Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:260 Collins
    Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
    Talk:Pamela Anderson
    Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist)
    Talk:Adam Boehler
    Talk:Captions (app)
    Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:Dell Technologies
    Talk:Michael Dell
    Talk:Element (software)
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Insight Meditation Society
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:Alexa Meade
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Qu Dongyu
    Talk:Sharp HealthCare
    Talk:Colleen Joy Shogan
    Talk:Sittingbourne
    Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa
    Talk:Lorraine Twohill
    Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre

    Council of Fashion Designers of America / promotional edits

    [edit]
    Sockpuppetery blocked. Solved Graywalls (talk)

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

    Brand new user with zero edits came and made their first edits that consisted of inserting flowery contents into those articles. They were told primary sources are not ok, and to seek consensus, but almost immediately re-added the contents with a different source. They denied COI and said how they're just interested, which is the kind of response I generally expect from COI editors. In the interest of avoiding edit warring with them, I am seeking additional sets of eyes. Even though their re-introduction of this content for the second time was supported with NYT, the initial insertions using the company's own sites, this being their first edit, and their persistent insertions and disregarding request to get consensus suggests connected contributor. Graywalls (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi all, I occasionally see gaps or typos on Wikipedia articles and today was finally the day that I was motivated to sign up and try my hand at editing. I was excited to see thanks on my first edits (adding information about the CFDA x Tiffany & Co. Jewelry Designer Award to both the CFDA and Tiffany articles!)
    I don't see any flowery language, as the language is pulled directly from the source material and the goal of the endowment is to uplift exceptional (according to their selection committee) American jewelry designers.
    @Graywalls informed me that citing from CFDA / Tiffany websites was not appropriate, so I pulled from NYT and National Jeweler. I tried to address their reversions in the talk page, but again, new user and navigating Wiki is complex to me.
    I would be shocked to learn that a social impact program doesn't fit under the "Philanthropy" subheading on Tiffany & Co article, or under the "Programs" subheading on CFDA. It is literally a CFDA x Tiffany philanthropic program; I took care to edit using the exact formatting of the other listed CFDA programs. To highlight my contribution as "unencyclopedic" as @Graywalls did is patently incorrect.
    I admit it was my bad citing the company websites in my initial edit, and I changed that when directed by the editor, but it's wild to be publicly chastised over something that so obviously belongs. Crash0ut (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The advertiseyness and fluff of the CFDA article as whole in fact is a concern. Graywalls (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graywalls That has nothing to do with me. Why is this left as a comment on my Conflict of Interest Noticeboard? Which again, I shouldn't be on anyway. Crash0ut (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah true. It doesn't specifically pertain to you. Although flowery content addition to already advert like article raises additional concern, the prior conditions didn't specifically pertain to you. Graywalls (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh uh. So again, why are we here? I added clear, cited information that was obviously notable. You pulled it, and told me my citations were incorrect. I changed the citations and reposted. You pulled it again saying it was unencyclopedic. When I informed you it follows the formatting of the article, and includes updated information about the specific area you claimed I have a COI. When I explained myself here you changed the subject and stated that you don't like the article in general. Again, this has nothing to do with me and seems petty. Crash0ut (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given one of your first edits was this, I think there is reasonable suspicion to include you here. OXYLYPSE (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @OXYLYPSE As explained, noticing the lack of inclusion of this program was the impetus for my creating an account. This is an area that I watch and I wanted to be helpful and add it. Being a new user, I incorrectly cited the information, Graywalls removed it and notified me, I found an impartial citation at NYT and added the information again. I also added the program under the Philanthropy subheading on the Tiffany & Co. article. Its inclusion worthiness was called into question. Why was that only determined after I fixed the citation? I'm trying my best here, and immediately had someone jump down my throat in a way that felt incredibly petty. I don't know the other user, I'm not responsible for what they do. To be clear, Graywall changed the name of this COI Notice, as it was originally fully directed at me. Why?
    Can we just get a consensus on the inclusion of the information and move on? Crash0ut (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of this noticeboard is to come to a consensus whether you and others have a conflict / are engaging in undisclosed paid editing, not whether the information should be included. It seems pretty clear to me what's going on here, but I've been wrong before. OXYLYPSE (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. Tell me what's going on then? Because I'm currently texting my friends about the wild Wikipedia conspiratorial drama I'm now randomly involved in. The evidence against me seems to be:
    1. Myself and another user made edits to the CFDA article within the same month
    2. Myself and another user reply to this thread about our edits around the same time as one another
    3. We both used @ tags to respond to users
    Outside of that this conversation really is about whether my edits were inclusion worthy. Graywall moved the goalposts by bringing up promotional language + another user after specifically making this COI Notice about my edit. This evidence is both weak and circumstantial. Crash0ut (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, starting in November 2024, there's been a sudden burst of flowery contents addition related to CFDA from four IPs that have shown no edits outside of CFDA adjacent subjects, including adding things related to CFDA into List of awards and nominations received by Johnny Depp and all four of those IPs have shown no edits outside of CFDA related topics and they're all from Toronto, ON, Canada area. Graywalls (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If my edits were unduly flowery is a matter of being new to editing articles. I used language pulled directly from citations, describing the goal of the endowment program as being to uplift exceptional designers. It's not purely neutral language but it is the stated goal of the program, "exceptional" designers being chosen by a panel of industry professionals. Pretty run of the mill.
    IMO this is straight forward: CFDA introduced a new endowment program focused on jewelry, I added it to their article under subheading PROGRAMS. I followed the formatting of every other entry in that section.
    You corrected my source citation, thank you, but then you called into question whether it even belongs on the article? And now we're in a rabbit hole about Johnny Depp and computers in Canada? Come on man, what are we doing here? Crash0ut (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't mean to hassle you @Graywalls. I was kind of just going off of how the article was written in general and didn't realize how much of the language surrounding the program was inherently not neutral. Crash0ut (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graywalls When you click on the my Contributions you can see there was no flowery or promotional contents added, just the factual historical statements from past awards from reliable and prominent sources. There was a lot of missing awards and references so it takes a lot of time to fill. Nothing wrong with researching one topic at a time and editing to fix things as info as added (I also removed unsourced info that was not added by me). Without a lot of time or capacity to spend on wikipedia. -104.195.221.169 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right? I find it amazing that their new program (the CFDA x Tiffany & Co. Jewelry Designer Award) was flagged as not inclusion worthy, on a subheading dedicated to their programs. Crash0ut (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graywalls Also, there were no objections to any of my edits including from yourself. Look again at my actual contributions. I tried to do one year at a time for 1980s to 2000s. There were hardly any references and a lot of missing info for THREE DECADES of awards so it is something that will take up time and space. I am not responsible for the other content in the article outside of my edits. I have been randomly editing wikipedia over the years.
    Nothing added was promotional, inappropriate, or objected to by yourself or anyone from those IPs you posted above. It was all straightforward, well-sourced factual information.
    -104.195.221.169 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes, promotional edits go unnoticed for a while. I'm not sure why you listed out all the above IPs, but are you acknowleding they're all you? Graywalls (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It feels like you're intentionally obtuse, the current consensus (ie, 2/3 of the parties in this conversation) is that there isn't excessively flowery or promotional language on that article. If you've noticed something, rather than arguing about it suggest fixes.
    Again, glad you changed the title of this COI notice but now I'm being dragged into a conspiracy with Johnny Depp? Feels like you're spiraling. Crash0ut (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ?? The IP addresses were listed above along with my current IP. I use internet with dynamic IPs which is common. They show your comment "Also, starting in November 2024, there's been a sudden burst of flowery contents addition related to CFDA from four IPs" is false. You can click and see factual and well-sourced content. Nothing you or anyone has objected to or removed in your sudden burst of edits. We can agree that there is a lot of work needed on the article. There was one sentence pertaining to one CFDA award won by Johnny Depp to the list of awards for that actor.
    -104.195.221.169 (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like blanket statements are being made conflating different edits and editors because of certain biases about the subjects and unfamiliarity with articles in this area. Let's focus on the specific facts and not distortions. -104.195.221.169 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To that end, it remains my contention that information about the CFDA x Tiffany & Co. Jewelry Designer Award: its goals, its endowment, and its awardees is materially relevant to the article. And was correctly placed in my initial edit under the Programs subheading. Furthermore I would argue the same for its inclusion in the Tiffany & Co. article, under Philanthropy, as the stated goal around the endowment is increasing diversity and access in the jewelry industry. Crash0ut (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m inclined to agree with Graywalls that the editing patterns under discussion here resemble what might be expected from conflict of interest editing / undisclosed paid editing.
    The CFDA article had not seen a great deal of editing activity until relatively recently, and for 2 single purpose users (one registered, one using multiple IPs) to arise in the same month with an apparently related agenda gives cause for concern.
    Also, re: the observation above that the current consensus (ie, 2/3 of the parties in this conversation) is that there isn't excessively flowery or promotional language on that article…
    The registered account and IP account seem to communicate at very similar times, responding quickly to each other’s posts (in a way typical of sockpuppets) and both accounts use the fairly uncommon formulation “@Graywalls” at the start of their posts (despite apparently both being inexperienced users). Thus the idea that the comments made by these accounts represents a genuine consensus (rather than WP:LOUTSOCK activity) seems questionable.
    Also, how do unregistered users employing IP addresses receive notification that messages have been left on the relevant IP talk page? The IP address responded [1] within 20 minutes to the message left there by Graywalls, then responded here (despite not having been notified of this discussion) and then user Crash0ut responded to that post within 10 minutes agreeing with the sentiment expressed. It's also worth noting the very close similarity between the exact times when Crash0ut [2] and most recent IP address [3] appear to be online.
    Talking more broadly, IP activity on the CFDA article had ceased on 16th Nov, with the CrashOut account then opening on the 26th. Then within 16 minutes of Graywalls contacting the registered user [4] on their talkpage re: possible conflict of interest editing the IP activity starts again [5].
    Some elements of these events may be explainable but the overall picture suggests that something isn't quite right here. Axad12 (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "arise in the same month with an apparently related agenda gives cause for concern."
    No, I have nothing to do with the other user and their edits are about an entirely different topic on the article. I am edited about awards from 20-40+ years ago, many winners that are deceased, no longer active entities. 104.195.221.169 (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The registered account and IP account seem to communicate at very similar times, responding quickly to each other’s posts (in a way typical of sockpuppets) and both accounts use the fairly uncommon formulation" The other user just jumped on board suddenly after a recent edit. I went to check my page and saw the note then came here. I don't know how Crash0ut account schedule or how they check their message. I was busy with other things since Nov 16. As you can see I am an occasional editor who also takes time to review and research. I was notified of formatting AllCaps in the reference and went to correct it. There are often follow up edits to do after one edit as you see more information. Yes "something isn't quite right" with these spiraling accusations. Obviously if I am being interacted with, that means I need to check to respond if possible. I don't know what is going on here and why this is continuing. -15:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
    104.195.221.169 (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly this has to be a joke. We are moving so far outside the point. "and both accounts use the fairly uncommon formulation “@Graywalls” at the start of their posts (despite apparently both being inexperienced users)" Using @Axad12 tags is common across most social platforms, frankly I just guessed that I would have to tag Graywalls for them to be notified.
    I have no control over the content or timing of anyone else's edits, but two users on the same continent with an interest in different aspects of fashion is hardly suspect. What I find bizarre is that a topic that's clearly inclusion worthy would be called into question (again, my edit was the new endowment program hosted by CFDA and Tiffany) It was well cited with a fact basis and neutral language, added under the Programs subheading of CFDA and Philanthropy subheading of Tiffany. Both of those adds are clear and obvious. And now I'm sitting here being questioned about the timing of other users responses? Or why I knew to @ tag? Crash0ut (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, there was nothing all objectionable in my edits. I began in the 2000s, then 1990s, then 1980s. Just factual information of the winners and the awards, added references, and some events or changes in the awards in the paragraph at the beginning of the sections. These sections are not completed yet. I have looked at the awards up to 1986. This has been over a month and time, then suddenly two other users start editing the page and disagreeing on completing different topic that my edits and I am dragged into these convoluted allegations. I am willing to talk to wikipedia to clear things up with a phone call or whatever. This is completely uncalled for. -104.195.221.169 (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah wow we did respond at very close times. I feel like I'm also being dragged into something convoluted and accusatory. Frankly I don't care about the CFDA nearly as much as I am interested in Tiffany & Co. in a personal sense, it just seemed like a relevant place for the information. This is the first such program that supports jewelers in this capacity and at this level. Crash0ut (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay so I missed some of the Axad12 comments and I guess need to address here as well to speak up for myself but I really don't want to be involved in this. It seems if I reply there I just get accused again of somehow being linked to someone else. From what I recall users get can notifications if you put a page on the watchlist so I am not linked to someone because they respond after me.
    Axad12 comment:
    "both accounts use the fairly uncommon formulation “@ Graywalls” at the start of their posts (despite apparently both being inexperienced users)." So no, I saw a message that you had to @ a user for them to be notified and also saw that someone had replied with already. I have used other apps before. Also as stated, I have edited wikipedia over the years, maybe over a decade. I never claimed to not have experience
    Axad12 comment: "then responded here (despite not having been notified of this discussion)" No there was a link somewhere. I got a message box that appeared when I went to my page or you can also see where someone edits when you click on someone's contributions.
    I am not responsible for other people's comments or behavior. I am only speaking for myself. I am NOT involved with any of the claims here. Please STOP! -104.195.221.169 (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think I want to be involved in this either? I literally just added a new CFDA Program to the Programs subheading on the CFDA article. Graywall informed me of needing a different citation, I fixed and replaced, and then was accused of some conspiracy involving you. I agree that this is ridiculous, and it feels petty that that editor called inclusion worthiness into question after resolving the citation issue they noted. This is conspiratorial thinking on their part. If they had a problem with the language on the article, they are an editor—FIX IT, just like I did when they flagged the citation. Instead they're spiraling into an accusatory rabbit hole.
    BTW I check my email constantly, I get email updates on replies, and I try to reply promptly. Crash0ut (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your messages above.
    My concern was simply that there are elements to the overall picture here which resemble a fairly common situation where users employ multiple accounts to manipulate consensus. As I said above, Some elements of these events may be explainable but the overall picture suggests that something isn't quite right.
    That was the rather mild strength of what was suggested.
    Meanwhile, another user above seems to have agreed that there is room for concern, and a further user has started a sockpuppet investigation elsewhere. That investigation will run automated checks to determine if there are any links between the accounts. If what you say is correct then you have nothing to fear from that fairly common process.
    However, this thread is primarily to consider the issue of possible CoI. In that regard I stand by my earlier comment that the editing patterns under discussion here resemble what might be expected from conflict of interest editing / undisclosed paid editing. If that were not the case then this thread wouldn't have been started in the first place.
    A 3rd user has since commented that there are grounds for reasonable suspicion that CoI may be involved here. There is also a 3:2 consensus (3:0 of uninvolved users) that some of the edits might be seen as having been promotional.
    I'm sorry to see that CrashOut views this process as ridiculous, a wild Wikipedia conspiratorial drama and a joke. In reality it is just part of due process in considering the possible existence of CoI. This is a vital part of maintaining the integrity of the encyclopaedia, which hopefully all here will agree is paramount. Axad12 (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree whatsoever with any processes in place to maintain the integrity of the platform. If these are in fact common, automatic checks, then I'm fully confident that my edits will check out. I can't speak to the editing patterns overall, I'm a new user and completely ignorant aspects like that. My pushing back on Graywalls initial accusation was because it was specifically levied against me, first the citations (my bad) then the inclusion worthiness of the edit.
    From my POV, as it grew into an investigation that included multiple IPs in a country I don't even reside in, with accusations of collusion with people I've never met, it felt very dramatic. But please, I don't recall calling it a joke. Apologies if I did. Crash0ut (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was here [6], but never mind. Let’s see how things pan out.
    As a general observation, it’s inevitable that occasionally users (especially new users) are brought to this noticeboard because the tone of their edits may have wrongly given the impression of a possible COI. This is especially the case with fans or with users who have closely paraphrased material from a source close to the subject.
    There are no doubt many subsequently excellent editors who benefited from the early experience of being brought here, especially in terms of becoming aware of the importance of policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:COPYVIO etc., and of what sort of edits others may view as problematic.
    On the other hand there are also a large number of bad editors (involved in promoting themselves or others) who have been made aware that Wikipedia is neither an extension of their social media nor a platform for promotion. Those who persist in that activity over an extended period tend to be site blocked.
    All of the above are positive outcomes. Axad12 (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really appreciate your perspective. My problem is not with the processes. I can admit I definitely paraphrased too closely (new editor) — would you mind helping me understand how to communicate the goals of award-granting institutions (ie, "X Award exists to identify and support exceptional talent in Y industry") in a way that feels neutral. In a way, aren't their objective is inherently not neutral. Are there any example articles that you think are particularly well worded in that regard? Crash0ut (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, no problem. I will try to get back to you on this at your talk page later today. Axad12 (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Advice given here [7]. Axad12 (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Circularity and interviews with wikipedians regarding allegations of bias in wikipedia

    [edit]

    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Circularity and interviews with wikipedians regarding allegations of bias in wikipedia

    This discussion at RSN may be relevant to the topic of this board. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Srđan Šaper & user:Pcelica Matica

    [edit]

    Pcelica Matica has a long history of promotional edits related to Srđan Šaper. After quite a while Pcelica Matica is now back, clearly working on behalf of Srđan Šaper. With this promotional unsourced edit], he states in the summary Minor change added in Biography about I&F Grupa. I have Srđan s consent to make this change.. In my opinion, this is clear WP:COI- editing, possibly even WP:PAID. The Banner talk 13:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. And the user's apparent refusal to engage on their talkpage over a number of years does them little credit.
    There seems to be a long history of WP:SPAs editing the article in question here.
    I've just removed some promo, unsourced, self-sourced and inadmissibly sourced (blog/IMDb) material. After doing so I couldn't help but wonder if the real solution here was perhaps AfD. Axad12 (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the idea that Saper is noteworthy but uses the article for selfpromo. But have someone at hand to do that for him. First you had user:User talk:Prezbiterijanac (now blocked) and a few months later Pcelica Matica arrived. The Banner talk 17:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was also thinking of user:Anja Kosanovic (2010-13), this IP address [8] (2011-15), user:Balkanska ulica (2013-14), another IP address [9] (2014, now blocked, and with links to an extensive Serbian sockfarm [10]), user:Rade Radisa (2016, whose only 2 edits were to remove money laundering allegations from the article and then provide an explanation for doing so), and another IP address [11] (2017-19).
    The article has twice been to AfD, here [12] and here [13].
    The fact that the accounts mentioned throughout this thread are all red linked over a 14 year period tells it's own story. Ditto for the fact that none of them have ever responded to talk page notices throughout that period. Surely it is highly likely that the more recent activity is block evasion from the blocked spam/advertising Prezbeterijanac account. Some of the accounts mentioned above have also edited the article for Saper's father, [14], which perhaps indicates a family link rather than WP:UPE, but who knows?
    (One slight correction to your comment above, user:Pcelica Matica had actually been editing the Srdan Saper article since 2013, so a long time before the Prezbeterijanac block in Apr 2018, but it is true that Pcelica Matica became the main promo account from that time onwards.)
    The very lengthy article about the father, Radomir Saper, is 68% authored by the previously mentioned user:Balkanska ulica and 8.5% by Pcelica Matica, and has the same poor sourcing and poor English, so I doubt if we need Sherlock Holmes to help us work out what has been going on here. Axad12 (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mockbul Ali

    [edit]

    The IP has been edit-warring to add promotional fluff to this article for quite a while, and now these brand-new users keep popping up to join in. I gave up on reverting their edits and tagged the page for promo instead, but now they're edit-warring to remove the tags too. This has been going on for several weeks now.:Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring over the contents of this article has been going on ever since it was set up in 2015. This has previously resulted in multiple blocks for sockpuppetry [15]. There are also plenty of WP:SPAs visible in the article contribution history, more frequently recently by IP addresses who edit the article extensively, e.g. [16], [17].
    Surely it is unthinkable that an ambassador of His Majesty's Government would have been extensively editing his own Wikipedia article using a range of sock puppets over a 9 year period. We will need to look for some alternative explanation... Axad12 (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, given that somebody seems to have been curating this article in a promotional way over many years using multiple accounts, it may be worth revisiting the negative material that was being edit warred over back in 2015. The sockpuppets were claiming that it was defamatory, controversial, unsubstantiated, etc., but on the face of it the material would appear to have been sourced to reliable British broadsheet newspapers.
    Whoever the end user was, they appear to have foolishly set up seven(?) different single purpose accounts simply to edit war over that material (so, shades of deja vu with the more recent events).
    The fact that that material ended up being excluded from the article may be more of a reflection of the persistency of the sockpuppetry and edit warring than a reflection on whether the material was factually accurate and worthy of inclusion. Axad12 (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It just keeps going. Now they're claiming it's "prejudicial" to not include the promotional material they want. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 19:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The best way to sort this out would be (a) to launch an SPI to get the blatant sockpuppets all blocked and (b) to then get page protection to prevent further promo vandalism. Axad12 (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The way that the user keeps setting up new accounts for every act of edit warring makes it obvious that this is block evasion by the same end user who had multiple socks blocked many years ago. Axad12 (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protection now requested at WP:RPPI. I would do the SPI as well but I don't know how to. (In an ideal world an admin would just block the accounts without an SPI, as they are obvious promo only, block evading socks, as per WP:DUCK). Axad12 (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SharonJean90. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 22:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Socks are all 'technically indistinguishable' (and presumably will be blocked) and article has been protected, so that hopefully ought to resolve matters. Axad12 (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note to say that a further sock [18] was recently blocked after gaming the system to get the necessary level of access to reinsert the promotional material that was recently removed. Edits were reverted by user:BubbaJoe123456 and user:Ponyo.
    I wonder, is the subject of the article here even vaguely notable? Would referral to AfD not be the best way to prevent further promotion and persistent socking? Axad12 (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fizziest

    [edit]

    Came across this user while reviewing AFC submissions. Since creating their account in September with 129 edits, they've submitted ~20 articles to AFC of which none have been accepted.

    More concerning, they have directly published three articles without going through AFC. Treacy is a duplicate of an existing page, Gunter seems blatantly promotional (tagged), and Misty Blues has questionable notability (also tagged).

    Avgeekamfot (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Account has now been blocked for promotion/advertising/UPE by Bbb23. Axad12 (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    Self-confessed founder of a law firm comparison-shopping company, Locate Solicitors. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor has been warned, his article edits have been reverted, blatantly promotional pages they created have been deleted, and the draft about his company has been declined. There's nothing more to be done at present. JBW (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect. Thank you. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: The editor has continued with promotional editing, so I gave blocked the account. JBW (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mount Tabor Indian Community (page and majority of content created by founder)

    [edit]

    Careful review of page exposes page creation and a majority of information sourced to founder of the Mount Tabor Indian Community group J.C. Thompson who is now deceased. J.C. Thompson's "handle" on social media is used for his Wikipedia username: Terran57. Thompson's Facebook page and others carry the same username or url: https://www.facebook.com/Terran57. The page, content, and subsequent confusion on the talk page by editors attempting to navigate true historical groups from modern ones, facts from propaganda, and authentic attempts to educate or illuminate vs. simply to advertise, are all symptomatic of the carefully crafted self-interest and self-promotion of the article. This article seems to have been created for the sole purpose of legitimizing and adverting this self-proclaimed Native American Community. A brief but thorough investigation into the community shows they have been exposed by national news outlets, Federally Recognized Tribes, and Native American Advocacy groups, as being a CPAIN, falsely claiming Native American history, and illegitimate. J.C. Thompson was involved with another controversial group "Nothern Cherokee Nation" in Missouri who are part of an ongoing investigation in to over $300 million dollars in fraud as put forward by the L.A. Times. This article, as can be discovered by review of its creation and posts, were created by J.C. Thompson about his own organization Mount Tabor Indian Community. In entry after entry the near full body of information was created by him using original research and personal thoughts and opinions. He carries his work over to multiple other pages including "Yowani Choctaws" and even attempts to do so on the "Cherokee" page and others to give false support to his Mount Tabor Indian Community page. I am not an experienced editor, but I am an experienced user and in my personal experience I have never witness such blatant COI on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryMingo (talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I agree that this is highly problematic and concerning.
    With regard to the Mount Choctaw Indian Community article...
    large swathes (even whole sections) are entirely unsourced and apparently promotional / own research (and where sources exist they are often not published sources). Terran57 is the author of 75% of the article, and it would seem reasonable to assume that if published sourcing existed for those sections then the user would have cited it.
    Under the circumstances, large scale deletion of all material falling under the situation described above would appear uncontroversial.
    There seem to have been a lot of similar concerns raised back in 2022 on the article talkpage.
    With regard to the broader dissemination of Thompson's agenda across other articles, I wonder if there is a relevant Wikiproject in this topic area which might look into that with a view to cleanup? Axad12 (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the article talk page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America is relevant. TSventon (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for the info. I have posted a message [19] on the project talkpage. Any input from the project would be much appreciated, especially on the nature of the article content and the agenda pursued by Thompson. Axad12 (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this sort of thing happens all the time, in which members of organizations use Wikipedia to bolster claims about their group. User:Terran57 hasn't edited since 2022. The 19th-century Mount Tabor Indian Community is notable; the current organization is distinct from the historical group (deepest journalistic dive into the subject). So—Delete all unsourced material? Create separate articles for the 19th-century group and the more recent group claiming its name? Or have the majority of the article for the 19th-century organization and make a section at the bottom for the contemporary group. Yuchitown (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your thoughts here, that's very helpful. I've not read the entirety of the article but my impression is that it may be somewhat problematic for a non-specialist to try to disentangle the material in relation to the historical group from the material about the current organization (i.e. establishing where Thompson's agenda starts to kick in).
    That being the case, I wonder if resolving the issues here would be better dealt with within the Wikiproject, especially if this is a type of phenomenon that the project has abundant experience of? That is especially the case with, say, the unsourced material - where a knowledgeable user would have a better idea of whether adding "citation needed" would be more appropriate than deletion.
    Thanks again for your input here, very much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You might also take a look at User:Osodebourbon, a single-purpose accounts who deleted cited material. Yuchitown (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kirkylad & Global Witness

    [edit]

    The user’s user page states My purpose is to support my organisation Global Witness and reflect our research onto Wikipedia. Activity from this account is primarily in relation to spamming the name of Global Witness onto as many articles as possible to promote the group: e.g.[20], [21], [22], [23]. For example, the last of those diffs is simply noting that Global Witness called a CEO's salary 'sickening', plus a source.

    Similarly [24] Mr van Beurden's pay package was criticized by human rights and environmental charity Global Witness, which called for a people-first windfall tax in the UK government's 2023 Spring Budget that includes executive bonuses.

    And [25] (The pay rise] was criticized by Greenpeace and Global Witness, which questioned the appropriateness of such an increase while energy bills are a struggle for some families to pay.

    And [26] Global Witness called such levels of pay “eyewatering … at a time when people are struggling to pay bills” and has hit out at levels of spending on renewable energy.

    These issues were previously raised in this COIN thread [27] from back in September, around which time the user was notified of the relevant requirements under WP:COI.

    Unfortunately the behaviour has recently resumed following the 2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference, the article for which seems to have presented an irresistible target for the onwiki activity of the protest group, e.g. [28], [29], [30] (the latter of which edits involves the spamming of the organisation’s protest poster onto the article).

    The user’s edit summaries seem to indicate that they believe that when news coverage exists, inclusion is justified. Evidently that fails to take into consideration the conflict of interest angle. Since the user has previously been warned about this, and continues to use Wikipedia solely for the promotion of their protest group I would suggest that they be blocked as an account involved solely in promo/advertising. Axad12 (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See also this edit [31] by an IP address, the format of which is similar to previous activity by Kirkylad. Axad12 (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User Kirkylad has now been site blocked by Star Mississippi due to being an account devoted to promotion and advertising. With thanks, Axad12 (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bolajoko Olubukunola Olusanya

    [edit]

    Edits to the article by a user who says they are the subject of the article. User has been signposted to the CoI policy but has continued to edit the article. Tacyarg (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted to the last good version prior to the latest round of COI edits.
    If user:HSI-NGR wishes to propose edits to the article they should do so by following the COI edit request process (details here: WP:COI) on the article talk page rather than editing the article directly themselves.
    Moving forwards, the user's compliance with the relevant policies and guidelines would be appreciated.
    I would note, however, that much of the material that was recently removed from the article was of a highly promotional nature and re-submitting that precise material via the COI edit request would not be advisable as it will be declined.
    The user has stated on their own talk page that they are quite disturbed by the outdated or inaccurate information published on my profile. In the first instance I would suggest that they concentrate on suggesting edits intended to resolve the perceived inaccuracies (the edit requests will need to be supported by reliable independent sources).
    Hopefully this note is of assistance. Axad12 (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please delete the entire article. It is not worth all the trouble. HSI-NGR (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a further point here, it appears that the HSI-NGR account is being operated as a shared account in contravention of the relevant policy.
    For example:
    Here and [32] here [33] the user claims to be the subject.
    But there are also several duplicate posts (e.g. [34]) on the user's talk page by an IP account claiming I am Jacob a member of GRDDC and have undertaken these edits on behalf of Bolajoko Olusanya. Axad12 (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a shared account. I am the research administrator for Dr Olusanya. I manage all her web-based activities from the UK partly because of the poor internet connectivity in Lagos where she’s based. She is legally allowed to have an assistant as a disabled person. HSI-NGR (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hrm. Do we not only have an issue with a conflict of interest but also undisclosed paid editing if Jacob's claim of being engaged to manage her web-based activities is correct? —C.Fred (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am Jacob Olusegun Olusanya. Hope that helps in clarifying the allegations on financial conflict. HSI-NGR (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The specific issue there is whether you are conducting the edits while in a paid position associated with the subject or her organisation(s). Axad12 (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not paid to support her! 2A00:23C8:2186:C401:BD26:4AE9:E785:E427 (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Carlton Wilborn

    [edit]

    Clear WP:SPA only interested in editing an article about himself. Previous edits already revdeleted for copyright issues. See this edit PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Anahit saribekyan

    [edit]

    User created autobiography. Synorem (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, and the first paragraph is a WP:COPYVIO from here: [35]. Copyvio is a problem that was pointed out on a previously turned down AfC from this user, but their talk page doesn't inspire confidence that the message will have been understood.
    The user seems to have severe issues with both WP:CIR and promotion of herself and her employer (The International Dance Council). A look at the user's talk page reveals a long list of declined promo AfCs, and deleted promo material that was introduced directly into mainspace.
    First there was this article on Dance Day [36], which was declined at AfC 5 times in the space of a month.
    Then there was this article for International Certification of Dance Studies [37], turned down at AfC, nominated for speedy deletion, moved into mainspace, then back to draftspace, then back to mainspace and eventually deleted at AfD - all in the course of a fortnight.
    (Both of the above articles are directly related to the International Dance Council.)
    And now the user has moved an entirely unsourced and COPYVIO article about themselves directly to mainspace, only for it to go to AfD half an hour later. It was then speedy deleted under G11 within the hour.
    As far as I can see this is a blatant promo only account which is wasting a lot of volunteer time. The fact that they started bypassing AfC is the clearest sign that something is wrong here. Axad12 (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As further illustration of the issues here, an article for Dance Day has actually existed on Wikipedia since 2005 (under the title International Dance Day. We can only wonder why an employee of the organising body was repeatedly trying to create an inadequately sourced and very poorly written duplicate article. However, the 5 referrals to AfC and the reams of resultant back and forth communication on the user's talkpage indicates that a massive amount of time was wasted. Axad12 (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For more of the same, see the article for Alkis Raftis (president of the International Dance Council), edited by the user above back in August, but set up by the obviously COI user CID-unesco (The IDC/CID is part of Unesco), and entirely bereft of references and apparently the work of the same hand. Another strange similarity, the article was originally created as Alkis raftis (lower case r) and the Anahit saribekyan article today had the same peculiarity.
    The Raftis article was also extensively edited by user:International Dance Council which was site blocked in 2023 for being a promo/advertising only account.
    WP:DUCK therefore indicates that user:Anahit Saribekyan is involved in block evasion. They are employed (by their own admission) by the International Dance Council, and they are involved only in promotional and advertising.
    Copying in user:Jimfbleak who has been working on removing some of the material mentioned earlier in the thread. Axad12 (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fun fact: user:Alkis Raftis even popped up as a meat puppet at the AfD for International Certification of Dance Studies [38] (their only edit). Axad12 (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought about blocking this account, but the COI had been declared and it seemed to be as much a competence issue as anything, so I didn't, perhaps an error in retrospect Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken, but surely block evasion after a block for promo/advertising isn't a competence issue - and the behaviour that got them blocked has continued (if anything, worse than before).
    I wonder if you would care to reconsider? Axad12 (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, declaring a COI doesn't give a user carte blanche to repeatedly crowbar promotional mateerial into mainspace that has been turned down at AfC, or to start bypassing AfC altogether with their promotional and unsourced autobiography. Axad12 (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys no problem. Let me know how to delete my account from here.
    I am getting tired from the issue. Or delete my account from here. Anahit Saribekyan (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anahit Saribekyan: Accounts cannot be deleted. If you don't want to edit Wikipedia anymore, simply abandon your account and never log into it again. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinialtaus

    [edit]

    Pinialtaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) For going straight to making ten edits after being old enough to meet the time requirement and then immediately to posting Yohei Kiguchi (entrepreneur) and Enechange (company).

    Special:Contributions/EAllen04

    [edit]

    First time submitting something like this, so please bear with me.

    It appears to me that user EAllen04 is the same Eleanor Allen named in the Water For People article. Eleanor recently edited the Flourishing article, contributing a word salad of advertising copy that further dilutes the quality of an article already thoroughly suffused with marketing-speak and woo.

    EAllen04 was notified of their COI responsibilities in March of 2024. I notified them again following their most recent string of edits. Respectfully requesting a more seasoned editor double check my work here.

    🆃🆁🆂™ 13:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    At this time I should also point out that in light of Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE, I struggle to discern a convincing case for the continued presence of the article Water For People anywhere within the scope of the project. The subject organization fails the notability test, and nearly all the cited sources are from either the organization itself or one of their members named in the article. If it were my choice, I'd say nuke this stinker -- but that's probably why I don't have any actual power around here ;) 🆃🆁🆂™ 13:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you. I've removed some unsourced text from Water For People and reverted the recent edits to Flourishing. As you say, AfD may be the solution for Water for People.
    Looking at the edit history for Water For People, there have been various redlinked WP:SPAs editing the article from 2010 onwards, which is probably why it is such a mess.
    However, on the other hand there is the following text, which is obviously some kind of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR and presumably doesn't originate from the organisation itself: Water For People reported in its 2015 IRS tax form that it spent a total of $18,844,346, in which $5,819,735 in administration, and $1,944,288 in fundraising. There's a discrepancy here. On Water For People's website, they have all their audited financial statements from 2005 to 2015. They also have all their IRS Form 990s from 2012 to 2016. They also have their IRS Form 1023 accessible from 1991, where they applied for recognition of tax exemption. They also have their 501(c)(3) document, containing a letter that confirms their tax exemption status from the Internal Revenue Service. On its website, the charity also has its own printed pamphlet, called "Behind the Numbers" from the years 2013 to 2015. The pamphlet explains what the money in the respective fiscal year was able to accomplish in project works around the world.
    Overall, a mess. Axad12 (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Leyla Kuliyeva

    [edit]

    User publisher wiki has made two sets of changes to this article. The first, which I reverted, was promotional in tone and either unsourced or referenced to primary sources. The second, which I also reverted, was unsourced. Another editor posted on the user's Talk page about CoI, and I followed up with a direct question, to which User publisher wiki responded I have the information and giving concerns about the grammar, quality and brevity of the article. They have now posted on the article's Talk page saying, in part, I have been assigned to create a page for this individual with all the relevant information. This article either needs to be properly edited or deleted and replaced with a new one, as it does not adhere to Wikipedia's standards. If this is not addressed promptly, we will need to notify Wikipedia's legal department to take further action. Tacyarg (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1262427540"