biasedlu only but all our favourite mtv stars or Bigg boss people hence our edits on the selected individual and fighting for our friends like emiway bantai and as a fan of PRATIK sehajpal we are on the drive to let the biased behaviour be diminished in Wikipedia which some participate and also during this journey we’ve discovered afghan media is in need of help as they don’t have facility like we all do and Wikipedia should consider that and the editors. Einstientesla (talk) 21:03, 24 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)
@GeneralNotability: found a couple more socks:
- NFTLoved (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- DrinkingWater47 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
See Draft:Avery Andon (art dealer), c:File:Avery in 2020.jpg, Draft:Laurent Tourondel, File:Laurent mugshot.png. MER-C 02:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- @MER-C: Another SPA - Pricetagg - came up in the edit history of Draft:Avery Andon (art dealer) before I nom'd it for G5. I wonder if it's another sock of Bodiadub. --Drm310 ? (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
GeneralNotability these also look pretty suspicious to me:
- Risih Anz (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Usunagi (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
If it turns out they're connected, it would be nice to just be able to speedy. valereee (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- valereee, nope, no connection I can see on those two. MER-C, Drm310, good spots - NFTLoved, DrinkingWater47, and Pricetagg are all Confirmed to each other and this latest batch. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:47, 24 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 [9] and [10]. (Redacted)... (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 00:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
How to Edit your Law Firm’s Wikipedia Page: 3 Golden Rules
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is a topic in which I have some interest--and I clicked with trepidation. I was happy to see the advice given is actually pretty good! Will wonders never cease? Dumuzid (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not bad at all. I bet they edit regularly. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- It was pretty non-dark-arts, wasn't it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- She has an exaggerated idea, though, of how much we give a darn that a firm represents a particular client. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Singapore FinTech Festival
- Singapore FinTech Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Sopnendu Mohanty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Eesan1969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kwansss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Two accounts closely linked to the FinTech scene in Singapore. Kwansss is a WP:SPA to the Singapore FinTech Festival, by which they made all their edits on a single day in 2020 and went stale. The article was created by Eesan1969. Sopnendu Mohanty is a "fintech professional" closely linked to STF, an article also created by Eesan1969. Multiple users or IPs over time (1, 2, 3, 4, etc), who had placed tags of paid or promotional editing in these articles has resulted in constant defensive removals including making threats to they will "report at ANI next time" by the same user who made these articles, Eesan1969. Also note that the photo on the Sopnendu Mohanty article was uploaded by Eesan1969 themselves, including as being the copyright holder. In fact they did this today, after the previous image which was uploaded by an account that only uploaded that very image, was tagged as a copyright violation. Also, all of Eesan1969's uploads on the Wikimedia Commons is connected to the STF, with photos taken by them at the event. 119.202.99.133 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am not based in Singapore. I am part of a fintech society and attended Singapore FinTech Festival in 2018, that's all my connection with Singapore FinTech Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Sopnendu Mohanty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and other. My real world identy is known by Wikimedia Commons Administrators. Kwansss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a few other accounts belong to my colleagues from the socity and created experimentaly with my assistance. I started to contribute Wikipedia much earlier.Eesan1969 (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Frank E. Holmes
- Frank E. Holmes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The article Frank E. Holmes contains multiple edits from the same three users indicating a potential wp:COI. A user interaction analysis reveals very close overlap in edits for Jguyer, Jetsflyhigh and user:Badgerta. See: https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Jetsflyhigh&users=Jguyer&users=Badgerta&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki) The article itself seems extremely self-promotional. Volcom95 (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Volcom95, Looks like an AfD candidate. I'm not seeing anything to establish notability in a quick glance at the sources. Toss in Promo and COI and got something better left off the encyclopedia. Slywriter (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- That was my first impression but I didn't want to be too aggresive. Are you going to AfD or should I? Volcom95 (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Whichever you like. Twinkle makes it relatively painless for me, so if you have to do it manually, Ill happily save you the time. Slywriter (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Special:Diff/1012328352 is when it got hijacked by COI/PR team. Pretty sure this is yet another Cryptocurrency PR job. Trying to figure out if he is notable based on the older version and some WP:BEFORE. Article is 12 years old. Slywriter (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- WP:BEFORE leans towards better than 50% chance of establishing notability. There is the NYT in current article which discusses in-depth, though admittedly in context of company and other potentially good sources in the previous version. Not sure if a revert to the pre-COI version would be best, but suspect AfD will not be the best place to clean this up the more I dig. I'll look more in the morning, if others haven't by then Slywriter (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Whichever you like. Twinkle makes it relatively painless for me, so if you have to do it manually, Ill happily save you the time. Slywriter (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- That was my first impression but I didn't want to be too aggresive. Are you going to AfD or should I? Volcom95 (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Tracy Bartram
- Tracy Bartram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Tracy Bartram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The standard COI--largely unsourced puff. Article badly needs paring and sources to be acceptable. 2601:188:180:B8E0:E88A:3DEE:416D:8F23 (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Crystal Head Vodka
- Crystal Head Vodka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Dustintitus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SPA keeps re-adding long unsourced list of awards. No response to COI notice on their TP. MB 21:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @MB: Thanks for bringing here. The have an obvious undisclosed COI/being paid to edit here and all of their edits have been promotional over many years. I've blocked them accordingly. SmartSE (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Engaging in UPE/COI editing will end in Nothing but Trouble. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
2022 pageantry UPE
- User:Missgluegurl/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- blocked editors in sandbox page history
- MaximoredelValle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) RadyoUkay819 sock
- Miss Intercontinental (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 180.191.14.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) rangeblocked by Bbb23, "either abusive logged out editing or block evasion"
- pages indexed in sandbox
- Miss World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Miss Universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Miss International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Miss Earth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Miss Supranational (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Miss Globe International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Miss Grand International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Reina Hispanoamericana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Binibining Pilipinas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Miss Philippines Earth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Miss World Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Miss Universe Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Mutya ng Pilipinas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Miss Venezuela (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Miss Universe Colombia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I suspect that there is a bunch of UPE going on around pageantry articles again. See COIN archive 164 for historical context.
We have one editor blocked recently as a sock of an LTA. I admit it's hard to tell who's a fan and who's UPE. Intercontinental coordinated editing that seems to promote the pageants, though, says something.
Inviting other COINers to consider the purpose of User:Missgluegurl/sandbox. I've brought this up at Bbb23's talkpage as a SPI-related issue but without these UPE-related concerns. Why the spike in pageviews around 5/30? Why the random set of users editing there? Why the index- and template-like contents? I'll reserve my tentative conclusion (call it an educated guess) until other people chime in. ? Bri (talk) 19:32, 24 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)
Unfortunately, this is a repeat of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_190#Aniruddha Jatkar from just two weeks ago. It seems be re-occurring. Cheers, SVTCobra 01:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- See my recent edits and edit summaries on this article. This user been insincere about this complaint as seen last time.[11] Whether this is a case of COI or not is not clear but the user is surely WP:NOTHERE. 110.227.234.16 (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Vika007, User:Serebroo, User:Napoleonico007
- Lena Hades (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Vika007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Napoleonico007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Serebroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User accounts Vika007, Napoleonico007 and Serebroo all are (almost) solely dedicated to edit articles related to Lena Hades. I have asked Vika007 to disclose whether she is related to Lena Hades (Vika007 has been editing Hades-related articles for 8+ years, often fixing the ever-moving "official website" for Hades), but Vika007 ignored my question.
I strongly suspect these user accounts are either operated by Hades herself, or are affiliated with her. Worth mentioning, in Russian wikipedia, there is ru:User:Serebro (notice the similarity to "Serebroo" username) who also edited mostly Hades-related articles. What's interesting is that both ru:User:Serebro and Vika007 describe themselves as "enthusiasts for modern art", art majors or in similar manner (texts on their userpages are almost identical). "Serebro", as I have discovered, has also been active at least in Spanish Wikipedia too (es:User:Serebroo).. where she also edits Hades-related articles. There could be more accounts belonging to this editor, but I only found three (or four, if you consider "Serebroo" and "Serebro" to be separate). 178.121.33.109 (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- User:Vika007 denied any connection to Lena Hades or the other aforementioned user accounts on her talk page. 178.121.33.109 (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Nehme1499's paid editing
- Peter Khalife (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Daniel Giménez (football manager) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Ali Fayad (footballer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Kazim Fayad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nehme1499 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Nehme1499 has advanced rights such as autopatroller and NPR, but they are a paid editor? Not sure, if Wikipedia community confers such rights to paid editors (or, at least remove autopatrolled because it has been abused?). Paid articles should go through AfC, so they can be reviewed by a neutral editor. Nehme1499 hasn't followed despite being an established editor. Also, they haven't declared where they advertise or how they acquire clients? It is required by Wikimedia TOU, so they should do that.
Perhaps, a warning and draftification of their articles should work? Biographies such as Kazim Fayad are completely non-notable. 95.233.30.130 (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- In accordance with the Terms of Use, I
must disclose [my] employer [...] in at least one of the following ways: 1. a statement on your user page (done), 2. a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (done) [...]
. What is not permitted ispaid contributions without disclosure
(my emphasis), which is not what I have done. Also, I make sure that, regardless of whether I have been paid or not for the articles I publish, they all pass the WP:GNG guideline (which, from my viewpoint, all five of the articles listed above do). Peter Khalife, for example, was proposed for deletion and kept (with no one voting to delete).Paid articles should go through AfC
andthey haven't declared where they advertise
: could you please point me to the guideline stating that these are necessary? Nehme1499 06:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- The risk of the autopatrolled right being abused exceeds the small cost of other volunteers having to review articles. Best practice for paid editors is to use AFC. Looking at Kazim Fayad there are definitely issues with sourcing that AFC could have addressed. I will be removing this right for sure and will also look into the use of patroller too as we have often seen that abused. @Kudpung: 99% you'll agree with this, but just FYIng as you added the autopatrolled right back in
20202019 (I think prior to any paid editing). SmartSE (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)- (I'm only here because I was pinged). It's not just holders of autopatrolled or NPP rights. There are possibly still some admins who secretly write for pay. I used to enjoy doing the forensics to flush them out and it's one of the reasons why I still strongly campaign for improvement of NPP even though I will usually run a mile from the New Pages Feed these days. I think all paid editors, whoever they are, should be ashamed of exploiting for financial gain what volunteers have spent thousands of hours building for free. Kudpung ?ุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've also draftified that article to Draft:Kazim Fayad. SmartSE (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've also pulled
new page reviewer
(courtesy ping granting admin @Swarm:). It's also too sensitive to trust to paid editors. - @Nehme1499: I find it a bit suspicious that you created your first disclosed paid article, Peter Khalife, four days after you requested the NPP right. Were you aware that you were very unlikely to be granted it as a paid editor? – Joe (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Good decision on the Draft:Kazim Fayad draft. scope_creepTalk 11:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was not aware of WP:PAY, so that's on me.
Were you aware that you were very unlikely to be granted it as a paid editor?
Not really. Actually, I had been advised to apply for NPP by another user. Regarding pulling my Autopatrolled and RPR rights, I'm fine with that. Though, I wonder what the benefit of my honesty is. I feel like had I not disclosed anything on my userpage + article talk pages we would not be here (just to clarify, this is not my modus operandi, I would still prefer to be upfront and disclose my COI). What is not seen in the background is that I refused service to many other individuals who had contacted me, on the basis that I felt that WP:GNG was not met. Just to be clear, I don't advertise my services anywhere: some individuals contact me privately via social media and ask me to create them an article (per what I said above, I usually refuse). Nehme1499 14:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)- Just completely out of the clear blue sky, international footballers (or their representatives) contact you on social media? How do they even know you are a Wikipedian? If you ask me, this explanation stretches credulity. -- SVTCobra 19:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Knowing people in Lebanon is not difficult, it's a small circle. My friend works as a journalist, he knows other guys, these guys know agents, who in turn know the footballers, etc... It's all a chain reaction to get from the footballer/agent to me. Nehme1499 19:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- So it's word-of-mouth advertising, as opposed to literal online advertising? -- SVTCobra 20:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I guess it's inverse advertising, if that makes sense. I never made any active effort in making myself known as a Wikipedia editor. The footballers ask a friend if they know someone who edits Wikipedia, they in turn ask others until they reach me. I guess having already made a few Wikipedia pages for some people, word spread. I never really specifically asked them to pay me as well. They asked me to make a page and offered money. If I see that WP:GNG is met, I accept. Otherwise I don't. Nehme1499 20:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- This also doesn't even begin to cover your serious conflict of interest. Without getting too far into it because I'm not going to out you, it's pretty telling in many of the articles you've written, that the sourcing largely goes back to one company, specifically one that engages in sports coverage and said source(s) are largely added to Wikipedia almost exclusively by you. PRAXIDICAE? 20:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm also the only editor who deals with Lebanese football on Wikipedia, so naturally no one else is going to add sources dealing with that topic. Nehme1499 20:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- That...isn't even remotely related to the point that is being made and is also patently untrue. PRAXIDICAE? 21:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I answered your statement
added to Wikipedia almost exclusively by you
. I don't know which website you are talking about, but I'd assume that since I'm (almost) the only one to use it as a source it must be about Lebanese football.That is also patently untrue
: you're saying that there are other regular Wikipedia editors who deal with Lebanese football? Lots deal with football, a few regarding Asian or Middle Eastern football, but no one specifically about Lebanese. If the website is Lebanese, I don't see how other users are going to care about using it in non-Lebanese related topics. I frankly don't understand what this is about. Nehme1499 21:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)- You know very well that if I disclose exactly which sources I'm talking about it would run afoul of outing. So it's your choice, you need to also disclose your COI or the information can be sent to arbcom to avoid WP:OUTING here. PRAXIDICAE? 15:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I answered your statement
- That...isn't even remotely related to the point that is being made and is also patently untrue. PRAXIDICAE? 21:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm also the only editor who deals with Lebanese football on Wikipedia, so naturally no one else is going to add sources dealing with that topic. Nehme1499 20:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- This also doesn't even begin to cover your serious conflict of interest. Without getting too far into it because I'm not going to out you, it's pretty telling in many of the articles you've written, that the sourcing largely goes back to one company, specifically one that engages in sports coverage and said source(s) are largely added to Wikipedia almost exclusively by you. PRAXIDICAE? 20:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I guess it's inverse advertising, if that makes sense. I never made any active effort in making myself known as a Wikipedia editor. The footballers ask a friend if they know someone who edits Wikipedia, they in turn ask others until they reach me. I guess having already made a few Wikipedia pages for some people, word spread. I never really specifically asked them to pay me as well. They asked me to make a page and offered money. If I see that WP:GNG is met, I accept. Otherwise I don't. Nehme1499 20:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- So it's word-of-mouth advertising, as opposed to literal online advertising? -- SVTCobra 20:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Knowing people in Lebanon is not difficult, it's a small circle. My friend works as a journalist, he knows other guys, these guys know agents, who in turn know the footballers, etc... It's all a chain reaction to get from the footballer/agent to me. Nehme1499 19:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just completely out of the clear blue sky, international footballers (or their representatives) contact you on social media? How do they even know you are a Wikipedian? If you ask me, this explanation stretches credulity. -- SVTCobra 19:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was not aware of WP:PAY, so that's on me.
- Comment Either way, it is a clear COI. scope_creepTalk 21:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Chipmunkdavis
Suspected state/paid editor. After consensus was reached on article talk page for Russia a single sentence was added. Two users have tried to delete this text multiple times. After Chipmunkdavis was notified that consensus was reached on the talk page they continued to revert the edit. Ironically, trying to hide the fact that Russia is at war, they engaged in their own edit war. Any support would be appreciated here, as we all know Russia is actively engaged in information warfare on Wikipedia.
Colinmcdermott (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Three different editors have disagreed with you; I have now reverted your most recent edit, as there is no consensus on the talk page to add that sentence. I would suggest that you withdraw this before a WP:BOOMERANG for WP:EDIT WARRING and casting WP:ASPERSIONS. BilledMammal (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with BilledMammal on this, there is clearly no consensus for inclusion at this point, and edit summaries like this and this contain clear personal attacks and aspersions. WP:VANDALISM also has a specific meaning, and this ain't it. Withdrawing your complaint now will likely save you a significant headache soon. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is clearly a content dispute and not a COI on CMD's part. I do not see any consensus on the article's talkpage. Seloloving (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Interesting to see how successful Russia have been infiltrating Wikipedia in this information war. There is a 3v2 consensus on talk page, yet this means nothing to editors with a strange history of making pro-Kremlin edits. People who should no better looking the other way. Colinmcdermott (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Everyone who disagrees with me is Russia. Please read WP:ASPERSIONS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Colinmcdermott: Even if we we went by raw headcount and not the merits of arguments, I see 3 supports and 3 opposes. —C.Fred (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- "3v2 consensus" is an oxymoron; also please see WP:NOTVOTE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Colinmcdermott: the chances that Chipmunkdavis is a Russian state agent are near zero... I can assure you of that based on extensive interactions with them over the years across a wide variety of topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds like something a red would say! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, pipe down, 007! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds like something a red would say! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
UPE
Draft:Honkaku_Spirits contains clear signs of UPE with intent to game/conceal that. valereee (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- The reference to the Shurtleff / Apyagi book is absurdly incompetent. It links to a search for the phrase "Ultimately, the whisky trust collapsed because of trust-busting legislation enacted by the Illinois General Assembly in 1891 and the depression of 1893", but not properly surrounded by quote marks. The result is naturally a swarm of hits for salient words like in, and, by, of etc etc. But nothing daunted, the editors offer this search as a "source". (By adding the missing quote mark, I found the sentence on p. 179, but that didn't fix the problem. It's a quote not from the text in the book, but from a footnote quoting a journal article, which I think was in turn quoting something else — it's not entirely clear. So there's everything possible wrong with this "source".) As detailed by Valereee in her rejection of the draft, here, the other sources don't support notability either, but bear the hallmarks of press releases. Bishonen | tålk 21:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC).
Weatherford College
- Weatherford College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Jeanmay23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is a single-purpose editor who only edits this article and has ignored multiple warnings and questions from different editors. It is reasonable to suspect a COI, perhaps even an undisclosed paid editing relationship. ElKevbo (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have page-blocked the user indefinitely from Weatherford College. Bishonen | tålk 07:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC).
The Good Boss
- The Good Boss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Love Gets a Room (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Antonia Tejeda Barros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
We have a user repeatedly adding a bit-part child actor (which you can easily check her name in the diffs, but I will refer to here as "girlname") to the cast section of The Good Boss ([12][13][14][15]) (see Love Gets a Room for a similar pattern [16][17][18][19]) bringing imdb.com as a source. Despite several warnings, the user (featuring a username similar to that of girlname) refrains to edit with authoritative sources (instead of imdb) or disclose a conflict of interest and prefers to engage in edit warring, returning girlname to the cast. Imdb review section for both films is full of people extolling girlname, purportedly relatives of girlname.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- No. No. No. I have added ALL the cast of the 2 pages: The Good Boss (El buen patrón) and Love Gets a Room in the right order, with references and lots of dedication. My editing is accurate and ads important and valuable information to Wikipedia. This user (Asqueladd) is reverting and reverting my editing, with ugly comments and threatening language. The "girlname" in question appears in both movies (with important roles) and she also appears in both trailers. I'm not promoting anybody, only adding important information to Wikipedia. This user (Asqueladd) argues that IMDb is not a reliable source. IMDb is the most reliable source in cinema today (worldwide). This user (Asqueladd) is making that Wikipedia becomes an unpleasant community. Please take some constructive action. Thank you very much & many greetings Antonia Tejeda Barros (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just a comment regarding the content dispute: sources other than IMDb, such as this and this, also credit the girl as being part of the cast. Nehme1499 14:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Antonia Tejeda Barros, your comment that IMDb is "the most reliable source in cinema today" is the opposite of what has been agreed by the wikipedia community. See WP:IMDB and WP:UGC for why it is considered unreliable here and therefore why you should stop using it. Melcous (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- In terms of the Conflict of Interest, it is fairly easy to see from edits here + IMDB what the relationship between the editor and the subject is. Editing about family members is a clear conflict of interest, and should be disclosed and the talk page used to propose changes. Melcous (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Antonia Tejeda Barros, your comment that IMDb is "the most reliable source in cinema today" is the opposite of what has been agreed by the wikipedia community. See WP:IMDB and WP:UGC for why it is considered unreliable here and therefore why you should stop using it. Melcous (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just a comment regarding the content dispute: sources other than IMDb, such as this and this, also credit the girl as being part of the cast. Nehme1499 14:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)